vox--2020-03-21--From no restaurants to shelter-in-place, here’s what large US states are doing to contain coronaviru

From no restaurants to shelter-in-place, here’s what large US states are doing to contain coronavirus

To combat the growing coronavirus pandemic , US cities and states are beginning to impose strict measures meant to encourage social distancing and to limit the spread of infection .
Friday , New York and Illinois joined a number of other states , including California and New Jersey , in asking residents to go outside only for necessities .
The requests mean by the end of the weekend , more than 70 million people — around one in five Americans — will be under orders to stay home .
“ No , this is not life as usual , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday .
“ Accept it and realize it and deal with it.
” Commonly referred to as “ shelter in place ” orders , the measures vary slightly by state .
However , they largely bar people from leaving home except for exercise and for essential travel : to and from work , hospitals , or the grocery store .
The orders can be enforced by law enforcement , but it ’ s not clear how frequently police will cite people who violate the orders .
Police in San Jose , California , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are trying to educate those they observe refusing to comply — a stance the city ’ s police chief said will evolve : “ Our current plan is to move from an educational stance to an enforcement stance on any business that has been contacted , warned , and then reopens , ” Chief Eddie Garcia said Friday .
Other officials have taken a sterner stance , like Cuomo , who said Friday , “ These provisions will be enforced .
...
These are not helpful hints.
” States that do try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however .
Wendy Mariner , a professor of health law at Boston University School of Public Health , told Vox : There are far fewer police than there are citizens .
“ All large-scale measures present obstacles to enforcement , ” Mariner said .
Other states are not yet mandating residents not leave home , instead closing restaurants , bars , gyms and other businesses as an early attempt to stop people from coming into contact with one another .
Here are the rules in some of the US ’ largest and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state in the US , encompassing 40 million people , went under a “ stay at home ” order Thursday evening .
• Everyone must stay at home except for critical reasons , such as grocery shopping , visiting the doctor in case of emergency or to exercise .
• Bars , dine-in restaurants , gyms , hair and nail salons , entertainment venues , and any public events or gatherings are closed .
• 16 “ critical infrastructure ” industries are allowed to continue operating but should work from home if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes into effect at 8 pm ET on Sunday .
This order and others put into place in recent days affect 20 million New York residents .
• All businesses are closed except banks , hospitals , pharmacies , grocery stores , manufacturing plants , news media , and other “ essential ” services .
• Gatherings “ of any size for any reason ” are banned .
• Any people that are in public or doing essential work outside home must stay at least six feet apart from one another .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunocompromised people must remain inside unless exercising , wear a mask around others , and pre-screen visitors by taking their temperature and checking for flu-like symptoms .
• Barbershops , hair and nail salons , tattoo and piercing parlors , hair removal services , casinos , fitness centers , theaters , malls , bowling alleys , and amusement parks are closed .
• Only takeout and delivery are allowed at bars and restaurants .
• Public transportation and roadways aren ’ t shut down — though people are strongly discouraged from traveling if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 pm CT Saturday , all of Illinois ’ 13 million people are under a stay at home order .
• People can leave their homes only to exercise and walk pets , to visit the grocery store , pharmacy or gas station , or to attend work in essential industries .
• All businesses and “ places of public amusement ” ( like movie theaters , museums , zoos and concert halls ) are closed , except essential services such as health care , sanitation , airpots , law enforcement , media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are closed .
• All gatherings outside the home are prohibited and people who leave their homes should maintain six feet of distance from others .
Gov .
Phil Murphy ordered the state of 9 million to remain home Saturday , as confirmed cases climb above 1,000 .
According to reporting by the New Star-Ledger : • All non-essential businesses are to be shut down , excluding grocery stores and pharmacies .
• All schools , casinos , dine-in restaurants , theaters , gyms and malls are closed .
• There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 pm and “ non-essential travel ” is strongly discouraged .
• Those who ignore the governor ’ s order could face a disorderly conduct charge : “ If folks are monkeying around , we will take action , ” Murphy said Saturday .
The state of 3.5 million people has nearly 200 confirmed cases , and Gov .
Ned Lamont issued a stay at home order on Friday .
Beginning Monday at 8 pm : • Non-essential businesses will be closed .
Essential services such as grocery stores , healthcare , pharmacies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public gatherings of any size aren ’ t allowed and people should limit outdoor activities , public transportation use , and other non-essential visits to businesses .
• Sick people should only leave their home to get necessary medical care .
Washington , which has been the focal point of early confirmed coronavirus cases in the US , has more than 1,300 confirmed cases and 74 deaths .
The state is not yet under a stay at home order , but Gov .
Jay Inslee has said he may impose more restrictive measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people behaving as if this virus was not a mortal threat to people in this state , ” NPR-affiliate KUOW reported .
Right now : • Schools statewide are closed until at least April 24 .
• All entertainment and recreational centers , bars and restaurants and gyms are closed .
Bars and restaurants are open for takeout .
• Gatherings of more than 50 people are banned statewide and people are urged to stay home .
• Non-essential businesses remain open , though workers are urged to work from home if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has more than 500 confirmed cases and 9 deaths to date .
There ’ s no statewide shelter in place policy ; Gov .
Ron DeSantis has said he believes local measures are more effective .
“ If you go too hard , then I think people lose confidence and they rebel against it , ” he said , according to the Sun Sentinel .
• All restaurants and bars are closed statewide .
• Concerts and other entertainment venues are closed in Broward and Palm Beach counties .
• Beaches , parks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Miami-Dade County .
• All hotels must close by Monday night in the city of Miami Beach .
The nation ’ s second-most populous state , with nearly 29 million people , faces restrictions that went into effect midnight on Friday and will last through April 3 .
• Bars , restaurants , and gyms are closed .
Takeout is allowed .
As Vox ’ s Dylan Scott has explained , officials hope these measures will “ flatten the curve ” — that is , reduce the rate of infections quickly enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new cases and ensure the US hospital system isn ’ t overwhelmed by people seeking treatment .
And as Vox ’ s Ezra Klein has explained , experts believe the best way to flatten the curve is to limit interpersonal contact : Adam Kucharski , the mathematical epidemiologist , has a very simple calculation on this point .
He calculates that if each Covid-19 case leads to 2.5 more infections over five days , then a single case leads to 244 more cases over the course of a month .
But if social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 1.25 new infections for every case , that ’ s only four new cases over the course of a month .
This kind of exponential math is really unintuitive .
This isn ’ t about you or even the people directly around you .
It is also about the chain you start .
If you infect somebody and they have connections , you kick off in that chain that could be very deadly .
How long the shelter in place orders will need to stay in effect isn ’ t yet clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely need to be practiced for some time — at least until a vaccine becomes available , something that could take up to 18 months .

To combat the growing coronavirus pandemic, US cities and states are beginning to impose strict measures meant to encourage social distancing and to limit the spread of infection.
Friday, New York and Illinois joined a number of other states, including California and New Jersey, in asking residents to go outside only for necessities. The requests mean by the end of the weekend, more than 70 million people — around one in five Americans — will be under orders to stay home.
“No, this is not life as usual,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Friday. “Accept it and realize it and deal with it.”
Commonly referred to as “shelter in place” orders, the measures vary slightly by state. However, they largely bar people from leaving home except for exercise and for essential travel: to and from work, hospitals, or the grocery store. The orders can be enforced by law enforcement, but it’s not clear how frequently police will cite people who violate the orders.
Police in San Jose, California, for instance, have said they currently are trying to educate those they observe refusing to comply — a stance the city’s police chief said will evolve: “Our current plan is to move from an educational stance to an enforcement stance on any business that has been contacted, warned, and then reopens,” Chief Eddie Garcia said Friday.
Other officials have taken a sterner stance, like Cuomo, who said Friday, “These provisions will be enforced ... These are not helpful hints.”
States that do try to enforce the orders face a numerical challenge, however. Wendy Mariner, a professor of health law at Boston University School of Public Health, told Vox: There are far fewer police than there are citizens. “All large-scale measures present obstacles to enforcement,” Mariner said.
Other states are not yet mandating residents not leave home, instead closing restaurants, bars, gyms, and other businesses as an early attempt to stop people from coming into contact with one another.
Here are the rules in some of the US’s largest and most affected states.
California
The most populous state in the US, encompassing 40 million people, went under a “stay at home” order Thursday, March 19.
Everyone must stay at home except for critical reasons, such as grocery shopping, visiting the doctor in case of emergency, or to exercise.
Gas stations, pharmacies, grocery stores, convenience stores, takeout and delivery restaurants, banks, laundromats, and essential government functions remain open.
Bars, dine-in restaurants, gyms, hair and nail salons, entertainment venues, and any public events or gatherings are closed.
16 “critical infrastructure” industries are allowed to continue operating but should work from home if they can.
New York
New York’s policy goes into effect at 8 pm ET on Sunday, March 22. This order and others put into place in recent days affect 20 million New York residents.
All businesses are closed except banks, hospitals, pharmacies, grocery stores, manufacturing plants, news media, and other “essential” services.
Gatherings “of any size for any reason” are banned.
Any people who are in public or doing essential work outside the home must stay at least six feet apart from one another.
People over the age of 70 and immunocompromised people must remain inside unless exercising, wear a mask around others, and pre-screen visitors by taking their temperature and checking for flu-like symptoms.
Barbershops, hair and nail salons, tattoo and piercing parlors, hair removal services, casinos, fitness centers, theaters, malls, bowling alleys, and amusement parks are closed.
Only takeout and delivery are allowed at bars and restaurants.
Public transportation and roadways aren’t shut down — though people are strongly discouraged from traveling if they can avoid it.
Illinois
Beginning at 5 pm CT Saturday, March 21, all of Illinois’ 13 million people are under a stay at home order.
People can leave their homes only to exercise and walk pets, to visit the grocery store, pharmacy, or gas station, or to attend work in essential industries.
All businesses and “places of public amusement” (like movie theaters, museums, zoos, and concert halls) are closed, except essential services such as health care, sanitation, airports, law enforcement, media, laundromats, and others. Playgrounds are closed.
All gatherings outside the home are prohibited and people who leave their homes should maintain six feet of distance from others.
New Jersey
Gov. Phil Murphy ordered the state’s 9 million residents to remain home Saturday, March 21, as confirmed cases climb above 1,000. According to reporting by the New Jersey Star-Ledger:
All nonessential businesses are to be shut down, excluding grocery stores and pharmacies.
All schools, casinos, dine-in restaurants, theaters, gyms, and malls are closed.
There’s a suggested curfew of 8 am to 5 pm and “nonessential travel” is strongly discouraged.
Those who ignore the governor’s order could face a disorderly conduct charge: “If folks are monkeying around, we will take action,” Murphy said Saturday.
Connecticut
The state of 3.5 million people has nearly 200 confirmed cases, and Gov. Ned Lamont issued a stay at home order on Friday. Beginning Monday, March 23 at 8 pm:
Nonessential businesses will be closed. Essential services such as grocery stores, healthcare, pharmacies, and gas stations remain open.
Public gatherings of any size aren’t allowed and people should limit outdoor activities, public transportation use, and other nonessential visits to businesses.
Sick people should only leave their home to get necessary medical care.
Washington
Washington, which has been the focal point of early confirmed coronavirus cases in the US, has more than 1,300 confirmed cases and 74 deaths. The state is not yet under a stay at home order, but Gov. Jay Inslee has said he may impose more restrictive measures soon because “we still are seeing people behaving as if this virus was not a mortal threat to people in this state,” NPR affiliate KUOW reported. Right now:
Schools statewide are closed until at least April 24.
All entertainment and recreational centers, bars and restaurants, and gyms are closed. Bars and restaurants are open for takeout.
Gatherings of more than 50 people are banned statewide and people are urged to stay home.
Nonessential businesses remain open, though workers are urged to work from home if they can.
Florida
The state of 21 million has more than 500 confirmed cases and 9 deaths to date. There’s no statewide shelter in place policy; Gov. Ron DeSantis has said he believes local measures are more effective. “If you go too hard, then I think people lose confidence and they rebel against it,” he said, according to the Sun Sentinel.
All restaurants and bars are closed statewide.
Concerts and other entertainment venues are closed in Broward and Palm Beach counties.
Beaches, parks, bars, and restaurants are shut down in Miami-Dade County.
All hotels must close by Monday night in the city of Miami Beach.
Texas
The nation’s second-most populous state, with nearly 29 million people, faces restrictions that went into effect at midnight on Friday, March 20, and will last through April 3.
Social gatherings are limited to 10 people.
Bars, restaurants, and gyms are closed. Takeout is allowed.
Visiting nursing homes is barred “unless to provide critical assistance.”
Schools are closed statewide.
As Vox’s Dylan Scott has explained, officials hope these measures will “flatten the curve” — that is, reduce the rate of infections quickly enough to both drastically limit the number of new cases and ensure the US hospital system isn’t overwhelmed by people seeking treatment.
And as Vox’s Ezra Klein has explained, experts believe the best way to flatten the curve is to limit interpersonal contact:
Adam Kucharski, the mathematical epidemiologist, has a very simple calculation on this point. He calculates that if each Covid-19 case leads to 2.5 more infections over five days, then a single case leads to 244 more cases over the course of a month. But if social distancing measures cut that number in half to 1.25 new infections for every case, that’s only four new cases over the course of a month. This kind of exponential math is really unintuitive. This isn’t about you or even the people directly around you. It is also about the chain you start. If you infect somebody and they have connections, you kick off in that chain that could be very deadly.
How long the shelter-in-place orders will need to stay in effect isn’t yet clear. But experts believe social distancing will likely need to be practiced for some time — at least until a vaccine becomes available, something that could take up to 18 months.


vox--2020-03-21--Trump keeps promoting an unproven coronavirus treatment — despite his experts’ advice

President Donald Trump continued to play up an unproven treatment as a promising remedy for the coronavirus , contradicting the advice of his top public health officials at a press conference Saturday — one in which he also rebutted reports that he knew about the dangers of the pandemic well before taking action .
In recent days , Trump has been promoting the potential of a drug called hydroxychloroquine — a common anti-malaria drug — as a treatment for Covid-19 , the disease caused by the novel coronavirus .
The off-the-shelf drug is easy to produce and has been anecdotally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He highlighted the treatment on Twitter Saturday , citing a study that , as Vox ’ s Umair Irfan has explained , had design issues that most scientists would see as problematic , including a small sample size and a lack of randomization .
Those issues did not stop the president from retweeting the research , or from using it to support his claim that “ HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN , taken together , have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.
” At his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump made a similar claim , and told reporters the hydroxychloroquine along with azithromycin , an antibiotic the study suggested be used in concert with hydroxychloroquine , is “ going to be distributed ” to New York and other states .
Both drugs are already widely available , but are not currently recommended by experts as viable coronavirus treatments .
Trump disagreed with those experts Saturday .
“ What do we have to lose ?
I feel very good about it , ” the president said .
“ We ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s going to work.
” After Trump left the conference , Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease , explained that it isn ’ t possible to “ find out very shortly ” whether the drugs are effective against the virus — at least not without conducting a number of randomized trials .
“ I ’ m not totally sure what the president was referring to , ” Fauci said .
“ Many things you hear out there are what I call anecdotal reports .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re anecdotal .
..
If you really want to definitively know if something works , you have to do the kind of trial that you get the good information with.
” Nevertheless , Fauci said he understands Trump ’ s optimism , saying , “ The president is talking about hope for people .
And it ’ s not an unreasonable thing to hope for people.
” It is , however , unreasonable to give people false hope , and as Irfan wrote , “ Right now , the most effective way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected in the first place , which means using good personal hygiene like handwashing and social distancing measures.
” Trump also continued to claim he responded quickly to the coronavirus concerns Trump has faced a great deal of criticism over the speed of his administration ’ s coronavirus response , and Saturday , once again claimed — despite evidence to the contrary — that he acted rapidly to contain and limit the spread of the virus .
Specifically , he denied a Washington Post report published Friday indicating that intelligence officials warned him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus within the US as early as January , and that the administration dismissed that intelligence .
“ They write inaccurately about me every single day , every single hour , ” Trump said of the Post .
“ It ’ s so insulting when they write phony stories that they know are fake news.
” When asked directly about the Post report and when he learned just how concerning the coronavirus is , Trump said , “ When I learned I started doing the closings , so , you know , probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t learn much.
” The administration first began “ doing the closings ” — that is , limiting travel — on February 3 , about a month after first reportedly receiving the intelligence briefings .
An official told the Post , “ Donald Trump may not have been expecting this , but a lot of other people in the government were — they just couldn ’ t get him to do anything about it.
” Saturday , Trump claimed the opposite , saying , “ I acted far before anybody thought I should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Post was somehow mistaken , Trump is incorrect in saying he acted before others said he should .
He faced calls throughout February to take more aggressive action against the virus .
And experts — like New York University epidemiologist Celine Gounder — have argued Americans are already living with the consequences of the administration ’ s delayed response .
Misrepresenting the past is an unhelpful thing to do in a time of crisis when trust is paramount .
But there is little Trump — or anyone — can do about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now ; what is more important is ensuring the response meets the challenges the virus presents now .
And while Trump was on the whole more solemn compared to recent press conferences , giving the public unfounded medical advice is certainly not the way to do that .

President Donald Trump continued to play up an unproven treatment as a promising remedy for Covid-19, contradicting the advice of his top public health officials at a press conference Saturday — one in which he also rebutted reports that he knew about the dangers of the coronavirus pandemic well before taking action.
In recent days, Trump has been promoting the potential of a drug called hydroxychloroquine — a common anti-malaria drug — as a treatment for Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. The off-the-shelf drug is easy to produce and has been, anecdotally, effective in China and South Korea.
He highlighted the treatment on Twitter Saturday, citing a study that, as Vox’s Umair Irfan has explained, had design issues most scientists would see as problematic, including a small sample size and a lack of randomization. Those issues did not stop the president from retweeting the research, or from using it to support his claim that “HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.”
At his daily coronavirus press conference Saturday afternoon, Trump made a similar claim, and told reporters the hydroxychloroquine along with azithromycin, an antibiotic the study suggested be used in concert with hydroxychloroquine, is “going to be distributed” to New York and other states.
Both drugs are already widely available, but are not currently recommended by experts as viable coronavirus treatments. Trump disagreed with those experts Saturday.
“What do we have to lose? I feel very good about it,” the president said. “We’re going to find out very shortly whether or not it’s going to work.”
After Trump left the conference, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health, explained that it isn’t possible to “find out very shortly” whether the drugs are effective against the virus — at least not without conducting a number of randomized trials.
“I’m not totally sure what the president was referring to,” Fauci said. “Many things you hear out there are what I call anecdotal reports. They may be true, but they’re anecdotal. .. If you really want to definitively know if something works, you have to do the kind of trial that you get the good information with.”
Nevertheless, Fauci said he understands Trump’s optimism, saying, “The president is talking about hope for people. And it’s not an unreasonable thing to hope for people.”
It is, however, unreasonable to give people false hope, and as Irfan wrote, “Right now, the most effective way to fight the virus remains not getting infected in the first place, which means using good personal hygiene like hand-washing and social distancing measures.”
Trump also continued to claim he responded quickly to the coronavirus concerns
Trump has faced a great deal of criticism over the speed of his administration’s coronavirus response, and Saturday, once again claimed — despite evidence to the contrary — that he acted rapidly to contain and limit the spread of the virus.
Specifically, he denied a Washington Post report published Friday indicating that intelligence officials warned him about the potentially far-reaching spread of the coronavirus within the US as early as January, and that the administration dismissed that intelligence.
“They write inaccurately about me every single day, every single hour,” Trump said of the Post. “It’s so insulting when they write phony stories that they know are fake news.”
When asked directly about the Post report and when he learned just how concerning the coronavirus is, Trump said, “When I learned I started doing the closings, so, you know, probably around that time. We didn’t learn much.”
The administration first began “doing the closings” — that is, limiting travel — on February 3, about a month after reportedly first receiving the intelligence briefings. An official told the Post, “Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were — they just couldn’t get him to do anything about it.”
Saturday, Trump claimed the opposite, saying, “I acted far before anybody thought I should be.”
Even if the official quoted in the Post was somehow mistaken, Trump is incorrect in saying he acted before others said he should. He faced calls throughout February to take more aggressive action against the virus. And experts — like New York University epidemiologist Celine Gounder — have argued Americans are already living with the consequences of the administration’s delayed response.
Misrepresenting the past is an unhelpful thing to do in a time of crisis when trust is paramount. But there is little Trump — or anyone — can do about the administration’s initial response right now; what is more important is ensuring the current response meets the challenges the virus presents now. And while Trump was, on the whole, more solemn compared to recent press conferences, giving the public unfounded medical advice is certainly not the way to do that.


vox--2020-03-21--The fight over stock buybacks and corporate coronavirus bailouts, briefly explained

Less than a week ago , the US airline industry requested $ 50 billion in grants and loans from the federal government to help it weather the collapse in travel caused by the coronavirus pandemic , and to help it provide some financial security for the industry ’ s 750,000 workers .
While there is bipartisan support for the idea that airlines — or , at least , airline workers — should receive some kind of bailout from the federal government , both Democratic lawmakers and unions representing airline workers have warned that this bailout must come with strings attached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Association of Flight Attendants President Sara Nelson , “ should come with significant conditions to help workers and keep planes flying , not enrich shareholders or pad executive bonuses.
” Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) , meanwhile , proposed eight ambitious restrictions to be placed on any company receiving a bailout , including a permanent ban on companies engaging in stock buybacks — that is , a rule so that a company may not spend its excess profits to buy stock from its existing investors .
Buybacks can provide a windfall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they tend to inflate the price of a stock by reducing the number of shares of that stock in circulation .
However , they offer little benefit to workers or consumers .
While it still appears unlikely that a permanent ban on buybacks will be included in any corporate bailouts , two recent developments suggest that temporary buyback restrictions will be imposed on companies that receive federal bailouts .
On Saturday , the CEOs of 10 US airlines and the head of Airlines for America , the industry ’ s trade group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In it , they agreed to “ eliminating stock buy backs over the life of the loans ” and “ eliminating stock dividends for the life of the loans ” if the industry receives at least $ 29 billion in loans or loan guarantees .
The industry leaders also agreed to “ limits on executive compensation.
” President Donald Trump also announced his support for restrictions on buybacks in a press conference Saturday afternoon .
“ I want money to be used for workers and keeping businesses open , not buybacks , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ strongly recommending a buyback exclusion.
” Though negotiations about Congress ’ s “ phase 3 ” response to the economic fallout from coronavirus remain ongoing , these developments suggest some limits on stock buybacks are very likely to be included in the package .
Limiting such buybacks is a longtime cause of many congressional Democrats and their allies .
More than a year ago , Sens .
Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) and Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) published an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that “ when more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to buybacks and dividends , there is reason to be concerned.
” The two senators proposed legislation that would “ prohibit a corporation from buying back its own stock unless it invests in workers and communities first , including things like paying all workers at least $ 15 an hour , providing seven days of paid sick leave , and offering decent pensions and more reliable health benefits.
” While such an ambitious proposal is unlikely to be included in the coronavirus bailout legislation , it does appear likely that there will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t wind up paying to inflate stock prices .

Less than a week ago, the US airline industry requested $50 billion in grants and loans from the federal government to help it weather the collapse in travel caused by the coronavirus pandemic, and to help it provide some financial security for the industry’s 750,000 workers.
While there is bipartisan support for the idea that airlines — or, at least, airline workers — should receive some kind of bailout from the federal government, both Democratic lawmakers and unions representing airline workers have warned that this bailout must come with strings attached.
Any airline industry bailout, according to Association of Flight Attendants President Sara Nelson, “should come with significant conditions to help workers and keep planes flying, not enrich shareholders or pad executive bonuses.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), meanwhile, proposed eight ambitious restrictions to be placed on any company receiving a bailout, including a permanent ban on companies engaging in stock buybacks — that is, a rule so that a company may not spend its excess profits to buy stock from its existing investors.
Buybacks can provide a windfall to corporate executives and other investors because they tend to inflate the price of a stock by reducing the number of shares of that stock in circulation. However, they offer little benefit to workers or consumers.
While it still appears unlikely that a permanent ban on buybacks will be included in any corporate bailouts, two recent developments suggest that temporary buyback restrictions will be imposed on companies that receive federal bailouts.
On Saturday, the CEOs of 10 US airlines and the head of Airlines for America, the industry’s trade group, signed a letter to congressional leaders. In it, they agreed to “eliminating stock buy backs over the life of the loans” and “eliminating stock dividends for the life of the loans” if the industry receives at least $29 billion in loans or loan guarantees. The industry leaders also agreed to “limits on executive compensation.”
President Donald Trump also announced his support for restrictions on buybacks in a press conference Saturday afternoon. “I want money to be used for workers and keeping businesses open, not buybacks,” the president said, adding that he is “strongly recommending a buyback exclusion.”
Though negotiations about Congress’s “phase 3” response to the economic fallout from coronavirus remain ongoing, these developments suggest some limits on stock buybacks are very likely to be included in the package.
Limiting such buybacks is a longtime cause of many congressional Democrats and their allies. More than a year ago, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) published an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that “when more than 90 percent of corporate profits go to buybacks and dividends, there is reason to be concerned.”
The two senators proposed legislation that would “prohibit a corporation from buying back its own stock unless it invests in workers and communities first, including things like paying all workers at least $15 an hour, providing seven days of paid sick leave, and offering decent pensions and more reliable health benefits.”
While such an ambitious proposal is unlikely to be included in the coronavirus bailout legislation, it does appear likely that there will be some protections to ensure taxpayers don’t wind up paying to inflate stock prices.


vox--2020-03-21--Newly leaked footage shows Taylor Swift and Kanye West talking “Famous”

In a moment that might give you flashbacks to the fun celebrity gossip part of 2016 , the hashtag # KanyeWestIsOverParty is trending on social media right now .
It ’ s a response to 2016 ’ s notorious # TaylorSwiftIsOverParty hashtag , and it marks the latest chapter in the endless saga of the Taylor Swift vs. Kanye feud .
Because early on Saturday , new footage from the infamous “ Famous ” phone call between the two stars leaked — and it complicates the original story .
Here ’ s the background .
Back in February 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Famous , ” that featured a controversial lyric : “ I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex .
/ Why ?
I made that bitch famous.
” He was referencing his scandalous altercation with Taylor in 2009 , when Kanye stormed the stage at the MTV VMAs as Taylor accepted an award to announce that it really should have gone to Beyoncé .
In 2009 , Taylor Swift was already an enormous star , but Kanye was suggesting in “ Famous ” that it was his doing that Taylor became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ song released , TMZ reported that Kanye had checked with Taylor to make sure she was cool with the lyric before he dropped it , and that she got the joke and gave him her blessing .
But Swift , through her publicist Tree Paine , denied it .
“ Kanye did not call for approval , but to ask Taylor to release his single ‘ Famous ’ on her Twitter account , ” Paine told the New York Times .
“ She declined and cautioned him about releasing a song with such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Taylor was never made aware of the actual lyric , ‘ I made that bitch famous.
’ ” Kanye , meanwhile , maintained that he definitely had checked with Taylor before he dropped the song .
Several weeks of contentious back-and-forth ensued , culminating when Taylor won her second Album of the Year award at the Grammys and made a highly acclaimed acceptance speech shouting out “ all the young women out there ” who have to deal with “ people along the way who will try to undercut your success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or your fame.
” It was all but certainly a direct reference to Kanye ’ s song .
But then Kanye ’ s wife , Kim Kardashian West , changed the story .
In July 2016 , Kim posted a series of videos on Snapchat that showed Kanye calling Taylor up to ask for her permission to include a verse referencing her in “ Famous.
” ( Kanye , Kim explained , films himself all the time for a documentary about his life he plans to make one day . )
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly reads Taylor the line , “ I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex , ” and asks for her approval .
The video is cut together in a way that makes it unclear that Taylor ever heard the line “ I made that bitch famous , ” but they do discuss whether or not Kanye would have had any way of knowing that Taylor was already famous in 2009 , in a way that makes it appear that at the very least , he ’ s given her the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that he wants Taylor to be happy with the finished song .
We also hear Taylor respond that she appreciates the thought , that she thinks the lyric is “ tongue-in-cheek , ” and that it would probably be good for her public image to be able to say that she knew about the song ahead of time .
As soon as the video dropped , Taylor Swift haters exploded .
Taylor Swift , they declared , was a manipulative , cold-blooded snake and this video proved it .
# TaylorSwiftIsOverParty trended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flooded her accounts with snake emojis .
Taylor issued a statement reiterating that her problem with the song was the word “ bitch , ” which she said Kanye never told her about .
“ You don ’ t get to control someone ’ s emotional reaction to being called ‘ that bitch ’ in front of the whole world , ” she wrote in a since-deleted Instagram post .
But her statement did little to calm the frenzy .
As far as the wider internet was concerned , Taylor Swift was canceled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a year to wait out the schadenfreude .
She built her next album , 2017 ’ s Reputation , around the idea that she was “ a snake.
” And in the recently released Netflix documentary about her life , Miss Americana , she talked about how difficult she found that time to be , as someone who built so much of her self-identity around the idea of being a good person who people would like .
“ When people decided I was wicked and evil and conniving and not a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mom , “ that was the one that I couldn ’ t really bounce back from because my whole life was centered around it.
” Nearly four years later , the new video appears to complicate the story that Kim Kardashian told everyone in 2016 .
It strongly suggests that Taylor was telling the truth about that phone call — but that Kanye was too .
The new video shows both Kanye and Taylor worrying about what “ Famous ” will do to their reputations The video that Kim dropped back in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the infamous conversation , but it appeared to show mostly the end of Kanye ’ s phone call with Taylor .
This new footage , which arrived online from an unknown source late Friday night and rapidly spread across social media , is uncut and over 25 minutes long .
In the new footage , Kanye clearly asks Taylor if she would be interested in debuting “ Famous ” from her Twitter account , just as Taylor maintained back in 2016 .
“ You got an army .
You own a country of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he says .
“ If you felt that it ’ s funny and cool and like , hip-hop , and felt like The College Dropout and the artists like ’ Ye that you love , then I think that people would be , like , way into it.
” He suggests that he thinks it would be funny and good for her public image for her to be able to say that she knew about the song ahead of time .
Taylor seems puzzled at the idea that it would make sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and when Kanye opens his pitch by revealing that it contains an “ extremely controversial line ” about her , she sounds nervous .
“ What is it ?
” she asks .
“ Is it gon na be mean ?
” Kanye goes on to workshop a couple versions of the line that became “ I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex ” with her .
He starts off with “ I feel like Taylor Swift might owe me sex , ” which makes Taylor laugh and say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean !
” although she notes that the line is “ absolutely crazy.
” “ I ’ m glad it ’ s not mean , though , ” she says .
“ The buildup you gave it , I thought it was gon na be , like , ‘ That stupid dumb bitch.
’ ” Kanye then goes on to offer the possibility of making the line , “ I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex , ” noting that his wife prefers the first version .
“ The ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , makes him nervous , because of the possibility of “ some feminist group type shit.
” “ That ’ s the only thing about that line , ” Taylor agrees , “ Is that the feminists are gon na come out .
But I mean , you don ’ t give a fuck , so.
” Later , Kanye asks , “ What if , later in the song , I was to say , ‘ I made her famous ?
’ ” “ It ’ s just kind of like whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ You ’ ve got to tell the story the way it happened to you and the way you experienced it.
” Overall , the conversation appears to fit both Kanye ’ s and Taylor ’ s versions of the story .
Kanye does repeatedly ask Taylor for her approval of the song , and she does tell him she thinks it ’ s funny , just as Kanye said when it first dropped .
And he does ask Taylor to release the song on her Twitter account , and she does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feminist criticism , just as Taylor said in her statement back in 2016 .
Kanye clearly thinks the controversial part of the lyric is when he suggests that they might have sex , which is what he ’ s concerned about , and Taylor is clearly more worried that he might call her a bitch , which he does not mention he plans to do .
For Taylor Swift fans , though , the video functions as a complete repudiation of the narrative Kanye and Kim established back in 2016 .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Kim and Kanye lied about Taylor okaying the line “ I made that bitch famous , ” that Taylor was in the right all along , and that Taylor ’ s 2016 cancellation was just Kanye heaping more undeserved humiliation on Taylor on top of the travesty of 2009 .
Hence , it ’ s now Kanye West who should be over .
“ My heart breaks listening to that phone call , the fact that she even picked up the phone and wasted her valuable time to listen to that nincompoop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great a human she is , ” tweeted Taylor ’ s friend and collaborator Todrick Hall .
He added , “ The sad part is that I ’ m sure there will be no apology from him or the millions of people who took those gifs of a conversation & trailer of an actual conversation as fact without ever hearing the convo in full.
” What is perhaps more interesting than the question of which artist is right , however , is that throughout the conversation , both Taylor and Kanye are hyper-aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into their public images .
Kanye complains that people think he ’ s a bully , and he wants to make sure this song doesn ’ t play into that narrative .
Taylor , who at the time was at peak media saturation following the release of 2014 ’ s 1989 , notes that “ everything that I do becomes a feminist think piece , ” and that “ right now , I ’ m , like , this close to overexposure.
” And in the end , that ’ s the reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ song from her Twitter account : not the idea that it ’ s misogynistic , but because “ if I launch it , honestly , I think it ’ ll be less cool.
” Thus far , none of the parties involved have made a public comment on the new footage .

In a moment that might give you flashbacks to the fun celebrity gossip part of 2016, the hashtag #KanyeWestIsOverParty is trending on social media right now. It’s a response to 2016’s notorious #TaylorSwiftIsOverParty hashtag, and it marks the latest chapter in the endless saga of the Taylor Swift vs. Kanye feud.
Because early on Saturday, new footage from the infamous “Famous” phone call between the two stars leaked — and it complicates the original story.
Here’s the background. Back in February 2016, Kanye released a new song, “Famous,” that featured a controversial lyric: “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex. / Why? I made that bitch famous.” He was referencing his scandalous altercation with Taylor in 2009, when Kanye stormed the stage at the MTV VMAs as Taylor accepted an award to announce that it really should have gone to Beyoncé. In 2009, Taylor Swift was already an enormous star, but Kanye was suggesting in “Famous” that it was his doing that Taylor became a household name.
Shortly after the song released, TMZ reported that Kanye had checked with Taylor to make sure she was cool with the lyric before he dropped it, and that she got the joke and gave him her blessing. But Swift, through her publicist Tree Paine, denied it. “Kanye did not call for approval, but to ask Taylor to release his single ‘Famous’ on her Twitter account,” Paine told the New York Times. “She declined and cautioned him about releasing a song with such a strong misogynistic message.” She added, “Taylor was never made aware of the actual lyric, ‘I made that bitch famous.’”
Kanye, meanwhile, maintained that he definitely had checked with Taylor before he dropped the song. Several weeks of contentious back-and-forth ensued, culminating when Taylor won her second Album of the Year award at the Grammys and made a highly acclaimed acceptance speech shouting out “all the young women out there” who have to deal with “people along the way who will try to undercut your success, or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame.” It was all but certainly a direct reference to Kanye’s song.
But then Kanye’s wife, Kim Kardashian West, changed the story. In July 2016, Kim posted a series of videos on Snapchat that showed Kanye calling Taylor up to ask for her permission to include a verse referencing her in “Famous.” (Kanye, Kim explained, films himself all the time for a documentary about his life he plans to make one day.)
In the videos Kim posted to Snapchat, Kanye clearly reads Taylor the line, “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex,” and asks for her approval. The video is cut together in a way that makes it unclear that Taylor ever heard the line “I made that bitch famous,” but they do discuss whether or not Kanye would have had any way of knowing that Taylor was already famous in 2009, in a way that makes it appear that at the very least, he’s given her the gist of the line.
Kanye repeatedly says that he wants Taylor to be happy with the finished song. We also hear Taylor respond that she appreciates the thought, that she thinks the lyric is “tongue-in-cheek,” and that it would probably be good for her public image to be able to say that she knew about the song ahead of time.
As soon as the video dropped, Taylor Swift haters exploded. Taylor Swift, they declared, was a manipulative, cold-blooded snake and this video proved it. #TaylorSwiftIsOverParty trended on social media, and gleeful observers flooded her accounts with snake emojis.
Taylor issued a statement reiterating that her problem with the song was the word “bitch,” which she said Kanye never told her about. “You don’t get to control someone’s emotional reaction to being called ‘that bitch’ in front of the whole world,” she wrote in a since-deleted Instagram post.
But her statement did little to calm the frenzy. As far as the wider internet was concerned, Taylor Swift was canceled.
So Taylor disappeared from public life for a year to wait out the schadenfreude. She built her next album, 2017’s Reputation, around the idea that she was “a snake.” And in the recently released Netflix documentary about her life, Miss Americana, she talked about how difficult she found that time to be, as someone who built so much of her self-identity around the idea of being a good person whom people would like. “When people decided I was wicked and evil and conniving and not a good person,” she said to her mom, “that was the one that I couldn’t really bounce back from because my whole life was centered around it.”
Nearly four years later, the new video appears to complicate the story that Kim Kardashian told everyone in 2016. It strongly suggests that Taylor was telling the truth about that phone call — but that Kanye was too.
The new video shows both Kanye and Taylor worrying about what “Famous” will do to their reputations
The video that Kim dropped back in 2016 was spliced together from different pieces of the infamous conversation, but it appeared to show mostly the end of Kanye’s phone call with Taylor. This new footage, which arrived online from an unknown source late Friday night and rapidly spread across social media, is uncut and over 25 minutes long.
KIM K AND KANYE AND THE MOST DESPICABLE, GROSS AND MANIPULATIVE PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY THEY LIED ABOUT TAYLOR SWIFT IN 2016 AND THIS THREAD OF THE LEAKED PHONE CONVERSATION WILL SHOW YOU THAT. pic.twitter.com/jCw07z8Vpf — , (@redligion) March 21, 2020
In the new footage, Kanye clearly asks Taylor if she would be interested in debuting “Famous” from her Twitter account, just as Taylor maintained back in 2016. “You got an army. You own a country of motherfucking 2 billion people, basically,” he says. “If you felt that it’s funny and cool and, like, hip-hop, and felt like The College Dropout and the artists like ’Ye that you love, then I think that people would be, like, way into it.” He suggests that he thinks it would be funny and good for her public image for her to be able to say that she knew about the song ahead of time.
Taylor seems puzzled at the idea that it would make sense for her to release the song, and when Kanye opens his pitch by revealing that it contains an “extremely controversial line” about her, she sounds nervous. “What is it?” she asks. “Is it gonna be mean?”
Kanye goes on to workshop a couple versions of the line that became “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex” with her. He starts off with “I feel like Taylor Swift might owe me sex,” which makes Taylor laugh and say, “Well, that’s not mean!” although she notes that the line is “absolutely crazy.”
“I’m glad it’s not mean, though,” she says. “The buildup you gave it, I thought it was gonna be, like, ‘That stupid dumb bitch.’”
Kanye then goes on to offer the possibility of making the line, “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex,” noting that his wife prefers the first version. “The ‘owe’ part,” he says, makes him nervous, because of the possibility of “some feminist group type shit.”
“That’s the only thing about that line,” Taylor agrees, “Is that the feminists are gonna come out. But I mean, you don’t give a fuck, so.”
Later, Kanye asks, “What if, later in the song, I was to say, ‘I made her famous?’”
“It’s just kind of like whatever at this point,” Taylor says. “You’ve got to tell the story the way it happened to you and the way you experienced it.”
Overall, the conversation appears to fit both Kanye’s and Taylor’s versions of the story. Kanye does repeatedly ask Taylor for her approval of the song, and she does tell him she thinks it’s funny, just as Kanye said when it first dropped. And he does ask Taylor to release the song on her Twitter account, and she does warn him that it could spark some feminist criticism, just as Taylor said in her statement back in 2016. Kanye clearly thinks the controversial part of the lyric is when he suggests that they might have sex, which is what he’s concerned about, and Taylor is clearly more worried that he might call her a bitch, which he does not mention he plans to do.
For Taylor Swift fans, though, the video functions as a repudiation of the narrative Kanye and Kim established back in 2016. It’s now clear, they maintain, that Kim and Kanye lied about Taylor okaying the line “I made that bitch famous,” that Taylor was in the right all along, and that Taylor’s 2016 cancellation was just Kanye heaping more undeserved humiliation on Taylor on top of the travesty of 2009. Hence, it’s now Kanye West who should be over.
“My heart breaks listening to that phone call, the fact that she even picked up the phone and wasted her valuable time to listen to that nincompoop speak is just a testament to how great a human she is,” tweeted Taylor’s friend and collaborator Todrick Hall. He added, “The sad part is that I’m sure there will be no apology from him or the millions of people who took those gifs of a conversation & trailer of an actual conversation as fact without ever hearing the convo in full.”
What is perhaps more interesting than the question of which artist is right, however, is that throughout the conversation, both Taylor and Kanye are hyper-aware of how “Famous” will fit into their public images. Kanye complains that people think he’s a bully, and he wants to make sure this song doesn’t play into that narrative. Taylor, who at the time was at peak media saturation following the release of 2014’s 1989, notes that “everything that I do becomes a feminist think piece,” and that “right now, I’m, like, this close to overexposure.”
And in the end, that’s the reason Taylor cites for refusing to launch the song from her Twitter account: not the idea that it’s misogynistic, but because “if I launch it, honestly, I think it’ll be less cool.”
Thus far, none of the parties involved have made a public comment on the new footage.


vox--2020-03-21--Why we’re not overreacting to the coronavirus, in one chart

The national mobilization against the coronavirus is now in full swing .
Schools and workplaces nationwide have shuttered .
The federal government has recommended that people not gather in groups of 10 or more .
Social distancing and self-isolation are now becoming part of the fabric of daily American life .
This has all sparked a serious question among many people : Are we overreacting ?
It ’ s not just a question being asked by partiers and bar-goers — it has also been asked in the New York Times .
A widely circulated article by Stanford ’ s John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a “ fiasco in the making ” that ’ s being made without enough data .
To someone who hasn ’ t been following the pandemic ’ s spread closely , the drastic measures indeed might seem like an overreaction .
After all , around 25,000 cases and 300 deaths — as of March 21 — in a country of 330 million may not seem that bad .
Is it really worth shutting down the economy , a measure that will of course have horrific costs of its own , for such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask what ’ s really causing experts to worry : The coronavirus ’ s trajectory is putting us on a course of many , many more cases and many , many more deaths unless we do something drastic .
In other words , there ’ s a simple answer to the question : No , we ’ re not overreacting .
To explain why we ’ re not overreacting , we need to look to the experience of another country going through the coronavirus crisis : Italy .
Here ’ s a chart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US ’ s .
A couple of weeks ago , Italy was much like us , with 107 deaths on March 4 .
But things were already rapidly getting worse ; by March 10 , more than 600 people were dead , and now more than 3,400 are .
That makes Italy the epicenter of coronavirus fatalities in the world , with more deaths than even China , where the outbreak started .
Hospitals have been pushed to the breaking point , with doctors and nurses without adequate protective equipment collapsing at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t all get lifesaving care because there isn ’ t enough of it to go around .
What ’ s scary about Italy ’ s experience is that Italy wasn ’ t exactly passive in its response to the virus .
The country did act , quarantining a dozen towns in northern regions on February 23 , urging the public to engage in social distancing , and ordering the closure of all schools nationwide on March 4 .
But case numbers kept growing .
On March 8 , Italy locked down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on March 9 it extended the lockdown to the whole country .
Now , it looks like these extreme efforts might have slowed the rate of growth of cases .
On March 15 , there were 3,590 new cases .
On March 16 , 3,233 .
On the 17th , 3,526 .
And on the 18th , 4,207 .
That ’ s not exponential growth , suggesting the lockdown really did help — but those still aren ’ t good numbers , especially when Italy ’ s hospitals are already overwhelmed .
Italy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the action it took was just a little too moderate , a little too restrained , and a little too slow .
The country took measures that were substantial and costly but nonetheless insufficient to actually bring the epidemic to a halt .
( This was the message hammered home in a recent project where Italians sent video messages to themselves 10 days ago . )
There ’ s some reason to think we won ’ t be hit as hard as Italy .
Italy ’ s population is older than ours , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
Smoking might affect death tolls , too , and smoking is more common in Europe than in the US .
Because the United States is bigger , US reported cases per capita are a little further behind Italy ’ s than the raw confirmed case numbers are .
And comparing confirmed cases across countries is difficult anyway , because most countries are undertesting and it ’ s hard to be sure who is undertesting more .
But the bottom line remains that there ’ s no real reason to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Italy will suffice here .
The lesson from Italy isn ’ t just that you have to act before your hospitals are overwhelmed .
It ’ s that you have to take steps that appear in the moment to be an exceptional overreaction — because by the time it looks like the steps you ’ re taking are appropriate , it will have been too late .
Why we should be worried Now , when public health experts say the US is on Italy ’ s trajectory , what exactly does that mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most European countries are seeing early coronavirus growth numbers that look like the ones from Italy .
Our confirmed cases are increasing at about the rate theirs did .
That gives us every reason to think our health systems will eventually be overwhelmed like theirs were , unless we take strong measures sooner than they did .
So far , we ’ ve taken some strong measures — which is good .
But it ’ s not clear that we ’ re acting that much faster than Italy did — and remember , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The frightening chart above compares the US ’ s reactions to Italy ’ s .
It shows confirmed case numbers in Italy and in the US , starting on the day when each country passed 100 confirmed cases .
It shows the points at which Italy took various precautionary measures .
To break away from Italy ’ s trajectory , we need to take measures that are stronger than the ones it took , or take measures sooner along the trajectory than it did .
The US passed the 13,000 confirmed case mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ northern half of the country on the day it reached 13,000 cases and extended the lockdown to the southern half one day later .
To be sure , there are a lot of problems with using confirmed case data for these trajectory estimates .
Italy is likely substantially undertesting , as is the US .
Confirmed cases are a poor reflection of overall cases .
Sometimes , growth in confirmed cases is due to increases in testing capacity , not increases in the virus ’ s spread .
But even with those caveats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worthless .
“ They lag behind reality , ” Caitlin Rivers , a senior associate at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me on Monday , but they ’ re still our best window into what is going on .
And looking through that window , the picture looks bleak for the US .
Taking the drastic steps some parts of the country are now taking , like the California stay-at-home order , gives us a chance — not a guarantee , to be clear — to veer from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offers state-by-state projections of hospitalizations over time depending on which interventions a state takes . )
“ You are always behind where you think you are ” In a press conference on March 16 , the National Institutes of Health ’ s Dr. Anthony Fauci , who has played a major role in leading the US response , explained to Americans why the strong measures the government was taking were not an overreaction .
“ Some will look and say , well , maybe we ’ ve gone a little bit too far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing that I want to reemphasize , and I ’ ll say it over and over again , when you ’ re dealing with an emerging infectious diseases outbreak , you are always behind where you think you are if you think that today reflects where you really are.
” Let ’ s say that today we found 1,000 new Covid-19 cases .
Keep in mind that the virus has a two- to 10-day incubation period .
In the past week or so , each of those people was exposed to the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they got sick enough to seek medical attention , which can take a few more days .
Then they got a test .
Then the test took a day or more to return positive results ( some people are reporting longer waits than that for results , while some newly designed tests might be able to get results faster ) .
Each of those positive tests , then , reflects an infection up to two weeks ago .
The situation has already worsened for the two weeks or so since those new cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , those 1,000 people have been out and about in the world , potentially infecting others .
In a population not taking strong social distancing measures , it is estimated that on average they will have infected two or three others .
Some of those newly infected will themselves have started infecting others .
Italy took strong measures .
Its mistake was not that it didn ’ t react at all — it ’ s that it kept being a little bit behind the ball .
Each measure was appropriate to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real situation was always much worse .
So things kept worsening until they pulled out all the stops with a countrywide lockdown .
“ It will always seem that the best way to address [ the virus ] would be to be doing something that looks like it might be an overreaction , ” Fauci said .
“ It isn ’ t an overreaction .
It ’ s reaction we feel is commensurate [ with what ] is actually going on in reality.
” To break away from Italy ’ s trajectory , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Italy .
We have to respond in ways that feel like an overreaction .
In the past few days , we ’ ve seen the first US steps that are stronger than Italy ’ s responses at a similar point in the outbreak — steps like the Bay Area ’ s shelter-in-place order , the follow-up extending it to all of California , New York ’ s similar order Friday , and state orders shutting down restaurants and bars .
That ’ s what it will take to give ourselves a chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

Share All sharing options for: Why we’re not overreacting to the coronavirus, in one chart
Editor’s note, April 2: There have been significant developments in the coronavirus pandemic since this story was last updated, and some details may no longer apply. For our most up-to-date coverage, visit our coronavirus hub. Click here for the CDC’s current public health guidance.
The national mobilization against the coronavirus is now in full swing. Schools and workplaces nationwide have shuttered. The federal government has recommended that people not gather in groups of 10 or more. Social distancing and self-isolation are now becoming part of the fabric of daily American life.
This has all sparked a serious question among many people: Are we overreacting? It’s not just a question being asked by partiers and bar-goers — it has also been asked in the New York Times. A widely circulated article by Stanford’s John Ioannidis suggests that the stepped-up US response is a “fiasco in the making” that’s being made without enough data.
To someone who hasn’t been following the pandemic’s spread closely, the drastic measures indeed might seem like an overreaction. After all, around 35,000 cases and 500 deaths — as of March 22 — in a country of 330 million may not seem that bad. Is it really worth shutting down the economy, a measure that will of course have horrific costs of its own, for such a small toll?
But the numbers mask what’s really causing experts to worry: The coronavirus’s trajectory is putting us on a course of many, many more cases and many, many more deaths unless we do something drastic.
In other words, there’s a simple answer to the question: No, we’re not overreacting.
To explain why we’re not overreacting, we need to look to the experience of another country going through the coronavirus crisis: Italy. Here’s a chart comparing the country’s cases to the US’s.
A couple of weeks ago, Italy’s outbreak did not seem so severe, with 107 deaths on March 4. But things were already rapidly getting worse; by March 10, more than 600 people were dead, and now more than 3,400 are. That makes Italy the epicenter of coronavirus fatalities in the world, with more deaths than even China, where the outbreak started. Hospitals have been pushed to the breaking point, with doctors and nurses without adequate protective equipment collapsing at work and other doctors reporting that patients won’t all get lifesaving care because there isn’t enough of it to go around.
What’s scary about Italy’s experience is that Italy wasn’t exactly passive in its response to the virus. The country did act, quarantining a dozen towns in northern regions on February 23, urging the public to engage in social distancing, and ordering the closure of all schools nationwide on March 4.
But case numbers kept growing. On March 8, Italy locked down the north of the country, and on March 9 it extended the lockdown to the whole country. It’s not clear even that was sufficient to stem the growth of cases, which grew by 6,557 on March 22 and 5,560 on March 23. It is possible the lockdown will start to produce a drop in cases this week. It’s also possible even the lockdown wasn’t enough — experts from China have argued it needs to be stricter.
Italy has been devastated by the virus because the action it took was just a little too moderate, a little too restrained, and a little too slow. The country took measures that were substantial and costly but nonetheless insufficient to actually bring the epidemic to a halt. (This was the message hammered home in a recent project in which Italians sent video messages to themselves as they were 10 days earlier.)
There’s some reason to think we won’t be hit as hard as Italy. Italy’s population is older than ours, and older people are hit hardest by the virus.
Smoking might affect death tolls, too, and smoking is more common in Europe than in the US. The lack of testing in the US until recently means reported cases per capita are a little further behind Italy’s than the raw confirmed case numbers are. (Italy has about 60 million residents, and the US has about 330 million.)
And comparing confirmed cases across countries is difficult anyway, including because most countries are undertesting and it’s hard to be sure who is undertesting more.
But the bottom line remains that there’s no real reason to think measures that didn’t suffice in Italy will suffice here.
The lesson from Italy isn’t just that you have to act before your hospitals are overwhelmed. It’s that you have to take steps that appear in the moment to be an exceptional overreaction — because by the time it looks like the steps you’re taking are appropriate, it will have been too late.
Why we should be worried
Now, when public health experts say the US is on Italy’s general trajectory, what exactly does that mean?
It means that the US and most European countries are seeing early coronavirus growth numbers that look like the ones from Italy. Our confirmed cases are increasing at about the rate theirs did. That gives us every reason to think our health systems will eventually be overwhelmed like theirs were, unless we take strong measures sooner than they did.
So far, we’ve taken some strong measures — which is good. But it’s not clear that we’re acting that much faster than Italy did — and remember, Italy wasn’t fast enough.
The frightening chart above compares the US’s reactions to Italy’s. It shows confirmed case numbers in Italy and in the US, starting on the day when each country passed 100 confirmed cases. It shows the points at which Italy took various precautionary measures. To break away from Italy’s trajectory, we need to take measures that are stronger than the ones it took, or take measures sooner along the trajectory than it did.
The US passed the 13,000 confirmed case mark on March 19. Italy locked down the northern half of the country on the day it reached 13,000 cases and extended the lockdown to the southern half one day later.
To be sure, there are a lot of problems with using confirmed case data for these trajectory estimates. Italy is likely substantially undertesting, as is the US. Confirmed cases are a poor reflection of overall cases. Sometimes, growth in confirmed cases is due to increases in testing capacity, not increases in the virus’s spread.
But even with those caveats, confirmed case data isn’t worthless. “They lag behind reality,” said Caitlin Rivers, a senior associate at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, but they’re still our best window into what is going on.
And looking through that window, the picture looks bleak for the US. Taking the drastic steps some parts of the country are now taking, like the California stay-at-home order, gives us a chance — not a guarantee, to be clear — to veer from the Italian trajectory. (This online tool offers state-by-state projections of hospitalizations over time depending on which interventions a state takes.)
“You are always behind where you think you are”
In a press conference on March 16, the National Institutes of Health’s Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has played a major role in leading the US response, explained to Americans why the strong measures the government was taking were not an overreaction.
“Some will look and say, well, maybe we’ve gone a little bit too far,” he said. “The thing that I want to reemphasize, and I’ll say it over and over again, when you’re dealing with an emerging infectious diseases outbreak, you are always behind where you think you are if you think that today reflects where you really are.”
Let’s say that today we found 1,000 new Covid-19 cases. Keep in mind that the virus has a two- to 10-day incubation period. In the past week or so, each of those people was exposed to the virus. Then they got sick. Then they got sick enough to seek medical attention, which can take a few more days. Then they got a test. Then the test took a day or more to return positive results (some people are reporting longer waits than that for results, while some newly designed tests might be able to get results faster).
Each of those positive tests, then, reflects an infection up to two weeks ago. The situation has already worsened for the two weeks or so since those new cases were infected. For much of that time, those 1,000 people have been out and about in the world, potentially infecting others. In a population not taking strong social distancing measures, it is estimated that on average they will have infected two or three others. Some of those newly infected will themselves have started infecting others.
Italy took strong measures. Its mistake was not that it didn’t react at all — it’s that it kept being a little bit behind the ball. Each measure was appropriate to the situation the Italians observed. But the real situation was always much worse. So things kept worsening until they pulled out all the stops with a countrywide lockdown.
“It will always seem that the best way to address [the virus] would be to be doing something that looks like it might be an overreaction,” Fauci said. “It isn’t an overreaction. It’s a reaction we feel is commensurate [with what] is actually going on in reality.”
To avoid Italy’s trajectory, we have to respond with stronger measures than Italy. We have to respond in ways that feel like an overreaction. In the past few days, we’ve seen the first US steps that are stronger than Italy’s responses at a similar point in the outbreak — steps like the Bay Area’s shelter-in-place order, the follow-up extending it to all of California, New York’s similar order Friday, and state orders shutting down restaurants and bars. That’s what it will take to give ourselves a chance at a different curve.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-03-21--Intelligence reports warned about a pandemic in January. Trump reportedly ignored them.

US intelligence officials reportedly warned President Donald Trump and Congress about the threats posed by the novel coronavirus beginning in early January — weeks before the White House and lawmakers began implementing stringent public health measures and as the president minimized the threat posed by the virus in his tweets and public statements .
The fact those warnings were largely disregarded — something first reported by the Washington Post ’ s Shane Harris , Greg Miller , Josh Dawsey , and Ellen Nakashima — suggests Trump administration officials failed to take action that could have prepared the health care system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped Americans avoid mass social distancing , and saved lives .
Top health officials first learned of the virus ’ s spread in China on January 3 , US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said Friday .
Throughout January and February , intelligence officials ’ warnings became more and more urgent , according to the Post — and by early February , much of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA ’ s intelligence reports were dedicated to warnings about Covid-19 .
All the while , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public the coronavirus “ is very well under control in our country , ” and suggesting warm weather would neutralize the threat the virus poses .
Privately , Trump reportedly rebutted health and intelligence officials ’ attempts to get him to take action to prepare communities in the US while rebuking officials who were delivering sober risk assessments .
For instance , in late February , when Nancy Messonnier , director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question of if [ community spread ] will happen , but when this will happen , and how many people in this country will have severe illnesses , ” Trump reportedly responded by calling Azar to complain “ that Messonnier was scaring the stock markets , according to two senior administration officials , ” the Post reports .
In a statement , the administration rebutted the Post ’ s reporting , calling it part of a attempt by the media and Democrats “ to rewrite history ” and claiming “ President Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the health , wealth and safety of the American people.
” The administration did begin taking some limited action about a month after Azar says the administration first began receiving warnings , blocking non-citizens who had been to China in the last two weeks from entering the country on February 3 — a move public experts have argued at best bought the US time to ramp up its testing capabilities , which it did not use , and at worst had no beneficial effects at all .
Trump finally assembled a task force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Mike Pence in charge of the effort on February 26 , and declared a national emergency on March 13 .
And , just this week — nearly three months after first receiving warnings from his intelligence officials — the president ’ s public tone about the crisis shifted : “ I ’ ve always known this is a real — this is a pandemic , ” he said Tuesday as he admitted , “ [ the virus is ] not under control for any place in the world.
” Ignoring intelligence reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread testing Trump ’ s refusal to acknowledge the severity of the virus early on had real effects on how the virus spread throughout the US and how most Americans are experiencing the pandemic .
As the president and top White House officials dismissed the potential severity of the virus ’ s spread in the US , they failed to mobilize the national health system to prepare for widespread testing .
Now , the country is struggling to scale up testing and lags far behind other countries — even those like South Korea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time as the United States ’ .
As Vox ’ s German Lopez reported : All the while , most Americans continued about their daily lives , placing themselves at risk of infection .
And the president ’ s laissez-faire attitude has had lasting effects even as he has shifted his tone : as recently as this week , after the White House asked all Americans to practice strict social distancing for 15 days , spring breakers took to Florida beaches to party despite warnings .
The lack of testing availability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning to show symptoms are clamoring for limited testing to get lifesaving treatment , but also that failures in providing testing has meant the US must rely more heavily on social distancing than it might have otherwise , Yale University epidemiologist Nathan Grubaugh told Lopez .
“ Without surveillance , we don ’ t even know where to look [ for concentrations of infection ] , ” Grubaugh said .
“ We don ’ t even know where to employ self-isolation or social distancing .
So now we ’ re stuck in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everywhere , and so we have to apply these methods across the board.
” Experts warn that distancing measures will likely be necessary for months , even as the country ramps up to more aggressive testing .
And the need to rely on social distancing to reduce risk of infection has already caused stocks to plummet and started to have a massive effect on the US economy as the service , hospitality and , in many cases , manufacturing industries have ground to a halt .
That ’ s left hundreds of thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety net .
Trump is finally taking the virus more seriously , but it ’ s still unclear how widespread the effects of delays in action will be .

US intelligence officials reportedly warned President Donald Trump and Congress about the threats posed by the novel coronavirus beginning in early January — weeks before the White House and lawmakers began implementing stringent public health measures and as the president minimized the threat posed by the virus in his tweets and public statements.
The fact those warnings were largely disregarded — something first reported by the Washington Post’s Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, and Ellen Nakashima — suggests Trump administration officials failed to take action that could have prepared the health care system to handle an influx of patients, helped Americans avoid mass social distancing, and saved lives.
Top health officials first learned of the virus’s spread in China on January 3, US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said Friday. Throughout January and February, intelligence officials’ warnings became more and more urgent, according to the Post — and by early February, much of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA’s intelligence reports were dedicated to warnings about Covid-19.
All the while, Trump downplayed the virus publicly, telling the public the coronavirus “is very well under control in our country,” and suggesting warm weather would neutralize the threat the virus poses.
The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2020
Privately, Trump reportedly rebutted health and intelligence officials’ attempts to get him to take action to prepare communities in the US while rebuking officials who were delivering sober risk assessments.
For instance, in late February, when Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said, “It’s not a question of if [community spread] will happen, but when this will happen, and how many people in this country will have severe illnesses,” Trump reportedly responded by calling Azar to complain “that Messonnier was scaring the stock markets, according to two senior administration officials,” the Post reports.
In a statement, the administration rebutted the Post’s reporting, calling it part of a attempt by the media and Democrats “to rewrite history” and claiming “President Trump has taken historic, aggressive measures to protect the health, wealth and safety of the American people.”
The administration did begin taking some limited action about a month after Azar says the administration first began receiving warnings, blocking non-citizens who had been to China in the last two weeks from entering the country on February 3 — a move public experts have argued at best bought the US time to ramp up its testing capabilities, which it did not use, and at worst had no beneficial effects at all.
Trump finally assembled a task force to address the virus, putting Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the effort on February 26, and declared a national emergency on March 13. And, just this week — nearly three months after first receiving warnings from his intelligence officials — the president’s public tone about the crisis shifted: “I’ve always known this is a real — this is a pandemic,” he said Tuesday as he admitted, “[the virus is] not under control for any place in the world.”
Ignoring intelligence reports contributed to the country being underprepared for widespread testing
Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the severity of the virus early on had real effects on how the virus spread throughout the US and how most Americans are experiencing the pandemic.
As the president and top White House officials dismissed the potential severity of the virus’s spread in the US, they failed to mobilize the national health system to prepare for widespread testing. Now, the country is struggling to scale up testing and lags far behind other countries — even those like South Korea, whose first cases were discovered around the same time as the United States’. As Vox’s German Lopez reported:
First, the Trump administration refused to use the tests deployed by other countries and offered by the World Health Organization, seemingly out of concern that those tests weren’t accurate enough. Secondly, the homemade test the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention went with had technical problems, leading to further delays in getting widespread testing off the ground. Finally, a series of political, technical, and bureaucratic issues in recent weeks have further stalled testing, even as the Trump administration has promised “millions” of tests.
All the while, most Americans continued about their daily lives, placing themselves at risk of infection. And the president’s laissez-faire attitude has had lasting effects even as he has shifted his tone: as recently as this week, after the White House asked all Americans to practice strict social distancing for 15 days, spring breakers took to Florida beaches to party despite warnings.
The lack of testing availability not only means people across the country beginning to show symptoms are clamoring for limited testing to get lifesaving treatment, but also that failures in providing testing has meant the US must rely more heavily on social distancing than it might have otherwise, Yale University epidemiologist Nathan Grubaugh told Lopez.
“Without surveillance, we don’t even know where to look [for concentrations of infection],” Grubaugh said. “We don’t even know where to employ self-isolation or social distancing. So now we’re stuck in this situation where it’s pretty much everywhere, and so we have to apply these methods across the board.”
Experts warn that distancing measures will likely be necessary for months, even as the country ramps up to more aggressive testing. And the need to rely on social distancing to reduce risk of infection has already caused stocks to plummet and started to have a massive effect on the US economy as the service, hospitality and, in many cases, manufacturing industries have ground to a halt. That’s left hundreds of thousands of workers without a paycheck and little safety net. Trump is finally taking the virus more seriously, but it’s still unclear how widespread the effects of delays in action will be.


vox--2020-03-21--Legendary country star Kenny Rogers has died at 81

Legendary country star Kenny Rogers died on Friday night , CNN reports .
He was 81 years old .
In a statement posted to Rogers ’ s verified Twitter account , the Rogers family said , “ Rogers passed away peacefully at home from natural causes under the care of hospice and surrounded by his family.
” The news comes two years after Rogers announced that he would be ending his planned farewell tour early , in 2018 , due to “ a series of health challenges.
” Rogers ’ s career spanned more than six decades .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fame in 2013 , with the organization citing his “ distinctive , husky voice and laid-back sex appeal , ” which he parlayed “ into durable superstardom.
” He was a three-time Grammy winner , and he had 120 hit singles and sold over 100 million albums worldwide .
In 2018 , his 1978 smash hit “ The Gambler ” was added to the National Recording Registry at the Library of Congress , which archives songs that are “ culturally , historically , or aesthetically significant.
” Rogers was , in other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recording in the 1950s , first as a background member of various jazz and folk ensembles and then , in the 1960s , as a member of the folk-rock-country band First Edition .
The group briefly went pop after the success of its 1967 psychedelic rock song “ Just Dropped In ( to See What Condition My Condition Was In ) , ” but as Rogers became more of a leader within the band , he guided them back toward a country sound .
When the band split up in 1974 , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country artist .
Country-pop was having a moment in the late ’ 70s and early ’ 80s , and Rogers was in the right place at the right time .
In 1977 , he had his first solo hit , “ Lucille , ” which won a Grammy and made Billboard ’ s pop and country charts .
And over the next decade , Rogers would repeat that commercial success , releasing major country hits that also ruled the pop charts .
He collaborated with Lionel Ritchie for 1980 ’ s crossover hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parton for 1983 ’ s “ Islands in the Stream.
” When “ The Gambler ” became a hit in 1978 , he built the cred into a series of successful made-for-TV movies .
As Rogers ’ s star faded through the 1990s and into the 2000s , he pivoted his career to publish books of photography and books for children and to open a chain of restaurants .
He also continued to tour , and in 2015 , he announced his plans to retire after a long farewell tour .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoyed such a long career and to have such amazing support from my fans and all who have helped me along the way , but there comes a time when I need to focus on spending time with my family , ” Rogers said at the time .
“ My life is about my wife and my 11-year-old twin boys right now .
There are a lot of things I want to do together with them to create some special memories .
I don ’ t have a bucket list of my own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things I want to do with them.
” Dolly Parton posted a tearful video to social media on Saturday in tribute to Rogers .
“ I loved Kenny with all my heart , ” she said .
“ My heart ’ s broken , and a big old chunk of it has gone with him today .
And I think that I can speak for his family , for all his friends and fans , when I say that I will always love you.
” A statement from Rogers ’ s publicist says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 emergency , the family is planning a small private service .
They look forward to celebrating Rogers ’ s life publicly with his friends and fans at a later date .
Update : This article has been updated to include Dolly Parton ’ s tribute to Rogers .

Legendary country star Kenny Rogers died on Friday night, CNN reports. He was 81 years old.
In a statement posted to Rogers’s verified Twitter account, the Rogers family said, “Rogers passed away peacefully at home from natural causes under the care of hospice and surrounded by his family.” The news comes two years after Rogers announced that he would be ending his planned farewell tour early, in 2018, due to “a series of health challenges.”
Rogers’s career spanned more than six decades. He was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2013, with the organization citing his “distinctive, husky voice and laid-back sex appeal,” which he parlayed “into durable superstardom.” He was a three-time Grammy winner, and he had 120 hit singles and sold over 100 million albums worldwide. In 2018, his 1978 smash hit “The Gambler” was added to the National Recording Registry at the Library of Congress, which archives songs that are “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.” Rogers was, in other words, an American institution.
Rogers began recording in the 1950s, first as a background member of various jazz and folk ensembles and then, in the 1960s, as a member of the folk-rock-country band First Edition. The group briefly went pop after the success of its 1967 psychedelic rock song “Just Dropped In (to See What Condition My Condition Was In),” but as Rogers became more of a leader within the band, he guided them back toward a country sound. When the band split up in 1974, he embarked on a solo career as a country artist.
Country-pop was having a moment in the late ’70s and early ’80s, and Rogers was in the right place at the right time. In 1977, he had his first solo hit, “Lucille,” which won a Grammy and made Billboard’s pop and country charts. And over the next decade, Rogers would repeat that commercial success, releasing major country hits that also ruled the pop charts. He collaborated with Lionel Ritchie for 1980’s crossover hit “Lady,” and with Dolly Parton for 1983’s “Islands in the Stream.” When “The Gambler” became a hit in 1978, he built the cred into a series of successful made-for-TV movies.
As Rogers’s star faded through the 1990s and into the 2000s, he pivoted his career to publish books of photography and books for children and to open a chain of restaurants. He also continued to tour, and in 2015, he announced his plans to retire after a long farewell tour.
“I’ve been so lucky to have enjoyed such a long career and to have such amazing support from my fans and all who have helped me along the way, but there comes a time when I need to focus on spending time with my family,” Rogers said at the time. “My life is about my wife and my 11-year-old twin boys right now. There are a lot of things I want to do together with them to create some special memories. I don’t have a bucket list of my own … I have a bucket list of things I want to do with them.”
Dolly Parton posted a tearful video to social media on Saturday in tribute to Rogers. “I loved Kenny with all my heart,” she said. “My heart’s broken, and a big old chunk of it has gone with him today. And I think that I can speak for his family, for all his friends and fans, when I say that I will always love you.”
You never know how much you love somebody until they’re gone. I’ve had so many wonderful years and wonderful times with my friend Kenny, but above all the music and the success I loved him as a wonderful man and a true friend. pic.twitter.com/hIQLIvt8pr — Dolly Parton (@DollyParton) March 21, 2020
A statement from Rogers’s publicist says that out of concern regarding the national Covid-19 emergency, the family is planning a small private service. They look forward to celebrating Rogers’s life publicly with his friends and fans at a later date.
Update: This article has been updated to include Dolly Parton’s tribute to Rogers.