vox--2020-04-02--Just because you’re working from home doesn’t mean your boss isn’t watching you

It ’ s a scenario that perhaps millions of employees across the US have experienced : Because of the coronavirus pandemic , your office closes up shop and your boss sends you home with a company laptop and the hope that you can get the same amount of work done remotely that you did when you were in the office .
But some bosses don ’ t have to hope .
They ’ ve installed tracking software on those computers to supervise their employees at home as well as — if not better than — they do in the office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that your employer is virtually looking over your shoulder .
Employee monitoring software comes in many forms .
It could be something as simple as Slack giving your boss access to your private messages or as complex as dedicated programs that monitor how many minutes you spend using Slack ( also Facebook , YouTube , and , of course , your actual job ) .
Some programs allow the employee to self-report time spent on various tasks and others can record it for them .
Some take screenshots of an employee ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others record every single key they press .
Some employee monitoring features are so subtle you might not know they ’ re there .
Videoconferencing software Zoom , for example , allows hosts using its paid service to turn on something called “ attention tracking.
” This feature lets them see if meeting attendees navigate away from the app for longer than 30 seconds during a meeting — a good indication that they ’ re looking at something else .
It can ’ t see what they are looking at instead , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host is in screensharing mode .
Zoom told Recode the feature is really meant for training purposes , when it ’ s important to know that people are actively watching a presentation .
Because attention tracking can be turned on without attendees ’ knowledge ( and because many people didn ’ t know the option existed until it was widely publicized with a headline that may have made the feature seem more invasive that it is ) , many Zoom users felt like they were being spied on .
Zoom ’ s mounting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Employee tracking software has been around for years , but with so many more people working from home and many workplaces concerned that they won ’ t be as productive in their living rooms as they were in the office , some employers are turning to activity monitoring programs for the first time — as are their employees , whether they like it or not .
Companies can pick and choose which monitoring features they want to enable .
Some employers use these programs to prevent or detect theft — a valid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industries .
But others see them as a way to make sure employees are staying on task and not wasting time on Facebook , apparently not trusting their workers to do so unsupervised .
For workers , it can feel like an invasion of privacy that breeds resentment .
Jane ( who requested that neither she nor her employer be named for fear of retribution ) is a contractor for a translation agency based in Australia .
Her employer tracks remote workers using a program called TeamViewer , which mirrors everything from an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ computer , which is still in the office .
Jane ’ s manager is in the office , too , so he can see , in real time , everything his employees are doing by looking at their desktop monitors .
“ My manager knows every single damn thing I do , ” Jane told Recode .
“ I barely get to stand up and stretch , as opposed to when I am physically in the office .
I feel like I have to constantly be in front of the computer and work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logs me out for being idle , or my manager randomly sends a check-in email that I must reply to promptly.
” Jane ’ s office had this system in place for remote workers well before the pandemic , but the countless new members of the remote workforce might be encountering them for the first time , according to several activity monitoring software makers .
ActivTrak , Time Doctor , Teramind , and Hubstaff all told Recode that they ’ ve seen significantly more interest in their product from new and returning customers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doctor , which co-founder Liam Martin told Recode he likes to think of as a “ Fitbit for work , ” has had a “ significant uptick ” in business , with more leads in a week than the entire last quarter .
Teramind reported a triple-digit percentage increase in new leads since the pandemic began .
HubStaff said unique visits are up 72 percent in the last three weeks compared to the previous period , and it has added hundreds of trial customers and subscribers , along with adding hundreds of licenses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a threefold increase in sales requests and license increases from existing customers ranging from 50 to 800 in March , as companies scale up their remote workforce from some employees to all of them .
“ We ’ re hosting informational webinars , detailed product tutorials , and posting tons of educational content around the clock in response to an overwhelming increase in demand from companies , ” Rita Selvaggi , CEO of ActivTrak , told Recode .
The people behind these applications realize that workers may not be thrilled about being required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encourage employers to use them thoughtfully and transparently .
“ Time tracking is always something that people don ’ t like to do , but we ’ ve focused our feature set on what makes the individual employee more productive while still giving the employer the piece of mind as to what is being done inside of the company , ” Martin said .
“ Our software focuses on active time tracking rather than something that runs subversively in the background , and all data we collect is given specifically to the employee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s vice president of research and development , Isaac Kohen , says it ’ s important for employers to consider their employees ’ privacy along with what they hope to get out of monitoring them .
“ If you ignore employees ’ right to privacy , you will risk legal ramifications , not to mention cultural rifts , loss of trust , and many other issues that will outweigh any security benefits you can achieve , ” Kohen told Recode .
“ It can cause employees to feel spied on or untrusted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company culture .
But it doesn ’ t have to be this way.
” Giving employees control is best for everyone When the pandemic hit , “ John ’ s ” employer ( John did not want to be named nor reveal his workplace for fear of retribution ) was reluctant to let its employees work from home .
It eventually did so under one condition : They had to log their hours in a time-tracking program .
“ They said you have to use it , and were pretty forceful about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week of accounting for every minute of his workday , John sees positives and negatives .
A software developer , his job often involves switching between several different tasks in a short period of time .
Logging his activities on such a granular scale can be a pain and take up time he could spend doing his actual job .
John also doesn ’ t think the time logs give proper context for job-adjacent activities that are necessary to accomplish a task .
“ You ’ ve got to call it this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas , or you need to browse the internet for a while to research a topic , ” John said .
“ On paper , it looks like maybe you ’ re wasting time .
But it ’ s critical to getting the job done well.
” John also understands why management would want there to be some accountability for workers that it suddenly can ’ t directly oversee .
He likes that his job had enough trust in him and his co-workers to let them manually log their activities — rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If it wasn ’ t self-reported , I think I would feel weirder about it , ” he said .
“ Especially since a lot of us use personal devices for our work .
I ’ d be like , ‘ I ’ m not gon na install your nanny cam.
’ ” Mac Quartarone , an industrial/organizational psychologist , said employees ’ response to monitoring programs often depends on the organizational trust their company has built up with them .
“ If you have a lot of trust , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just trying to do the right thing , ” Quartarone told Recode .
“ If you don ’ t have a lot of trust , then you ’ re going to assume that they ’ re trying to fire you or trying to find people that they need to fire.
” In the case of this pandemic , where employees are essentially forced to work from home , introducing tracking software to make sure they ’ re getting that work done might seem like a punishment for something they had no control over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warns that the long-term ramifications of using tracking software during this crisis “ could be damaging the sense of organizational justice and trust among your employees .
And that will live on.
” Quartarone recommends that employers give workers as much autonomy as possible and be transparent about what they ’ re tracking and why — as John ’ s employer did .
“ If done right , it could really be a positive thing for employees that could outweigh the downside , ” Quartarone said .
“ But I think if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downside will vastly overshadow any positives.
” In the end , while Jane resents being monitored so closely by her boss , she also acknowledges that she gets more work done because of it .
“ My employers realize I can be given more work now that they can monitor my screen directly , ” she said .
For some employers , that ’ s the only thing that matters .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

It’s a scenario that perhaps millions of employees across the US have experienced: Because of the coronavirus pandemic, your office closes up shop and your boss sends you home with a company laptop and the hope that you can get the same amount of work done remotely that you did when you were in the office. But some bosses don’t have to hope. They’ve installed tracking software on those computers to supervise their employees at home as well as — if not better than — they do in the office. Meanwhile, you may have no idea that your employer is virtually looking over your shoulder.
Employee monitoring software comes in many forms. It could be something as simple as Slack giving your boss access to your private messages or as complex as dedicated programs that monitor how many minutes you spend using Slack (also Facebook, YouTube, and, of course, your actual job). Some programs allow the employee to self-report time spent on various tasks, and others can record it for them. Some take screenshots of an employee’s monitor at random intervals, while others record every single key they press. Some employee monitoring features are so subtle you might not know they’re there.
The videoconferencing software Zoom, for example, used to allow hosts on its paid service to turn on something called “attention tracking.” This feature let them see if meeting attendees navigated away from the app for longer than 30 seconds during a meeting, which served as a good indication that they were looking at something else. It couldn’t see what they were looking at instead, and it could only be activated when the host was in screen-sharing mode. Zoom told Recode the feature was really meant for training purposes, when it’s important to know that people are actively watching a presentation.
Because attention tracking could be turned on without attendees’ knowledge — and because many people didn’t know the option existed until a string of reports recently raised alarm — many Zoom users felt like they were being spied on. Zoom’s mounting privacy issues didn’t help matters. So the company disabled the feature after widespread outcry, which demonstrates how much people dislike features like these and why employers should exercise discretion if and when they use them.
Employee tracking software has been around for years, but with so many more people working from home and many workplaces concerned that they won’t be as productive in their living rooms as they were in the office, some employers are turning to activity monitoring programs for the first time — as are their employees, whether they like it or not.
Companies can pick and choose which monitoring features they want to enable. Some employers use these programs to prevent or detect theft — a valid and understandable concern, especially in certain industries. But others see them as a way to make sure employees are staying on task and not wasting time on Facebook, apparently not trusting their workers to do so unsupervised. For workers, it can feel like an invasion of privacy that breeds resentment.
“My manager knows every single damn thing I do”
Jane (who requested that neither she nor her employer be named for fear of retribution) is a contractor for a translation agency based in Australia. Her employer tracks remote workers using a program called TeamViewer, which mirrors everything from an employee’s laptop onto their desktop computer, which is still in the office. Jane’s manager is in the office, too, so he can see, in real time, everything his employees are doing by looking at their desktop monitors.
“My manager knows every single damn thing I do,” Jane told Recode. “I barely get to stand up and stretch, as opposed to when I am physically in the office. I feel like I have to constantly be in front of the computer and work because if not, either the TeamViewer logs me out for being idle, or my manager randomly sends a check-in email that I must reply to promptly.”
Jane’s office had this system in place for remote workers well before the pandemic, but the countless new members of the remote workforce might be encountering them for the first time, according to several activity monitoring software makers. ActivTrak, Time Doctor, Teramind, and Hubstaff all told Recode that they’ve seen significantly more interest in their product from new and returning customers during the coronavirus work-from-home boom.
Time Doctor, which co-founder Liam Martin told Recode he likes to think of as a “Fitbit for work,” has had a “significant uptick” in business, with more leads in a week than the entire last quarter. Teramind reported a triple-digit percentage increase in new leads since the pandemic began. HubStaff said unique visits are up 72 percent in the last three weeks compared to the previous period, and it has added hundreds of trial customers and subscribers, along with adding hundreds of licenses for existing subscribers. ActivTrak has seen a threefold increase in sales requests and license increases from existing customers ranging from 50 to 800 in March, as companies scale up their remote workforce from some employees to all of them.
“We’re hosting informational webinars, detailed product tutorials, and posting tons of educational content around the clock in response to an overwhelming increase in demand from companies,” Rita Selvaggi, CEO of ActivTrak, told Recode.
The people behind these applications realize that workers may not be thrilled about being required to use tracking software, so they encourage employers to use them thoughtfully and transparently.
“Time tracking is always something that people don’t like to do, but we’ve focused our feature set on what makes the individual employee more productive while still giving the employer the piece of mind as to what is being done inside of the company,” Martin said. “Our software focuses on active time tracking rather than something that runs subversively in the background, and all data we collect is given specifically to the employee to improve their productivity.”
Teramind’s vice president of research and development, Isaac Kohen, says it’s important for employers to consider their employees’ privacy along with what they hope to get out of monitoring them.
“If you ignore employees’ right to privacy, you will risk legal ramifications, not to mention cultural rifts, loss of trust, and many other issues that will outweigh any security benefits you can achieve,” Kohen told Recode. “It can cause employees to feel spied on or untrusted, two things that can erode a flourishing company culture. But it doesn’t have to be this way.”
Giving employees control is best for everyone
When the pandemic hit, “John’s” employer (John did not want to be named or reveal his workplace for fear of retribution) was reluctant to let its employees work from home. It eventually did so under one condition: They had to log their hours in a time-tracking program.
“They said you have to use it, and were pretty forceful about it,” John told Recode.
After a week of accounting for every minute of his workday, John sees positives and negatives. As a software developer, his job often involves switching between several different tasks in a short period of time. Logging his activities on such a granular scale can be a pain and take up time he could spend doing his actual job. John also doesn’t think the time logs give proper context for job-adjacent activities that are necessary to accomplish a task.
“You’ve got to call it this person and talk to them and get ideas, or you need to browse the internet for a while to research a topic,” John said. “On paper, it looks like maybe you’re wasting time. But it’s critical to getting the job done well.”
John also understands why management would want there to be some accountability for workers that it suddenly can’t directly oversee. He likes that his job had enough trust in him and his co-workers to let them manually log their activities — rather than installing a program that does so automatically.
“If it wasn’t self-reported, I think I would feel weirder about it,” he said. “Especially since a lot of us use personal devices for our work. I’d be like, ‘I’m not gonna install your nanny cam.’”
Mac Quartarone, an industrial/organizational psychologist, said employees’ response to monitoring programs often depends on the organizational trust their company has built up with them.
“If you have a lot of trust, then you probably expect that the organization is just trying to do the right thing,” Quartarone told Recode. “If you don’t have a lot of trust, then you’re going to assume that they’re trying to fire you or trying to find people that they need to fire.”
In the case of this pandemic, where employees are essentially forced to work from home, introducing tracking software to make sure they’re getting that work done might seem like a punishment for something they had no control over in the first place. Quartarone also warns that the long-term ramifications of using tracking software during this crisis “could be damaging the sense of organizational justice and trust among your employees. And that will live on.” Quartarone recommends that employers give workers as much autonomy as possible and be transparent about what they’re tracking and why — as John’s employer did.
“If done right, it could really be a positive thing for employees that could outweigh the downside,” Quartarone said. “But I think if it’s done wrong, then the downside will vastly overshadow any positives.”
In the end, while Jane resents being monitored so closely by her boss, she also acknowledges that she gets more work done because of it.
“My employers realize I can be given more work now that they can monitor my screen directly,” she said.
For some employers, that’s the only thing that matters.
Update, April 2, 10 am: This post has been updated to include Zoom’s deactivation of its attention tracking feature.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-04-02--For years, brands have been pushing an at-home lifestyle. No one expected it to happen like this.

Over the past few years , brands have wanted nothing more than for us to stay at home and buy stuff .
The “ homebody economy , ” as Kaitlyn Tiffany named it in 2018 , encompasses everything from mattress companies to CBD seltzers .
What these companies all have in common is a promise to burnt-out workers that they can avoid the anxieties of daily life by filling their homes with soft clothes , soft lighting , soft bedding , and the right plants .
Now more than two-thirds of Americans are under government orders to stay at home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially those with the privilege of working remotely during a pandemic — right where they ’ ve always wanted them .
It ’ s seemingly fortuitous .
But championing staying in as a lifestyle choice takes on an uncanny timbre during the age of coronavirus , when it ’ s not a choice at all .
These millennial-friendly , often direct-to-consumer brands espouse a viewpoint in which the world outside is a scary place , one where hustle culture and social obligations demand that young people keep up an impossible pace .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bus stop ad for Parachute , yet another luxury linen brand whose ads remind workers they ’ re not in bed .
This hygge ethos — which has been embraced even by brands that have nothing to do with being inside — was developed when burnout was one of the biggest threats to millennials ’ well-being .
The idea seems almost quaint now , when most white-collar workers are fortunate enough to spend their entire days at home , where they ’ ll worry about whether they ’ ll contract Covid-19 , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they do , if they ’ ll be able to access tests or , god forbid , a ventilator .
Then there ’ s loss of work and the crumbling economy .
How will brands that have spent recent years convincing consumers to stay home respond to this strange and endless moment where we ’ re all forced to be home ?
Now that consumers finally have the indoor lives they were told to dream of , do they actually feel the comfort they were promised ?
Or will quarantine cause the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brands that peddled it ?
It was only a few days after the coronavirus pandemic ushered white-collar Americans into a work-from-home existence when the cozy promotions started .
The bedding company Brooklinen offered a 25 percent discount on its loungewear .
The sustainable basics brand Everlane ran a “ bundles of comfort ” sale on leggings , sweats and fleece .
Other retailers attempted to calm our anxieties .
Cuup , a lingerie startup , sent a “ Stay-At-Home Advice ” email that offered shoppers a curated list of book recommendations , breathing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pictured wearing their bras .
The furniture and decor company West Elm created Zoom backgrounds of beautiful interiors so remote workers could “ start dialing in from your dream home.
” The athleisure company Lou & Grey crafted a “ suuuuper laid back ” Spotify playlist designed to ease Covid-19-related stress spirals .
These weren ’ t the only brands to reach out and run sales , but their cozycore messaging did give them a leg up .
Even adventure-oriented retailers decided to pivot to homebody messaging .
Outdoor outfitter Backcountry had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threw a Work From Home Sale offering discounts on items to help shoppers complete their “ WFH Mullet ” ( “ business up top , sweats on the bottom ” ) .
Ben O ’ Meara , Huckberry ’ s executive director of marketing , told me the unlikely pivot to cozy was born from the company employees ’ new reality of working from home for the foreseeable future : “ We wanted to make sure we acknowledged that we ’ re going through this as well.
” Shockingly , it wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outfits — Rent the Runway promoted a “ party on top , sweatpants on bottom ” approach to videoconferencing fashion .
Within a week , email inboxes flooded with promotions ranging from the subtle — suggesting you stock up on cozy clothes — to the more overt : referencing “ social distancing ” and videoconferencing struggles .
Few included the actual words “ coronavirus ” or “ Covid-19 ” in their outreach , but they didn ’ t need to .
Pandemic headlines loop through consumers ’ minds constantly , as if a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their brains .
“ We wanted to make sure we acknowledged that we ’ re going through this as well ” The WFH sales speak to a privileged class during a crisis that has laid bare just how stratified our country is .
While some American workers are afforded the luxury of having a salary and health care to help them through coronavirus , many are not .
And the precarity of the US economic situation gets clearer with every headline : Employees being refused paid sick leave , recovering Covid-19 patients leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hospitals begging for donations of protective equipment for their workers — these are the horror stories that circulate the internet daily .
The concern for those on the front lines means some consumers who are working from the comfort of their couch don ’ t feel justified in splurging .
“ I have been doing a lot of online ‘ window shopping , ’ but anytime I feel the urge to add to my cart , my guilty conscience reminds me of the warehouse worker that could potentially have to leave isolation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” one shopper told me .
Another echoed this sentiment : “ I don ’ t want to stress out the package delivery system even more with unnecessary purchases .
If I order something dumb , that ’ s just added work for them.
” Then there ’ s the feeling that the disaster could easily happen to us .
Renée Richardson Gosline , a senior lecturer and research scientist at MIT ’ s Sloan School of Management , says the prominent messaging consumers are receiving right now is one of scarcity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they need , whether that ’ s basic household cleaning items , pantry staples , or coronavirus tests .
Beyond the scarcity of the moment looms the scarcity to come — a recession or depression .
Just a few weeks after the economic downturn first hit hospitality and travel , mass layoffs are now reaching industries like tech , media , and retail .
The sense of scarcity that characterizes the current moment is a stark contrast to what came before it .
Coronavirus descended upon the US when the economy was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ height of the stock market , before the virus hit , an “ eat the rich ” backlash to consumerism was already surfacing .
Then the pandemic laid bare just how rich the rich were when celebrities began receiving immediate access to largely unavailable coronavirus tests and posting out-of-touch sentiments ( see : Gwyneth Paltrow telling us to write the next Great American Novel in quarantine , or the chaotic and tone-deaf “ Imagine ” video ) .
“ I don ’ t want to stress out the package delivery system even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re seeing a lot of backlash against individual celebrities in a culture that is very celebrity-oriented , ” Gosline says .
“ Brands that are selling hedonistic products , like fashion or beauty , need to be particularly careful about further signaling this social stratification.
” In the face of this uncertainty , and perhaps as a reaction to the consumerism that characterized the past decade , many consumers are choosing to hoard their cash and hunker down .
Or , in the words of one consumer I spoke to , “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next Great Depression we ’ ll be having.
” Relatedly , hobbies that offer a comforting sense of self-sufficiency , like baking or gardening , are now booming — yeast and flour have been flying off the shelves .
One consumer told me she was investing in a Le Creuset Dutch oven so she could finally fulfill her sourdough dreams .
Even if the economy ’ s going to hell , at least she ’ ll have her starter .
Consumers who are deciding to shop might opt to use their splurges to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tangible place in their community , and are more impacted by closures .
New luxury items from flashy DTC companies headquartered in Silicon Valley don ’ t feel as gratifying .
For many DTC companies , however , things were already rocky before the coronavirus hit : Early in March , Maya Kosoff reported at the Markup that brands like Outdoor Voices , Casper , and Harry ’ s were imploding , unable to become close to profitable or meet investors ’ expectations .
Once coronavirus hit retail , news of layoffs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , came quickly .
On March 27 , Everlane , a modern basics retailer that built its brand on the tagline “ Radical Transparency , ” laid off nearly all members of its 65-person remote “ customer experience ” team .
Those laid off say that they were targeted for forming and joining the Everlane Union , which was seeking recognition from the company .
Everlane ’ s founder responded by saying the layoffs were a result of the coronavirus crisis and that the company is not profitable .
A few days later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 % off site-wide .
( “ We ’ ve never done it before .
But there are a lot of firsts right now ” the email read . )
Still , shoppers might be hesitant to purchase from a brand that isn ’ t taking care of its own employees amid a pandemic .
These aggressive promotions also risk making consumers feel like they ’ re being cornered while emotionally vulnerable and spending more time at home and online .
“ Decision-making under greater scarcity and greater uncertainty can make people less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gosline says .
“ It ’ s a risky move [ for brands ] to say in this moment , ‘ I know you ’ re at home , so why don ’ t you shop ?
’ These tone-deaf type of messages could really prove to lead to some backlash.
” The line between checking in on and trying to be of service to consumers versus profiteering during a moment of panic can be a fine one , and today ’ s empowered consumers are savvy enough to tell the difference .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the widespread and aggressive promotional strategy of retailers who had to close their brick-and-mortar shops.
” Still , she admitted she ’ s interested .
“ I ’ m incredibly tempted to buy new cozy loungewear that I ’ ve always wanted but never was able to justify before.
” Panic and uncertainty can also lead to impulsive decision-making .
Another consumer I spoke to mentioned buying a new dress on sale one day and buyer ’ s remorse kicking in the next , as the economy began tanking : “ Shit hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision to spend money on nonessential items.
” In a stroke of luck , the dress had sold out and her order was canceled .
For retailers attempting to navigate and respond to an increasingly dire news cycle , it takes a lot of diligence .
O ’ Meara told me that to not make a misstep during this moment , he reads every single comment on Huckberry ’ s Instagram and every single email from subscribers .
“ I ’ m incredibly tempted to buy new cozy loungewear that I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to justify before ” “ We have a meeting every morning to recap the day before , the message that went out , and the customer feedback , ” he says .
Ultimately , staying home is the most service many white-collar workers can offer to the cultural moment .
It doesn ’ t feel as engaged as protesting , though homebody brands will try to make consumers feel like heroes for not getting out of their pajamas all day — heroes who deserve to add a little something to their online carts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing new : Makeup brands turned buying red lipstick into an act of service during World War II .
Ads encouraged women to give the men fighting overseas something to dream about by wearing shades like Patriot Red , “ in defense of glamour.
” The deluge of quarantine homebody sales is likely to continue .
For some , they provide a useful distraction , or hope for life beyond coronavirus : a bathing suit as passport to a future where Americans can go to the beach this summer .
For others , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is using the opportunity to test out a new expensive retinol , it ’ s helping them find the silver lining in their new homebound life .
“ If I peel massively , no one will know , and I could have nice baby skin on the other side of quarantine.
” The other side of quarantine — it ’ s hard to imagine what it will be like .
But one thing I know : Once the world does make it to the other side , no brand will be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new going out .
Sign up for The Goods ’ newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Over the past few years, brands have wanted nothing more than for us to stay at home and buy stuff. The “homebody economy,” as Kaitlyn Tiffany named it in 2018, encompasses everything from mattress companies to CBD seltzers. What these companies all have in common is a promise to burnt-out workers that they can avoid the anxieties of daily life by filling their homes with soft clothes, soft lighting, soft bedding, and the right plants.
Now more than two-thirds of Americans are under government orders to stay at home. Homebody brands finally have consumers — especially those with the privilege of working remotely during a pandemic — right where they’ve always wanted them. It’s seemingly fortuitous. But championing staying in as a lifestyle choice takes on an uncanny timbre during the age of coronavirus, when it’s not a choice at all.
These millennial-friendly, often direct-to-consumer brands espouse a viewpoint in which the world outside is a scary place, one where hustle culture and social obligations demand that young people keep up an impossible pace. “Just 500 more minutes” reads a bus stop ad for Parachute, yet another luxury linen brand whose ads remind workers they’re not in bed.
This hygge ethos — which has been embraced even by brands that have nothing to do with being inside — was developed when burnout was one of the biggest threats to millennials’ well-being. The idea seems almost quaint now, when most white-collar workers are fortunate enough to spend their entire days at home, where they’ll worry about whether they’ll contract Covid-19, or their loved ones will, and if they do, if they’ll be able to access tests or, god forbid, a ventilator. Then there’s loss of work and the crumbling economy.
How will brands that have spent recent years convincing consumers to stay home respond to this strange and endless moment where we’re all forced to be home? Now that consumers finally have the indoor lives they were told to dream of, do they actually feel the comfort they were promised? Or will quarantine cause the end of the homebody economy, and the brands that peddled it?
It was only a few days after the coronavirus pandemic ushered white-collar Americans into a work-from-home existence when the cozy promotions started. The bedding company Brooklinen offered a 25 percent discount on its loungewear. The sustainable basics brand Everlane ran a “bundles of comfort” sale on leggings, sweats and fleece.
Other retailers attempted to calm our anxieties. Cuup, a lingerie startup, sent a “Stay-At-Home Advice” email that offered shoppers a curated list of book recommendations, breathing tips, and cooking inspiration from influencers pictured wearing their bras. The furniture and decor company West Elm created Zoom backgrounds of beautiful interiors so remote workers could “start dialing in from your dream home.” The athleisure company Lou & Grey crafted a “suuuuper laid back” Spotify playlist designed to ease Covid-19-related stress spirals. These weren’t the only brands to reach out and run sales, but their cozycore messaging did give them a leg up.
Even adventure-oriented retailers decided to pivot to homebody messaging. Outdoor outfitter Backcountry had a sock sale. Rugged outdoorsman brand Huckberry threw a Work From Home Sale offering discounts on items to help shoppers complete their “WFH Mullet” (“business up top, sweats on the bottom”). Ben O’Meara, Huckberry’s executive director of marketing, told me the unlikely pivot to cozy was born from the company employees’ new reality of working from home for the foreseeable future: “We wanted to make sure we acknowledged that we’re going through this as well.”
Shockingly, it wasn’t the only retailer to suggest mullet-inspired outfits — Rent the Runway promoted a “party on top, sweatpants on bottom” approach to videoconferencing fashion.
Within a week, email inboxes flooded with promotions ranging from the subtle — suggesting you stock up on cozy clothes — to the more overt: referencing “social distancing” and videoconferencing struggles. Few included the actual words “coronavirus” or “Covid-19” in their outreach, but they didn’t need to. Pandemic headlines loop through consumers’ minds constantly, as if a news chyron had been implanted directly into their brains.
“We wanted to make sure we acknowledged that we’re going through this as well”
The WFH sales speak to a privileged class during a crisis that has laid bare just how stratified our country is. While some American workers are afforded the luxury of having a salary and health care to help them through coronavirus, many are not. And the precarity of the US economic situation gets clearer with every headline: Employees being refused paid sick leave, recovering Covid-19 patients leaving the hospital burdened with massive medical bills, hospitals begging for donations of protective equipment for their workers — these are the horror stories that circulate the internet daily. The concern for those on the front lines means some consumers who are working from the comfort of their couch don’t feel justified in splurging.
“I have been doing a lot of online ‘window shopping,’ but anytime I feel the urge to add to my cart, my guilty conscience reminds me of the warehouse worker that could potentially have to leave isolation in order to fill my order,” one shopper told me.
Another echoed this sentiment: “I don’t want to stress out the package delivery system even more with unnecessary purchases. If I order something dumb, that’s just added work for them.”
Then there’s the feeling that the disaster could easily happen to us. Renée Richardson Gosline, a senior lecturer and research scientist at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, says the prominent messaging consumers are receiving right now is one of scarcity. Many people are currently unable to access what they need, whether that’s basic household cleaning items, pantry staples, or coronavirus tests. Beyond the scarcity of the moment looms the scarcity to come — a recession or depression. Just a few weeks after the economic downturn first hit hospitality and travel, mass layoffs are now reaching industries like tech, media, and retail.
The sense of scarcity that characterizes the current moment is a stark contrast to what came before it. Coronavirus descended upon the US when the economy was booming. Gosline believes that at the height of the stock market, before the virus hit, an “eat the rich” backlash to consumerism was already surfacing. Then the pandemic laid bare just how rich the rich were when celebrities began receiving immediate access to largely unavailable coronavirus tests and posting out-of-touch sentiments (see: Gwyneth Paltrow telling us to write the next Great American Novel in quarantine, or the chaotic and tone-deaf “Imagine” video).
“I don’t want to stress out the package delivery system even more with unnecessary purchases”
“You’re seeing a lot of backlash against individual celebrities in a culture that is very celebrity-oriented,” Gosline says. “Brands that are selling hedonistic products, like fashion or beauty, need to be particularly careful about further signaling this social stratification.”
In the face of this uncertainty, and perhaps as a reaction to the consumerism that characterized the past decade, many consumers are choosing to hoard their cash and hunker down. Or, in the words of one consumer I spoke to, “I’m saving my money for the next Great Depression we’ll be having.”
Relatedly, hobbies that offer a comforting sense of self-sufficiency, like baking or gardening, are now booming — yeast and flour have been flying off the shelves. One consumer told me she was investing in a Le Creuset Dutch oven so she could finally fulfill her sourdough dreams. Even if the economy’s going to hell, at least she’ll have her starter.
Consumers who are deciding to shop might opt to use their splurges to support local small businesses that have a tangible place in their community, and are more impacted by closures. New luxury items from flashy DTC companies headquartered in Silicon Valley don’t feel as gratifying. For many DTC companies, however, things were already rocky before the coronavirus hit: Early in March, Maya Kosoff reported at Marker that brands like Outdoor Voices, Casper, and Harry’s were imploding, unable to become close to profitable or meet investors’ expectations. Once coronavirus hit retail, news of layoffs and furloughs, along with aggressive sales promotions, came quickly.
On March 27, Everlane, a modern basics retailer that built its brand on the tagline “Radical Transparency,” laid off nearly all members of its 65-person remote “customer experience” team. Those laid off say that they were targeted for forming and joining the Everlane Union, which was seeking recognition from the company. Everlane’s founder responded by saying the layoffs were a result of the coronavirus crisis and that the company is not profitable. A few days later, Everlane announced an unprecedented sale of 25% off site-wide. (“We’ve never done it before. But there are a lot of firsts right now” the email read.) Still, shoppers might be hesitant to purchase from a brand that isn’t taking care of its own employees amid a pandemic.
These aggressive promotions also risk making consumers feel like they’re being cornered while emotionally vulnerable and spending more time at home and online.
“Decision-making under greater scarcity and greater uncertainty can make people less rational and more short-term focused,” Gosline says. “It’s a risky move [for brands] to say in this moment, ‘I know you’re at home, so why don’t you shop?’ These tone-deaf type of messages could really prove to lead to some backlash.”
The line between checking in on and trying to be of service to consumers versus profiteering during a moment of panic can be a fine one, and today’s empowered consumers are savvy enough to tell the difference.
One consumer I spoke with noted “the widespread and aggressive promotional strategy of retailers who had to close their brick-and-mortar shops.” Still, she admitted she’s interested. “I’m incredibly tempted to buy new cozy loungewear that I’ve always wanted but never was able to justify before.”
Panic and uncertainty can also lead to impulsive decision-making. Another consumer I spoke to mentioned buying a new dress on sale one day and buyer’s remorse kicking in the next, as the economy began tanking: “Shit hit the fan, and I started regretting the decision to spend money on nonessential items.” In a stroke of luck, the dress had sold out and her order was canceled.
For retailers attempting to navigate and respond to an increasingly dire news cycle, it takes a lot of diligence. O’Meara told me that to not make a misstep during this moment, he reads every single comment on Huckberry’s Instagram and every single email from subscribers.
“I’m incredibly tempted to buy new cozy loungewear that I’ve always wanted but never was able to justify before”
“We have a meeting every morning to recap the day before, the message that went out, and the customer feedback,” he says.
Ultimately, staying home is the most service many white-collar workers can offer to the cultural moment. It doesn’t feel as engaged as protesting, though homebody brands will try to make consumers feel like heroes for not getting out of their pajamas all day — heroes who deserve to add a little something to their online carts for doing their part. This is nothing new: Makeup brands turned buying red lipstick into an act of service during World War II. Ads encouraged women to give the men fighting overseas something to dream about by wearing shades like Patriot Red, “in defense of glamour.”
The deluge of quarantine homebody sales is likely to continue. For some, they provide a useful distraction, or hope for life beyond coronavirus: a bathing suit as passport to a future where Americans can go to the beach this summer. For others, like the woman I spoke to who is using the opportunity to test out a new expensive retinol, it’s helping them find the silver lining in their new homebound life. “If I peel massively, no one will know, and I could have nice baby skin on the other side of quarantine.”
The other side of quarantine — it’s hard to imagine what it will be like. But one thing I know: Once the world does make it to the other side, no brand will be able to convince me that staying in is the new going out.
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-04-02--Study: Biden can unite progressives and swing voters with a focus on climate

Most of the people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 tell pollsters they ’ re firmly backing his reelection this fall .
But elections are won by margins .
And the relatively small number of Trump voters — about 10 percent , according to the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey — who say they ’ re at least considering casting a vote for the Democratic nominee are a critical slice of the population to understand .
And a new study , provided to Vox by Tufts University political scientists Brian Schaffner and Laurel Bliss and Data for Progress executive director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be the key for Democrats hoping to woo these voters .
This is a matter that should be of some concern to Joe Biden in particular , as the wavering Trump voters are disproportionately young and the youth vote has not exactly been Biden ’ s strong suit .
But while these voters take conservative positions on some issues , their ideas on climate are largely aligned with those of the Democratic Party base and with stances Biden himself has already taken .
Who the wavering Trump voters are Trump voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are an electorally critical demographic , but it ’ s also a small group of people — just around 10 percent of the approximately 46 percent of voters who pulled the lever for Trump in 2016 .
The CCES is an ideal tool to study those voters because it ’ s a large survey , with 19,000 responses , that can still generate statistically useful information about small sub-groups .
The main takeaway is that those Trump voters who say they are likely to vote Democratic in 2020 ( or aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typical Trump voter .
Over 20 percent of Trump backers in the youngest cohorts say they have doubts about 2020 , but very few older Trump voters agree .
These wavering Trump voters , as you might expect , take a mix of liberal and conservative positions on various policy questions the CCES asks about .
Of course , it doesn ’ t matter whether a person has a left-leaning view on an issue if they don ’ t really prioritize it — so the authors ran the data through an algorithm designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictors of wavering .
In other words , what are the issues on which giving some liberal answers means you ’ re likely considering voting for a Democrat in 2020 ?
What the authors found is that climate and immigration stand head and shoulders above the rest .
But there ’ s a big difference between these two topics .
On immigration , wavering Trump voters are fairly moderate , meaning they disagree with some of Trump ’ s positions but also disagree with some Democratic ones .
On climate , by contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Democrats .
The paper ’ s key finding is that on climate and environmental issues , wavering Trump voters — both those who say they ’ re likely to vote Democratic in 2020 and those who say they ’ re unsure — have views that fit comfortably with those of most rank-and-file Democrats as well as positions the Biden campaign has articulated .
Large majorities of wavering Trump voters believe in renewable energy mandates , think the EPA should regulate greenhouse gas emissions , oppose repealing the Clean Power Plan , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate agreement .
Strengthening the Clean Air and Clean Water acts is a less popular idea , but one still favored by a majority of wavering Trump voters .
Wavering Trump voters oppose the president ’ s most extreme stances , like deporting so-called DREAMers and his ongoing efforts to slash legal immigration .
But they don ’ t necessarily agree with Democrats ’ broader skepticism of the immigration enforcement apparatus .
That makes immigration a dicey issue to debate ( though Biden could strengthen his position with swing voters by coming out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding , albeit at the risk of annoying left-wing activists ) .
On climate , Biden ’ s on much firmer ground .
And highlighting the climate issue would pair naturally with other potential Trump weak points — like the unprecedented increase in air pollution deaths on his watch , or the surprising depth of public support for stronger clean water rules — that have received scant media attention during the Trump years .
Of course , the immediate coronavirus crisis makes it hard to secure attention for anything else these days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climate crisis and the pandemic are very real .
We are witnessing before our eyes a live demonstration of the perils involved in ignoring scientific expertise when it happens to be inconvenient and the value of preparing in advance for potential problems in the future .
Climate change is also likely to severely exacerbate the problem of mosquito-borne illness , as the bugs that carry Zika , dengue fever , chikungunya , and malaria expand their range .
Most Democratic operatives seem skeptical of the political merits of the climate issue , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than the aberrant personality or corruption topics that often dominate negative media coverage of Trump — is one of the biggest drivers of doubts about the president among people who supported him in the past .
Finding ways to inject the issue into both paid and earned media to remind waverers of the large climate stakes in the election could be a key way to turn those doubts into votes .

Most of the people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 tell pollsters they’re firmly backing his reelection this fall. But elections are won by margins. And the relatively small number of Trump voters — about 10 percent, according to the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey — who say they’re at least considering casting a vote for the Democratic nominee are a critical slice of the population to understand.
And a new study, provided to Vox by Tufts University political scientists Brian Schaffner and Laurel Bliss and Data for Progress executive director Sean McElwee, argues that climate change could be the key for Democrats hoping to woo these voters.
This is a matter that should be of some concern to Joe Biden in particular, as the wavering Trump voters are disproportionately young and the youth vote has not exactly been Biden’s strong suit. But while these voters take conservative positions on some issues, their ideas on climate are largely aligned with those of the Democratic Party base and with stances Biden himself has already taken.
Who the wavering Trump voters are
Trump voters who’ve lost confidence in the president are an electorally critical demographic, but it’s also a small group of people — just around 10 percent of the approximately 46 percent of voters who pulled the lever for Trump in 2016. The CCES is an ideal tool to study those voters because it’s a large survey, with 19,000 responses, that can still generate statistically useful information about small sub-groups.
The main takeaway is that those Trump voters who say they are likely to vote Democratic in 2020 (or aren’t sure) are much younger than the typical Trump voter. Over 20 percent of Trump backers in the youngest cohorts say they have doubts about 2020, but very few older Trump voters agree.
These wavering Trump voters, as you might expect, take a mix of liberal and conservative positions on various policy questions the CCES asks about.
Of course, it doesn’t matter whether a person has a left-leaning view on an issue if they don’t really prioritize it — so the authors ran the data through an algorithm designed to show which issues are strong statistical predictors of wavering. In other words, what are the issues on which giving some liberal answers means you’re likely considering voting for a Democrat in 2020?
What the authors found is that climate and immigration stand head and shoulders above the rest.
But there’s a big difference between these two topics. On immigration, wavering Trump voters are fairly moderate, meaning they disagree with some of Trump’s positions but also disagree with some Democratic ones. On climate, by contrast, wavering Trump supporters are clearly aligned with Democrats.
Wavering Trump voters lean left on climate
The paper’s key finding is that on climate and environmental issues, wavering Trump voters — both those who say they’re likely to vote Democratic in 2020 and those who say they’re unsure — have views that fit comfortably with those of most rank-and-file Democrats as well as positions the Biden campaign has articulated.
Large majorities of wavering Trump voters believe in renewable energy mandates, think the EPA should regulate greenhouse gas emissions, oppose repealing the Clean Power Plan, and disagree with the US leaving the Paris climate agreement. Strengthening the Clean Air and Clean Water acts is a less popular idea, but one still favored by a majority of wavering Trump voters.
Immigration, by contrast, is a trickier issue.
Wavering Trump voters oppose the president’s most extreme stances, like deporting so-called DREAMers and his ongoing efforts to slash legal immigration. But they don’t necessarily agree with Democrats’ broader skepticism of the immigration enforcement apparatus. That makes immigration a dicey issue to debate (though Biden could strengthen his position with swing voters by coming out in favor of increased US Border Patrol funding, albeit at the risk of annoying left-wing activists).
On climate, Biden’s on much firmer ground. And highlighting the climate issue would pair naturally with other potential Trump weak points — like the unprecedented increase in air pollution deaths on his watch, or the surprising depth of public support for stronger clean water rules — that have received scant media attention during the Trump years.
Of course, the immediate coronavirus crisis makes it hard to secure attention for anything else these days. But the practical and thematic linkages between the climate crisis and the pandemic are very real. We are witnessing before our eyes a live demonstration of the perils involved in ignoring scientific expertise when it happens to be inconvenient and the value of preparing in advance for potential problems in the future. Climate change is also likely to severely exacerbate the problem of mosquito-borne illness, as the bugs that carry Zika, dengue fever, chikungunya, and malaria expand their range.
Most Democratic operatives seem skeptical of the political merits of the climate issue, but the evidence suggests that it — rather than the aberrant personality or corruption topics that often dominate negative media coverage of Trump — is one of the biggest drivers of doubts about the president among people who supported him in the past. Finding ways to inject the issue into both paid and earned media to remind waverers of the large climate stakes in the election could be a key way to turn those doubts into votes.


vox--2020-04-01--We don’t know yet if lockdowns are working. But the US could see results as early as this week.

Now that most states have shut down temporarily to combat the coronavirus , our greatest enemy is our own impatience .
The measures taken over the past two weeks in 37 states and parts of eight more hurt .
They kill off businesses that are critical to the livelihoods of millions of people .
They throw millions of Americans out of work and off their health insurance .
And for a little while longer , it won ’ t even be clear if they ’ re doing anything .
“ We have sacrificed so much already , but it feels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s because it takes weeks to see results .
We must stay committed and trust that the social distancing we are enduring now will save thousands of lives , ” Dr. Caitlin Rivers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security wrote on March 23 .
Here ’ s why it will take so long for Americans ’ sacrifices to have visible effects : The thing we ’ re trying to reduce — new coronavirus infections — is invisible at first .
It takes between two and 14 days for a newly infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms begin to show , it can take more than a week for them to be eligible for testing ( many people are not eligible at all ) .
And then , because of backlogs in testing availability , it can take days for them to learn they tested positive .
As a result , every positive test today reflects infections that occurred , on average , a few weeks ago .
If shelter-in-place orders worked , we should just start to see their effects this week in the states that acted soonest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see their effects nationwide .
New York ’ s numbers appear to be falling , but it ’ s too soon to say that the city has rounded a corner thanks to its March 20 stay-home order — these infections being detected by tests now would nearly all have occurred before the order happened .
In other words , once you shut down your city to fight the virus , you might even see things get worse before they get better .
There ’ s a very real risk that that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
We shouldn ’ t .
Let ’ s say we lock down a city to prevent the further spread of the coronavirus , and the lockdown works very well , as the one in Wuhan seems to have .
Where previously the average infected person spread the disease to two or three other people , after the lockdown in Wuhan it is estimated that each infected person only spread the disease to .32 people .
If we accomplished the same thing , the number of new infections would start declining right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing : The number of new positive tests ?
That would keep growing .
Here ’ s why : Symptoms of the coronavirus typically take some time to start showing after infection .
The average incubation period is five to six days but “ may range from 2-14 days , ” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
So keep that in mind when thinking about people who are starting to develop symptoms now : Those were people who were exposed to the coronavirus about a week ago , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most people can not get a test as soon as they start to show symptoms .
In some parts of the country , in fact , it ’ s impossible to get a test until you are hospitalized , unless you are a health care worker or are otherwise considered high risk .
The coronavirus has a long course of illness — people are usually sick for a while before they get sick enough to need hospitalization .
In one study from China , the average time from symptom onset to hospitalization was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , difficulty breathing usually surfaced five to 13 days after symptoms started .
That means that , in the parts of the US where most patients aren ’ t tested for the coronavirus until they are hospitalized , a patient may be tested 14 days after they were infected — five days for the average patient to show symptoms and nine days after that to end up in the hospital .
Finally , tests don ’ t always get results right away .
There are some testing sites that advertise same-day turnaround , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in many parts of the country results take longer .
Rand Paul ’ s positive test for coronavirus reportedly took six days to come back .
Add it all up , and it will take at least two weeks , likely longer , for a coronavirus infection to be reported in official statistics .
That means that it will look — for weeks — like the measures we ’ re taking now like self-quarantines , school closures , and social distancing are not working , even if they are .
And if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing — we won ’ t know just yet .
The data out of the San Francisco Bay Area ( which issued its shelter-in-place order on March 17 ) , Washington ( March 23 ) and New York ( March 20 ) over the next week will be critical to understanding how stay-home orders work .
We should watch those numbers closely to understand our next steps .
On January 23 , China locked down the city of Wuhan amid a growing epidemic .
On that date , the country had 830 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ province locked down later that week , and then restrictions were imposed on the whole country .
For the next few weeks , things got worse .
By February 13 , the country had 63,851 cases — most of them in Wuhan ’ s Hubei province .
But things were starting to turn around .
That day , China reported 5,090 new cases — more than on any previous day ( except the day of a one-time change in the types of cases reported ) .
On February 14 , however , officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15th , 2,008 .
New case numbers kept declining from there ; China now reports no new local transmission cases ( though they could be either missing some or hiding some , experts don ’ t think they ’ re hiding a full-blown epidemic . )
Take a look at that gap again : The peak of new cases came fully three weeks after the lockdown started .
In Italy , it ’ s starting to look like the same dynamic is at work .
“ These big social distancing measures take time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Health Security director Tom Inglesby tweeted March 23 .
“ The impact of big interventions in Wuhan China took about 3 wks to start to reverse things .
And then everyday after the situation got better.
” Should the US expect the same thing ?
Not necessarily .
Some things are definitely different .
The US implemented social distancing measures more gradually than Wuhan , which escalated quickly from few restrictions to a full lockdown .
No place in the US is employing measures as strict as Wuhan ’ s .
China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locked people in their houses .
Enforcement of stay-at-home orders has , so far , been lax in the US .
But if our measures suffice to reduce transmission so that each new patient infects less than one person , it wouldn ’ t be surprising if the overall trajectory of the disease in a city like New York looks somewhat like China ’ s , with cases peaking three weeks after the measures went into place .
That would put us into early April .
( There are some signs that cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the stay-home order , but it remains to be seen if these gains will last , and it ’ s probably a mistake this early to attribute them primarily to the stay-home order . )
Graphs like this one are cited as evidence that the Bay Area ’ s shelter-in-place policy has worked , when they largely reflect infections from before shelter-in-place went into effect .
In other parts of the country , where those measures haven ’ t yet been put into place , the peak is even farther off .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can get a good estimate on when it will end , ” former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb argued on March 24 , projecting a peak in New York in two to three weeks .
It ’ s difficult to be patient and wait for that .
The costs of social distancing measures — upended routines , shuttered stores and restaurants , lost jobs , vulnerable people put at risk — are apparent already , while the benefits aren ’ t .
Social distancing measures save lives , but the lives they save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they throw into turmoil are visible right now .
Unsurprisingly , there is overwhelming pressure to identify results from these measures right now .
And preliminary data that looks good is not hard to find .
Articles have proliferated comparing states that implemented social distancing to states that didn ’ t , or declaring that early data shows California ’ s stay-at-home order is working .
It ’ s tempting to draw those conclusions .
But it ’ s really too early to say any of those things with certainty .
The numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first weeks of March — before the stay-home orders began .
They don ’ t reflect the effects of the lockdowns , or even , in many states , the school closures .
The states that are doing well can not credit their success to measures they ’ ve taken in the last few weeks , and the states that have imposed such measures shouldn ’ t expect results yet .
What ’ s important to remember is that if the numbers suddenly get worse in a state that recently implemented stay-at-home measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay-at-home doesn ’ t work .
The confirmed cases we are seeing today are largely people infected a few weeks ago , and the data on how well our current measures are working won ’ t be available for a while .
“ For a while it will feel like nothing is working but it takes time , ” Rivers wrote March 23 .
When things are changing as rapidly as they are with this crisis — and when families are struggling with lost jobs , wiped retirement accounts , sick loved ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks we ’ ll need to wait before case numbers hopefully start declining feel like an eternity .
But the best thing we can do is help our cities develop a plan for the next stage of virus response , support essential workers , stay home , and wait .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sponsorships .
Learn more here .

Now that most states have shut down temporarily to combat the coronavirus, our greatest enemy is our own impatience.
The measures taken over the past two weeks in 37 states and parts of eight more hurt. They kill off businesses that are critical to the livelihoods of millions of people. They throw millions of Americans out of work and off their health insurance.
And for a little while longer, it won’t even be clear if they’re doing anything.
“We have sacrificed so much already, but it feels like nothing is working. That’s because it takes weeks to see results. We must stay committed and trust that the social distancing we are enduring now will save thousands of lives,” Dr. Caitlin Rivers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security wrote on March 23.
Here’s why it will take so long for Americans’ sacrifices to have visible effects: The thing we’re trying to reduce — new coronavirus infections — is invisible at first. It takes between two and 14 days for a newly infected person to start showing symptoms. After symptoms begin to show, it can take more than a week for them to be eligible for testing (many people are not eligible at all). And then, because of backlogs in testing availability, it can take days for them to learn they tested positive.
As a result, every positive test today reflects infections that occurred, on average, a few weeks ago. If shelter-in-place orders worked, we should just start to see their effects this week in the states that acted soonest, and it will take weeks more to see their effects nationwide.
New York’s numbers appear to be falling, but it’s too soon to say that the city has rounded a corner thanks to its March 20 stay-home order — these infections being detected by tests now would nearly all have occurred before the order happened.
In other words, once you shut down your city to fight the virus, you might even see things get worse before they get better. There’s a very real risk that that will discourage us and prompt us to give up. We shouldn’t.
Lag time, explained
Let’s say we lock down a city to prevent the further spread of the coronavirus, and the lockdown works very well, as the one in Wuhan seems to have. Where previously the average infected person spread the disease to two or three other people, after the lockdown in Wuhan it is estimated that each infected person only spread the disease to .32 people.
If we accomplished the same thing, the number of new infections would start declining right away. But here’s the thing: The number of new positive tests? That would keep growing.
Here’s why: Symptoms of the coronavirus typically take some time to start showing after infection. The average incubation period is five to six days but “may range from 2-14 days,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. So keep that in mind when thinking about people who are starting to develop symptoms now: Those were people who were exposed to the coronavirus about a week ago, in some cases even longer.
Now, most people cannot get a test as soon as they start to show symptoms. In some parts of the country, in fact, it’s impossible to get a test until you are hospitalized, unless you are a health care worker or are otherwise considered high risk.
The coronavirus has a long course of illness — people are usually sick for a while before they get sick enough to need hospitalization. In one study from China, the average time from symptom onset to hospitalization was nine days, and in another study, difficulty breathing usually surfaced five to 13 days after symptoms started.
That means that, in the parts of the US where most patients aren’t tested for the coronavirus until they are hospitalized, a patient may be tested 14 days after they were infected — five days for the average patient to show symptoms and nine days after that to end up in the hospital.
Finally, tests don’t always get results right away. There are some testing sites that advertise same-day turnaround, but other labs are backlogged, and in many parts of the country results take longer. Rand Paul’s positive test for coronavirus reportedly took six days to come back.
Add it all up, and it will take at least two weeks, likely longer, for a coronavirus infection to be reported in official statistics.
That means that it will look — for weeks — like the measures we’re taking now like self-quarantines, school closures, and social distancing are not working, even if they are. And if they’re not actually working? Same thing — we won’t know just yet. The data out of the San Francisco Bay Area (which issued its shelter-in-place order on March 17), Washington (March 23) and New York (March 20) over the next week will be critical to understanding how stay-home orders work. We should watch those numbers closely to understand our next steps.
Experience from other countries
On January 23, China locked down the city of Wuhan amid a growing epidemic. On that date, the country had 830 cases. Much of the rest of Hubei province locked down later that week, and then restrictions were imposed on the whole country.
For the next few weeks, things got worse. By February 13, the country had 63,851 cases — most of them in Wuhan’s Hubei province. But things were starting to turn around. That day, China reported 5,090 new cases — more than on any previous day (except the day of a one-time change in the types of cases reported). On February 14, however, officials reported 2,641 new cases. On the 15th, 2,008. New case numbers kept declining from there; China now reports no new local transmission cases (though they could be either missing some or hiding some, experts don’t think they’re hiding a full-blown epidemic.)
Take a look at that gap again: The peak of new cases came fully three weeks after the lockdown started. In Italy, it’s starting to look like the same dynamic is at work.
“These big social distancing measures take time to work,” Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security director Tom Inglesby tweeted March 23. “The impact of big interventions in Wuhan China took about 3 wks to start to reverse things. And then everyday after the situation got better.”
Should the US expect the same thing?
Not necessarily. Some things are definitely different. The US implemented social distancing measures more gradually than Wuhan, which escalated quickly from few restrictions to a full lockdown. No place in the US is employing measures as strict as Wuhan’s. China separated symptomatic people from their families and locked people in their houses. Enforcement of stay-at-home orders has, so far, been lax in the US.
But if our measures suffice to reduce transmission so that each new patient infects less than one person, it wouldn’t be surprising if the overall trajectory of the disease in a city like New York looks somewhat like China’s, with cases peaking three weeks after the measures went into place. That would put us into early April. (There are some signs that cases are flattening already, only a week after the stay-home order, but it remains to be seen if these gains will last, and it’s probably a mistake this early to attribute them primarily to the stay-home order.)
Graphs like this one are cited as evidence that the Bay Area’s shelter-in-place policy has worked, when they largely reflect infections from before shelter-in-place went into effect.
In other parts of the country, where those measures haven’t yet been put into place, the peak is even farther off.
“We know when this started. We can get a good estimate on when it will end,” former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb argued on March 24, projecting a peak in New York in two to three weeks.
It’s difficult to be patient and wait for that. The costs of social distancing measures — upended routines, shuttered stores and restaurants, lost jobs, vulnerable people put at risk — are apparent already, while the benefits aren’t. Social distancing measures save lives, but the lives they save are a month away while the lives they throw into turmoil are visible right now.
Unsurprisingly, there is overwhelming pressure to identify results from these measures right now. And preliminary data that looks good is not hard to find. Articles have proliferated comparing states that implemented social distancing to states that didn’t, or declaring that early data shows California’s stay-at-home order is working.
It’s tempting to draw those conclusions. But it’s really too early to say any of those things with certainty. The numbers published today reflect measures taken in the first weeks of March — before the stay-home orders began. They don’t reflect the effects of the lockdowns, or even, in many states, the school closures. The states that are doing well cannot credit their success to measures they’ve taken in the last few weeks, and the states that have imposed such measures shouldn’t expect results yet.
What’s important to remember is that if the numbers suddenly get worse in a state that recently implemented stay-at-home measures, it won’t prove that stay-at-home doesn’t work. The confirmed cases we are seeing today are largely people infected a few weeks ago, and the data on how well our current measures are working won’t be available for a while.
“For a while it will feel like nothing is working but it takes time,” Rivers wrote March 23.
When things are changing as rapidly as they are with this crisis — and when families are struggling with lost jobs, wiped retirement accounts, sick loved ones, and closed schools — the few weeks we’ll need to wait before case numbers hopefully start declining feel like an eternity. But the best thing we can do is help our cities develop a plan for the next stage of virus response, support essential workers, stay home, and wait.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-04-01--I work at a Queens hospital hard hit by coronavirus. Here’s how doctors can prepare.

Before Covid-19 took over our hospital , I may have heard this page — which summons a medical team because a patient ’ s heart has stopped — once or twice a week .
In the past couple of days , I ’ ve lost count of how many times I ’ ve heard it .
One recent page stands out : It was the afternoon of March 23 , for a male in his early 30s with no medical problems .
We had maxed out on his ventilator settings yet his lungs couldn ’ t deliver the oxygen his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naturally stopped .
Over the past week , the hospital in Elmhurst , Queens , where I ’ m a resident in emergency medicine has been inundated with coronavirus patients needing ventilators .
On a typical day , we are one of the busiest emergency departments in the country .
We take pride in serving one of the most diverse and vulnerable patient populations in the world .
Esoteric and rare diseases are common occurrences here .
Our sheer volume and diversity also meant that we were uniquely susceptible to a pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to New York City , we suspected it was only a matter of time .
However , we didn ’ t expect that we would become a “ ground-zero ” hospital for Covid-19 .
Initially , we just had one patient with a high clinical suspicion for Covid-19 , but over time , patients with relatively low or no clinical suspicion without fevers were turning out positive .
We learned that the virus ’ s symptoms vary : Some presented with cholera-like diarrhea with profound dehydration that then progressed to respiratory distress , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aches .
This taught us one of many valuable lessons early on .
As other hospitals around the country prepare for the pandemic to arrive in the coming days , we hope that our first-hand experiences can help them avoid the same mistakes and pitfalls .
Here are six of the most important lessons we ’ ve learned so far : 1 ) Assume that everyone at the hospital has Covid-19 until proven otherwise At the beginning of the pandemic , we underestimated the number of asymptomatic carriers that were admitted for unrelated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these patients , as it wasn ’ t considered clinically indicated .
A lack of testing kits compounded the problem .
And the lack of early , widespread mobilization of personal protective equipment ( PPE ) made it even worse .
The scarcity of PPE meant that we were judicious in using it only for “ persons under investigation ” ( PUI ) for Covid-19 .
This soon proved to be a disastrous and futile policy .
We weren ’ t using protective equipment for unknown asymptomatic carriers and likely became reservoirs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors likely transmitted the disease silently , but to what extent remains largely unknown .
The only way to prevent this transmission is by either testing all providers and patients each day or by using PPE for every patient .
The latter strategy was far more practical .
2 ) It is impractical to isolate Covid-19 patients from non-Covid-19 patients We tried to isolate PUI into our intensive care units ( ICUs ) , but as the hospital became overwhelmed with PUIs , the policy had once again proven to be futile .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to get test results , meant we weren ’ t able to appropriately triage patients to Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 areas of the hospitals .
Though this may change with the availability of rapid-turnaround tests , the lack of sensitivity of the test made us cautious about sending patients to a non-Covid-19 unit .
We thus came to a grim realization : The only way to minimize some transmission was to once again use our PPE for any and all patients .
Over the next several days , as we were coming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing a staggering number of patients that needed ventilators .
At the beginning of the pandemic , we had predicted that elderly patients or patients with chronic conditions would likely be affected more .
Though that has largely been true , we also started increasingly seeing young patients with no medical problems in respiratory arrest , needing a ventilator .
3 ) Expand the number of ICU beds in your hospital , exponentially For us , it meant hospital floors that weren ’ t equipped to manage ICU patients suddenly became mini-ICUs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our ER were carved off into ICUs with vented patients .
At one point , it even meant transferring patients to nearby hospitals with ICU beds .
Needless to say , that was short-lived as every hospital in NYC soon became inundated with Covid-19 patients .
Frankly , we have even explored the option of turning operating rooms into ICUs .
Just when we thought we had enough ICU beds , we needed more .
My advice is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best .
4 ) Minimize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the patients in the ICUs required multiple blood draws , titration of medications , and adjusting ventilator settings on an hour-by-hour basis , the staff had to find ways to minimize our overall exposure to the virus .
Early on , we decided to place the ventilator as well as the IV poles outside of the patient rooms while also consolidating all of our critical care procedures in one sitting .
For us , it meant every vented patient had multiple peripheral IV accesses , a central venous catheter as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nurses and doctors to minimize their overall exposures .
Expanding the physical space and bridging the equipment and testing shortages was one feat , but the unexpected shortage of clinicians and nurses trained in intensive care medicine was another .
The sheer volume of patients coupled with nurses and doctors who fell ill to Covid-19 made this a penultimate issue .
In our hospital , training non-ICU nurses and non-intensive doctors in critical care medicine was simply not an option , but a necessity .
It meant training cardiologists on complex vent management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ER doctors and intensivists fall ill , having a safety net of clinicians trained in parts of intensive-care medicine will be crucial for patient care .
6 ) Telemedicine is a critical way to decompress your ER and your hospital As we were inundated with critically ill patients , we also saw an exponential rise in “ worried-well patients ” requesting an evaluation .
Some hospitals have adopted telemedicine where doctors take turns answering questions from patients and triage them on whether they should be sent to the ER or not .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ER , likely preventing patient-to-patient and clinician-patient transmissions .
However , in a hospital that serves some of the poorest patients like mine , telemedicine is simply not an option .
For these hospitals , testing tents outside the hospital have proven somewhat effective , but still not enough to keep up with the demand .
Even with the best of these measures , as of April 1 , 1,374 New Yorkers have lost their lives to Covid-19 , more than 376 of them in Queens .
One-third of the city ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 1 ) are in Queens , too .
As the code team runs to the bedside , the team leader assigns members their roles .
They press on the patient ’ s chest and push all the necessary medications to rescue his heart .
After several minutes , just when we felt defeated , the patient ’ s heart started beating again .
We sighed with a sense of relief and looked at each other , knowing that it was only a matter of time until our next code .
Suresh Pavuluri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Emergency Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai .

“Team 700 to B4.”
Before Covid-19 took over our hospital, I may have heard this page — which summons a medical team because a patient’s heart has stopped — once or twice a week. In the past couple of days, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard it.
One recent page stands out: It was the afternoon of March 23, for a man in his early 30s with no medical problems. We had maxed out on his ventilator settings, yet his lungs couldn’t deliver the oxygen his body needed, so his heart had naturally stopped.
Over the past week, the hospital in Elmhurst, Queens, where I’m a resident in emergency medicine has been inundated with coronavirus patients needing ventilators. On a typical day, we are one of the busiest emergency departments in the country. We take pride in serving one of the most diverse and vulnerable patient populations in the world. Esoteric and rare diseases are common occurrences here. Our sheer volume and diversity also meant that we were uniquely susceptible to a pandemic.
When the first case made its way to New York City, we suspected it was only a matter of time. However, we didn’t expect that we would become a “ground zero” hospital for Covid-19.
Related How the US stacks up to other countries in confirmed coronavirus cases
Initially, we just had one patient with a high clinical suspicion for Covid-19, but over time, patients with relatively low or no clinical suspicion without fevers were turning out positive. We learned that the virus’s symptoms vary: Some presented with cholera-like diarrhea with profound dehydration that then progressed to respiratory distress, whereas others had mild headaches with muscle aches.
This taught us one of many valuable lessons early on. As other hospitals around the country prepare for the pandemic to arrive in the coming days, we hope that our firsthand experiences can help them avoid the same mistakes and pitfalls.
Here are six of the most important lessons we’ve learned so far:
1) Assume that everyone at the hospital has Covid-19 until proven otherwise
At the beginning of the pandemic, we underestimated the number of asymptomatic carriers who were admitted for unrelated reasons. We didn’t test these patients, as it wasn’t considered clinically indicated. A lack of testing kits compounded the problem. And the lack of early, widespread mobilization of personal protective equipment (PPE) made it even worse.
The scarcity of PPE meant that we were judicious in using it only for “persons under investigation” (PUI) for Covid-19. This soon proved to be a disastrous and futile policy.
We weren’t using protective equipment for unknown asymptomatic carriers and likely became reservoirs of transmission. It meant that nurses and doctors likely transmitted the disease silently, but to what extent remains largely unknown. The only way to prevent this transmission is by either testing all providers and patients each day or using PPE for every patient. The latter strategy was far more practical.
2) It is impractical to isolate Covid-19 patients from non-Covid-19 patients
We tried to isolate PUI into our intensive care units (ICUs), but as the hospital became overwhelmed with PUIs, the policy had once again proved to be futile. This, coupled with a large turnaround time to get test results, meant we weren’t able to appropriately triage patients to Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 areas of the hospitals.
Though this may change with the availability of rapid-turnaround tests, the lack of sensitivity of the test made us cautious about sending patients to a non-Covid-19 unit. We thus came to a grim realization: The only way to minimize some transmission was to once again use our PPE for any and all patients.
Over the next several days, as we were coming to grips with our reality, we started seeing a staggering number of patients who needed ventilators. At the beginning of the pandemic, we had predicted that older patients or patients with chronic conditions would likely be affected more. Though that has largely been true, we also started increasingly seeing young patients with no medical problems in respiratory arrest, needing a ventilator.
3) Expand the number of ICU beds in your hospital, exponentially
For us, it meant hospital floors that weren’t equipped to manage ICU patients suddenly became mini-ICUs. Sections of the “fast track” in our ER were carved off into ICUs with vented patients. At one point, it even meant transferring patients to nearby hospitals with ICU beds.
Needless to say, that was short-lived as every hospital in NYC soon became inundated with Covid-19 patients. Frankly, we have even explored the option of turning operating rooms into ICUs. Just when we thought we had enough ICU beds, we needed more. My advice is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
4) Minimize the exposure to nurses and staff
As all the patients in the ICUs required multiple blood draws, titration of medications, and adjusting ventilator settings on an hour-by-hour basis, the staff had to find ways to minimize our overall exposure to the virus. Early on, we decided to place the ventilator as well as the IV poles outside of the patient rooms while also consolidating all of our critical care procedures in one sitting.
For us, it meant every vented patient had multiple peripheral IV accesses, a central venous catheter as well as an arterial line. This enabled the nurses and doctors to minimize their overall exposures.
5) Train essential clinical personnel in critical care medicine early
Expanding the physical space and bridging the equipment and testing shortages was one feat, but the unexpected shortage of clinicians and nurses trained in intensive care medicine was another. The sheer volume of patients coupled with nurses and doctors who fell ill to Covid-19 made this a penultimate issue.
In our hospital, training non-ICU nurses and non-intensive doctors in critical care medicine was simply not an option but a necessity. It meant training cardiologists on complex vent management. Needless to say, when the ER doctors and intensivists fall ill, having a safety net of clinicians trained in parts of intensive-care medicine will be crucial for patient care.
6) Telemedicine is a critical way to decompress your ER and your hospital
As we were inundated with critically ill patients, we also saw an exponential rise in “worried-well patients” requesting an evaluation. Some hospitals have adopted telemedicine where doctors take turns answering questions from patients and triage them on whether they should be sent to the ER. This has proven to be effective in decompressing the ER, likely preventing patient-to-patient and clinician-patient transmissions.
However, in a hospital that serves some of the poorest patients like mine, telemedicine is simply not an option. For these hospitals, testing tents outside the hospital have proven somewhat effective, but still not enough to keep up with the demand.
Even with the best of these measures, as of April 1, 1,374 New Yorkers have lost their lives to Covid-19, more than 376 of them in Queens. One-third of the city’s total cases (45,672 as of April 1) are in Queens, too.
As the code team runs to the bedside, the team leader assigns members their roles. They press on the patient’s chest and push all the necessary medications to rescue his heart. After several minutes, just when we felt defeated, the patient’s heart started beating again. We sighed with a sense of relief and looked at each other, knowing that it was only a matter of time until our next code.
Suresh Pavuluri is a resident physician with the department of emergency medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.


vox--2020-04-02--Why Jeff Bezos’s $100 million donation to food banks won’t satisfy his critics

Jeff Bezos is giving $ 100 million to help America ’ s hungry during the coronavirus crisis , a gift that is one of the largest by a tech leader in response to the pandemic .
But it also comes amid mounting concerns about how Bezos is treating his employees in his day job as CEO of Amazon .
Bezos announced on Thursday that he would be making the donation to Feeding America , a nonprofit that is serving as a clearinghouse to distribute money to food banks around the country .
The gift is the nonprofit ’ s largest-ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitment to date , and is tied for the single-largest coronavirus commitment to date from tech philanthropists with the $ 100 million pledged by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation .
Gifts like these are significant and needed during a crisis like this .
But billionaires ’ philanthropy has increasingly come under fire as a distraction from valid criticisms of how these same billionaires earn their money .
Bezos , for instance , has drawn scrutiny for not protecting warehouse and logistics workers enough from the coronavirus outbreak .
The gift was announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bezos had sat in meetings where Amazon leadership sought ways to smear a worker who sounded the alarm bell about health and safety concerns at one of its biggest warehouses in Staten Island , New York .
And still , even with that context and the positive PR it will engender , the donation could make a real difference .
The $ 100 million “ will enable us to provide more food to millions of our neighbors facing hardship during this crisis , ” said Feeding America in a statement .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his generosity.
” Feeding America , one of the country ’ s biggest charities , runs a network of about 200 food banks .
The fund it created to cope with the coronavirus — which originally had just $ 2.7 million in it — is distributing emergency supplies to food banks across the country .
Just on Wednesday , the group predicted that food banks would need $ 1.4 billion more over the next six months to feed the hungry .
“ I want to support those on the front lines of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are relying on them , ” Bezos said in an Instagram post announcing the donation ( it ’ s where he seems to make all of his personal announcements these days ) .
After years of criticism for his relatively stingy public philanthropic giving , Bezos has opened his wallet considerably over the last two years , announcing his three largest gifts to date .
Now the world ’ s richest person , Bezos since 2018 has also pledged $ 2 billion for a new charitable effort focused on aiding homelessness and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 billion climate-change fund earlier this year .
Some critics of billionaire philanthropy are quick to point out that these are all very small percentages of Bezos ’ s net worth .
It is indeed just 0.08 percent of his $ 120 billion in assets .
But given that this is one of the largest coronavirus-related gifts yet , to be critical of the Bezos gift is to be critical of the size of all philanthropic donations amid a global crisis .

Jeff Bezos is giving $100 million to help America’s hungry during the coronavirus crisis, a gift that is one of the largest by a tech leader in response to the pandemic. But it also comes amid mounting concerns about how Bezos is treating his employees in his day job as CEO of Amazon.
Bezos announced on Thursday that he would be making the donation to Feeding America, a nonprofit that is serving as a clearinghouse to distribute money to food banks around the country. The gift is the nonprofit’s largest-ever single donation, Bezos’s third-biggest commitment to date, and is tied for the single-largest coronavirus commitment to date from tech philanthropists with the $100 million pledged by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Gifts like these are significant and needed during a crisis like this. But billionaires’ philanthropy has increasingly come under fire as a distraction from valid criticisms of how these same billionaires earn their money. Bezos, for instance, has drawn scrutiny for not protecting warehouse and logistics workers enough from the coronavirus outbreak. The gift was announced around the same time Vice News reported that Bezos had sat in meetings where Amazon leadership sought ways to smear a worker who sounded the alarm bell about health and safety concerns at one of its biggest warehouses in Staten Island, New York.
And still, even with that context and the positive PR it will engender, the donation could make a real difference.
The $100 million “will enable us to provide more food to millions of our neighbors facing hardship during this crisis,” said Feeding America in a statement. “Countless lives will be changed because of his generosity.”
Feeding America, one of the country’s biggest charities, runs a network of about 200 food banks. The fund it created to cope with the coronavirus — which originally had just $2.7 million in it — is distributing emergency supplies to food banks across the country. Just on Wednesday, the group predicted that food banks would need $1.4 billion more over the next six months to feed the hungry.
“I want to support those on the front lines of our nation’s food banks and those who are relying on them,” Bezos said in an Instagram post announcing the donation (it’s where he seems to make all of his personal announcements these days).
After years of criticism for his relatively stingy public philanthropic giving, Bezos has opened his wallet considerably over the last two years, announcing his three largest gifts to date. Now the world’s richest person, Bezos since 2018 has also pledged $2 billion for a new charitable effort focused on aiding homelessness and early-childhood education, along with a $10 billion climate-change fund earlier this year.
Some critics of billionaire philanthropy are quick to point out that these are all very small percentages of Bezos’s net worth. It is indeed just 0.08 percent of his $120 billion in assets. But given that this is one of the largest coronavirus-related gifts yet, to be critical of the Bezos gift is to be critical of the size of all philanthropic donations amid a global crisis.