vox--2020-11-15--The entire country is failing students in the pandemic. Here’s how to fix it.

As America enters another phase of rapid growth in cases and hospitalizations in its Covid-19 epidemic , among the mounting losses is public education .
Schools around the nation are being forced to return to remote learning , or have never returned to an in-person model .
Without a national policy , states and even individual school districts have been left to navigate the high-stakes and difficult decision of whether to proceed with in-person , hybrid , or remote education alone .
Unfortunately , many of these decisions seem to be driven by partisanship , rather than solid public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pattern of public school reopenings falls along political lines .
The map of districts that are learning in-person and those that are in some form of hybrid or remote learning looks strikingly like an electoral map , with many politically “ red ” states largely allowing in-person classes , and many “ blue ” states doing hybrid or remote .
And neither side — red or blue — has gotten it right .
Understanding how we are currently failing helps to shed light on how an effective , national strategy to open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incoming Biden administration could spearhead , should look .
Blue states , which I define here as states that have voted Democratic in recent presidential elections , are certainly not a monolith , and there is variety among districts ’ approaches .
These , however , are more likely than red states to have remote or hybrid learning plans and are half as likely to have fully in-person learning , as a Brookings analysis found .
In California and Washington , for example , approximately half of students remain in fully remote learning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in a fully remote or a hybrid model , with 26 percent in full-time in-person learning .
Over the summer , when plans for reopening were being developed and put into place , many blue states enjoyed low rates of Covid-19 transmission , making opening schools there fairly low risk , per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance .
Nevertheless , many districts in states such as California and New York proceeded with all-remote or hybrid models in which millions of children were not receiving much , if any , in-person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and October , when daily case rates were rising slowly , but still under reasonable control , these states were slow to bring children back to school .
Now that case rates are rising more quickly in much of the country , these districts remain in remote and hybrid models , and have perhaps missed their window to reopen .
At the same time , data have been emerging about the harms of ongoing school closures .
Washington , DC ’ s public schools , which remain in a largely remote model despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until recently , report substantial reductions in kindergarten students meeting or exceeding benchmarks for reading .
And Chicago Public Schools , which also remain in a largely remote model , report a stunning 15,000-student decrease in enrollment this year .
Unforeseen extended school closures lead to lower test scores , lower educational attainment , and decreased earning potential .
These gaps are not impacting all groups equally .
The Center on Reinventing Public Education ( CRPE ) reports that districts with the highest rates of poverty are nearly twice as likely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lowest rates .
The higher a district ’ s share of white students , the more likely it is to offer in-person instruction — a pattern that generally holds across cities , towns , suburbs and rural areas .
A great racial and economic disparity is widening unnecessarily , one that will be sewn into the fabric of our society even beyond this generation if we do not rectify the problem now .
Blue states are trying to control their Covid-19 epidemics , which is absolutely appropriate in the middle of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of school closures .
We now have experience with school openings , both in the US and globally , and there is little data to support the idea that schools are a major site of transmission or a driver of community spread .
For example , New York City has had schools open in a hybrid model since early October and monitors Covid-19 in the district by testing a random sample of students and staff .
The most recent results , reported November 12 , demonstrate that of more than 123,585 total tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were positive ( 0.19 percent ) ; 95 students and 133 staff .
These results are still early in the year , and students are not back yet full-time , but with more than a month of data , and during a time when cases are rising in New York generally , Covid-19 is not tearing through New York City Public Schools .
Nationally , the most recent data on the Covid-19 School Response Dashboard shows similarly low rates among students ( 0.24 percent ) with low , but notably higher rates among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be clear , as rates rise in the community , rates are rising in schools .
Children , of course , can be infected with Covid-19 , and schools are not protected zones .
But because schools have not been identified as a location where many cases of Covid-19 are transmitted , it is reasonable to think that with proper mitigation and a careful approach , we could have schools open and see little impact on Covid-19 transmission .
In comparison , there is a great deal of evidence that indoor dining , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Covid-19 transmission .
In a CDC study that tested 314 individuals for Covid-19 , those who were infected were about twice as likely to report recently eating in a restaurant as those who tested negative .
And the Wellcome Trust , which has been tracking the site of reported Covid-19 outbreaks since the epidemic began , found many examples of clusters linked to a wide range of other indoor settings , including restaurants , bars , parties , and workplaces , but few reports came from schools .
But despite the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than their surrounding communities , and that gathering in settings like restaurants , bars , and gyms drives Covid-19 transmission , many of the states that vote blue are maintaining remote and hybrid educational models , while simultaneously trying to minimize restrictions on businesses .
In Boston , where case counts are rising , Mayor Marty Walsh announced in October that the city would move all public schools there to remote learning to , he says , protect the health of children and staff .
But restaurants have remained open in Boston , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places .
The governor of Massachusetts recently enacted a statewide curfew on bars and restaurants , but he did not close them .
Philadelphia announced recently that its schools will remain in a fully remote model for the indefinite future .
The Philadelphia situation is complex , because the city is now seeing out-of-control Covid-19 transmission , with case rates over 270 new cases per 100,000 people and a 12.5 percent test positivity rate as of November 13 , which puts it in the CDC ’ s “ highest risk ” category for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circulating in the community , it ’ s wise to close schools .
At the same time , the state of Pennsylvania remains in the “ green ” phase of reopening , meaning that there are minimal restrictions on businesses and meetings .
In effect , the only response to the alarming case rates has been to close the schools .
Schools do not operate in a bubble , of course .
If closing schools is the only intervention a jurisdiction takes to control its Covid-19 epidemic , incidence will continue to rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , quickly closing schools — where we have not seen a lot of transmission — while leaving higher-risk establishments open — where there is a lot of transmission — does not make sense .
When faced with overwhelming case surge and crushing hospital demand , school closure could be necessary to prevent further Covid-19 surge , but only as one component of a larger plan to reduce mobility and control transmission .
Further , when school closures are necessary , if those closures are not coupled with restrictions designed to more generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then Covid-19 cases will continue to rise and it will become still more difficult to open schools .
Right now , in many blue states , schools are the first thing to close , while governors try desperately not to impact businesses .
Such a policy is sacrificing our children in favor of working out , going out to dinner , and meeting friends for drinks .
Blue states have it wrong .
Red states ’ schools are open , often when they should not be If the blue states are for holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening their schools and increasing the odds of exposing children and staff to Covid-19 in the midst of raging outbreaks .
Many states that have voted Republican in recent presidential elections had more districts that returned to fully in-person learning this fall , even as their states were recording new highs in Covid-19 infections .
One district just outside of Salt Lake City , Utah , reopened for in-person learning at the same time that they saw case counts rising dramatically in their community .
Approximately one month later , they reported one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date .
Many schools in Indiana opened for full in-person instruction in August , as the state was experiencing nearly 1,000 new Covid-19 diagnoses per day .
Several schools quickly closed again when Covid-19 cases presented in school there .
By late October , Indiana had reported a cumulative prevalence of more than 5,000 cases of Covid-19 in its schools .
In Idaho , where the largest districts have been either in-person or hybrid since September and community transmission is among the top 10 highest per capita in the country , schools saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reported over 4,000 cases by mid-October .
Districts that have seen more Covid-19 in their schools have two things in common : 1 ) They opened when case rates in the community were very high , clearly higher than public health guidance recommends for safe reopening .
For example , when Utah opened schools , the 14-day moving average of Covid-19 case rate in the community was 187 per 100,000 people , far above CDC ’ s threshold for “ lower risk ” reopening , which is 50 per 100,000 people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask mandates , or masks were not routinely in use .
Conservatives argue that we can not continue to hide from Covid-19 and that we must return to our normal activities , like school and work , if our country is to thrive .
The paradox is excruciating to public health professionals , because we all agree : We do need to live and work in this pandemic and we do need to have our children in school .
But creating a false choice between reopening our economy and controlling the Covid-19 epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both more Covid-19 cases and worse economic performance .
Behind the drive to return to life as it was before the pandemic is a very real concern for the economy .
One estimate of the economic damage caused by Covid-19 is $ 16 trillion , an unfathomably large number .
But the economy can not truly return until we have Covid-19 under better control .
If the disease is still surging in our communities , students are exposed and need to quarantine for 14 days — and in many cases , their parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people might suggest that we simply stop the quarantining , continue to work , and abandon all efforts to control transmission in favor of economic stability .
But we have seen what happens when Covid-19 spreads without mitigation ; it overwhelms hospitals and threatens to collapse the health care system .
Further , the harms of out-of-control Covid-19 transmission are distributed unevenly in our society .
The same way that closing schools tends to harm children of color and vulnerable populations , raging Covid-19 transmission tends to impact people of color and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.5 to 3 times more likely to contract Covid-19 than white Americans , and 4 to 5 times more likely to be hospitalized .
These disparities reflect the fact that Black and Latinx people are less likely to be working at home and more likely to live in close settings , outcomes of structural racism .
The way to safely and more equitably reopen our schools and our economy is first to control Covid-19 in our communities , so that it is safe to open schools , and then to consolidate those gains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on social gathering .
Blindly opening schools as one plank in a platform of Covid-19 denialism is exploiting our children for political gain and is unacceptable .
What a smart plan to open schools in America would look like Our current political leaders are failing to provide a clear , national plan for reopening America ’ s schools .
The incoming Biden-Harris administration has announced that it will provide new funds and guidance , but details have not yet emerged .
Below are four essential elements for such a plan .
1 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open ( and close ) schools Such guidance includes two components .
One is reasonable , evidence-based thresholds for opening and closing our schools .
The CDC has such guidance , but it is not clear how the thresholds were chosen .
Further , the guidance has no bite .
At no time has the CDC said that districts may not open above a given threshold .
They simply “ advise caution ” or “ reconsideration ” of current policy .
We need strong federal action to prevent schools from opening when Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We also need clear and effective guidance for when schools should be open .
Second is making new strategy that envisions schools as one part of a larger public health policy .
No district should employ school closures as the first intervention when Covid-19 cases rise .
In a Covid-19 crisis , it may be necessary to close schools , but if so , then the school closures must be one component of a larger strategy that seeks to generally reduce mobility and social interaction , including restrictions on activities such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other places that we know Covid-19 is being transmitted .
While 6 feet has become the default stance on appropriate distancing from others in most of the US , 6-foot distance requirements greatly limit the ability of public schools to bring all students back full-time .
The reality is , in many public school districts , if we insist on all students being 6 feet apart at all times , many districts simply will not have the space ( and thus not really be able to bring all kids back to school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely distributed vaccine ) .
That means that there is a very realistic scenario in which even in 2021 schools will need to use a hybrid instructional model .
Globally , the WHO identifies 1 meter ( about 3.3 feet ) as a minimum for distance from others .
We need data-driven guidance for situations in which it is acceptable to distance less than 6 feet in educational settings .
Fortunately , data does exist to help us gauge the risk of Covid-19 transmission with contact of various distances .
Perhaps , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all students reliably in masks , a 4-foot distance might be acceptable .
Covid-19 is always a question of risk and benefit .
The benefit of being back in school full-time is clear .
What are the real risks of occasionally being 4 to 5 feet apart during the school day if everyone is wearing masks ?
3 ) Strong mask mandates at the federal , state , district , and school levels Every message from every person of authority needs to reiterate the civic duty to wear a mask in public .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to districts .
This needs to change .
People do not have a right to walk down the street naked , and almost every school district has a definition of clothing that is not appropriate to wear in school .
Likewise , people do not have a right to have a naked face in school during this viral pandemic , and not wearing a mask is at least as inappropriate as wearing short shorts .
It ’ s critical that whenever any child develops symptoms consistent with Covid-19 , it is fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing .
It is not possible for parents to keep their child out of school for many days every time that child develops a new runny nose , or winter cough .
Symptomatic testing is important to make it possible to stay in school .
The role for asymptomatic screening is more complex .
Routinely screening all members of the community holds promise as a strategy to identify and quarantine asymptomatic cases that may otherwise come to school .
But we do not currently have the infrastructure or resources to make this happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real pillars of safe school operation are community control , masks , and distancing .
We can not make asymptomatic screening a prerequisite to opening schools , because if we do , we will not be able to reopen .
This is what a plan to reopen looks like , but implementing it requires courageous leadership at the federal and state levels .
With this plan in place , however , America can open its schools , keep students and teachers healthy , and contribute to a larger public health strategy to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an associate professor of epidemiology and an infectious disease physician at Boston University School of Medicine .
Find him on Twitter @ BenjaminLinas .

As America enters another phase of rapid growth in cases and hospitalizations in its Covid-19 epidemic, among the mounting losses is public education. Schools around the nation are being forced to return to remote learning, or have never returned to an in-person model. Without a national policy, states and even individual school districts have been left to navigate the high-stakes and difficult decision of whether to proceed with in-person, hybrid, or remote education alone.
Unfortunately, many of these decisions seem to be driven by partisanship, rather than solid public health guidance and robust evidence. Much of the pattern of public school reopenings falls along political lines. The map of districts that are learning in-person and those that are in some form of hybrid or remote learning looks strikingly like an electoral map, with many politically “red” states largely allowing in-person classes, and many “blue” states doing hybrid or remote. And neither side — red or blue — has gotten it right.
Understanding how we are currently failing helps to shed light on how an effective, national strategy to open America’s schools, which the incoming Biden administration could spearhead, should look.
Blue states’ policies ultimately hurt children and families without controlling Covid-19
Blue states, which I define here as states that have voted Democratic in recent presidential elections, are certainly not a monolith, and there is variety among districts’ approaches. These, however, are more likely than red states to have remote or hybrid learning plans and are less likely to have fully in-person learning, as a Brookings analysis found.
In California and Washington, for example, approximately half of students remain in fully remote learning. In New York, about 74 percent are currently in a fully remote or a hybrid model, with about 26 percent in full-time in-person learning.
Over the summer, when plans for reopening were being developed and put into place, many blue states enjoyed low rates of Covid-19 transmission, making opening schools there fairly low risk, per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance. Nevertheless, many districts in states such as California and New York proceeded with all-remote or hybrid models in which millions of children were not receiving much, if any, in-person instruction with professional educators.
In September and October, when daily case rates were rising slowly, but still under reasonable control, these states were slow to bring children back to school. Now that case rates are rising more quickly in much of the country, these districts remain in remote and hybrid models, and have perhaps missed their window to reopen.
At the same time, data has been emerging about the harms of ongoing school closures. Washington, DC’s public schools, which remain in a largely remote model despite having low local new case rates until recently, report substantial reductions in kindergarten students meeting or exceeding benchmarks for reading. And Chicago Public Schools, which also remain in a largely remote model, report a stunning 15,000-student decrease in enrollment this year. Unforeseen extended school closures lead to lower test scores, lower educational attainment, and decreased earning potential.
These gaps are not impacting all groups equally. The Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) reports that districts with the highest rates of poverty are nearly twice as likely to be operating with remote learning as districts with the lowest rates. The higher a district’s share of white students, the more likely it is to offer in-person instruction — a pattern that generally holds across cities, towns, suburbs, and rural areas. A great racial and economic disparity is widening unnecessarily, one that will be sewn into the fabric of our society even beyond this generation if we do not rectify the problem now.
Blue states are trying to control their Covid-19 epidemics, which is absolutely appropriate in the middle of a pandemic, but they misunderstand the utility of school closures. We now have experience with school openings, both in the US and globally, and there is little data to support the idea that schools are a major site of transmission or a driver of community spread.
For example, New York City has had schools open in a hybrid model since early October and monitors Covid-19 in the district by testing a random sample of students and staff. As of November 12, results show that of more than 123,585 total tests conducted since October 9, only 228 were positive (0.19 percent) — 95 students and 133 staff. These results are still early in the year, and students are not back yet full-time, but with more than a month of data, and during a time when cases are rising in New York generally, Covid-19 is not tearing through New York City public schools.
Nationally, the most recent data on the Covid-19 School Response Dashboard shows Covid-19 case rates among students and staff that are generally the same or lower than rates in the surrounding community. Nationally, there is no evidence that schools are hot zones of transmission.
To be clear, as rates rise in the community, rates are rising in schools. Children, of course, can be infected with Covid-19, and schools are not protected zones. But because schools have not been identified as a location where many cases of Covid-19 are transmitted, it is reasonable to think that with proper mitigation and a careful approach, we could have schools open and see little impact on Covid-19 transmission.
In comparison, there is a great deal of evidence that indoor dining, bars, and gyms are common sites of Covid-19 transmission. In a CDC study that tested 314 individuals for Covid-19, those who were infected were about twice as likely to report recently eating in a restaurant as those who tested negative. And the Wellcome Trust, which has been tracking the sites of reported Covid-19 outbreaks since the epidemic began, found many examples of clusters linked to a wide range of other indoor settings, including restaurants, bars, parties, and workplaces, with few reports coming from schools.
Despite the evidence that schools often have lower Covid-19 rates than their surrounding communities and that gathering in settings like restaurants, bars, and gyms drives Covid-19 transmission, many of the states that vote blue are maintaining remote and hybrid educational models while simultaneously trying to minimize restrictions on businesses.
Related Hybrid school might be the worst of both worlds
In Boston, where case counts are rising, Mayor Marty Walsh announced in October that the city would move all public schools there to remote learning to, he says, protect the health of children and staff.
But restaurants have remained open in Boston, as have gyms and other public meeting places. The governor of Massachusetts recently enacted a statewide curfew on bars and restaurants, but he did not close them.
Philadelphia announced recently that its schools will remain in a fully remote model for the indefinite future. The Philadelphia situation is complex, because the city is now seeing out-of-control Covid-19 transmission, with case rates over 270 new cases per 100,000 people and a 12.5 percent test positivity rate as of November 13, which puts it in the CDC’s “highest risk” category for school opening. With this much coronavirus circulating in the community, it’s wise to close schools.
At the same time, the state of Pennsylvania remains in the “green” phase of reopening, meaning that there are minimal restrictions on businesses and meetings. In effect, the only response to the alarming case rates has been to close the schools.
Schools do not operate in a bubble, of course. If closing schools is the only intervention a jurisdiction takes to control its Covid-19 epidemic, incidence will continue to rise and schools will remain shuttered indefinitely.
Quickly closing schools — where we have not seen a lot of transmission — while leaving higher-risk establishments open — where there is a lot of transmission — does not make sense. When faced with overwhelming case surge and crushing hospital demand, school closure could be necessary to prevent further Covid-19 surge, but only as one component of a larger plan to reduce mobility and control transmission.
Further, when school closures are necessary, if those closures are not coupled with restrictions designed to more generally reduce social mobility and prevent transmission, then Covid-19 cases will continue to rise and it will become still more difficult to open schools. Right now, in many blue states, schools are the first thing to close, while governors try desperately not to impact businesses. Such a policy is sacrificing our children in favor of working out, going out to dinner, and meeting friends for drinks. Blue states have it wrong.
Red states’ schools are open, often when they should not be
If the blue states are for holding back, many red states are recklessly opening their schools and increasing the odds of exposing children and staff to Covid-19 in the midst of raging outbreaks.
Many states that have voted Republican in recent presidential elections had more districts that returned to fully in-person learning this fall, even as their states were recording new highs in Covid-19 infections.
One district just outside of Salt Lake City, Utah, reopened for in-person learning at the same time that it saw case counts rising dramatically in their community. Approximately one month later, it reported one of the largest known school-based outbreaks to date. Many schools in Indiana opened for full in-person instruction in August, as the state was experiencing nearly 1,000 new Covid-19 diagnoses per day. Several schools quickly closed again when Covid-19 cases presented in schools there.
By late October, Indiana had reported a cumulative prevalence of more than 5,000 cases of Covid-19 in its schools. In Idaho, where the largest districts have been either in-person or hybrid since September and community transmission is among the top 10 highest per capita in the country, schools saw their cases double in the first month and reported over 4,000 cases by mid-October.
Districts that have seen more Covid-19 in their schools have two things in common:
1) They opened when case rates in the community were very high, clearly higher than public health guidance recommends for safe reopening. For example, when Utah opened schools, the 14-day moving average of Covid-19 case rate in the community was 187 per 100,000 people, far above the CDC’s threshold for “lower risk” reopening, which is 50 per 100,000 people.
2) They did not have statewide mask mandates, or masks were not routinely in use.
Conservatives argue that we cannot continue to hide from Covid-19 and that we must return to our normal activities, like school and work, if our country is to thrive. The paradox is excruciating to public health professionals, because we all agree: We do need to live and work in this pandemic and we do need to have our children in school.
But creating a false choice between reopening our economy and controlling the Covid-19 epidemic is counterproductive and will ultimately result in more Covid-19 cases and worse economic performance.
Behind the drive to return to life as it was before the pandemic is a very real concern for the economy. One estimate of the economic damage caused by Covid-19 is $16 trillion, an unfathomably large number.
The economy cannot truly return until we have Covid-19 under better control. If the disease is still surging in our communities, students are exposed and need to quarantine for 14 days — and in many cases, their parents cannot go to work. Some people might suggest that we simply stop the quarantining, continue to work, and abandon all efforts to control transmission in favor of economic stability. But we have seen what happens when Covid-19 spreads without mitigation; it overwhelms hospitals and threatens to collapse the health care system.
Further, the harms of out-of-control Covid-19 transmission are distributed unevenly in our society. The same way that closing schools tends to harm children of color and vulnerable populations, raging Covid-19 transmission tends to impact people of color and the under-served. Black and Latinx people are two and a half to three times more likely to contract Covid-19 than white Americans, and four to five times more likely to require hospitalization. These disparities reflect the fact that Black and Latinx people are less likely to be working at home and more likely to live in close quarters, outcomes of structural racism.
The way to safely and more equitably reopen our schools and our economy is first to control Covid-19 in our communities so that it is safe to open schools, and then to consolidate those gains with strict mask mandates and reasonable restriction on social gathering. Blindly opening schools as one plank in a platform of Covid-19 denialism is exploiting our children for political gain and is unacceptable.
What a smart plan to open schools in America would look like
Our current political leaders are failing to provide a clear, national plan for reopening America’s schools. The incoming Biden-Harris administration has announced that it will provide new funds and guidance, but details have not yet emerged. Below are four essential elements for such a plan.
1) Clear guidance for when and how to open (and close) schools
Such guidance includes two components. One is reasonable, evidence-based thresholds for opening and closing our schools. The CDC has such guidance, but it is not clear how the thresholds were chosen. Further, the guidance has no bite.
At no time has the CDC said that districts may not open above a given threshold. They simply “advise caution” or “reconsideration” of current policy. We need strong federal action to prevent schools from opening when Covid-19 is not yet controlled in their communities. We also need clear and effective guidance for when schools should be open.
Second is making new strategy that envisions schools as one part of a larger public health policy. No district should employ school closures as the first intervention when Covid-19 cases rise. In a Covid-19 crisis, it may be necessary to close schools, but if so, then the school closures must be one component of a larger strategy that seeks to generally reduce mobility and social interaction, including restrictions on activities such as indoor dining, bars, gyms, and other places that we know Covid-19 is being transmitted.
2) Clear guidance for distancing in schools
While 6 feet has become the default stance on appropriate distancing from others in most of the US, 6-foot distance requirements greatly limit the ability of public schools to bring all students back full-time. The reality is, in many public school districts, if we insist on all students being 6 feet apart at all times, many districts simply will not have the space (and thus not really be able to bring all kids back to school full-time until there is an effective, widely distributed vaccine). That means that there is a very realistic scenario in which even in 2021 schools will need to use a hybrid instructional model.
Globally, the WHO identifies 1 meter (about 3.3 feet) as a minimum for distance from others. We need data-driven guidance for situations in which it is acceptable to distance less than 6 feet in educational settings.
Fortunately, data does exist to help us gauge the risk of Covid-19 transmission with contact of various distances. Perhaps, with quiet activity and good air flow and all students reliably in masks, a 4-foot distance might be acceptable. Covid-19 is always a question of risk and benefit. The benefit of being back in school full-time is clear. What are the real risks of occasionally being 4 to 5 feet apart during the school day if everyone is wearing masks?
3) Strong mask mandates at the federal, state, district, and school levels
Every message from every person of authority needs to reiterate the civic duty to wear a mask in public. Currently, many states leave masking mandates up to districts. This needs to change. People do not have a right to walk down the street naked, and almost every school district has a definition of clothing that is not appropriate to wear in school. Likewise, people do not have a right to have a naked face in school during this viral pandemic, and not wearing a mask is at least as inappropriate as wearing short shorts.
4) Robust testing and contact tracing
It’s critical that whenever any child develops symptoms consistent with Covid-19, it is fast, easy, and free to obtain testing. It is not possible for parents to keep their child out of school for many days every time that child develops a new runny nose, or winter cough. Symptomatic testing is important to make it possible to stay in school.
The role for asymptomatic screening is more complex. Routinely screening all members of the community holds promise as a strategy to identify and quarantine asymptomatic cases that may otherwise come to school. But we do not currently have the infrastructure or resources to make this happen. And in any case, the real pillars of safe school operation are community control, masks, and distancing. We cannot make asymptomatic screening a prerequisite to opening schools, because if we do, we will not be able to reopen.
This is what a plan to reopen looks like, but implementing it requires courageous leadership at the federal and state levels. With this plan in place, however, America can open its schools, keep students and teachers healthy, and contribute to a larger public health strategy to end the Covid-19 epidemic.
Benjamin P. Linas is an associate professor of epidemiology and an infectious disease physician at Boston University School of Medicine. Find him on Twitter @BenjaminLinas.


vox--2020-11-16--Covid-19 vaccines: News and updates

Covid-19 vaccines: News and updates

Drug companies around the world are working to develop a vaccine for Covid-19 .
In mid-November , both Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna , report that — based on early data — they have vaccines that are about 90 percent and 94 percent effective against Covid-19 , respectively .
Even with this news , Vox ’ s Umair Irfan reports , many key steps remain before a vaccine is rolled out .
First , the trials must be completed , the vaccines must be proven safe , and they need to get approved .
Once that happens , a global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hold the vaccine to the syringes used to inject them , needs to spool up to make huge quantities of the vaccines .
Manufacturers will also have to ensure that vaccines remain intact and under strict temperature controls from the factory to the hospitals and clinics where they will be used .
The process of manufacturing , distributing , and administering a vaccine could take months .
And vaccine research doesn ’ t end once a vaccine gets approved .
Researchers and companies will still have to track complications across millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity wanes .
It ’ s also important to remember that a vaccine is not enough on its own to end the pandemic .
Measures like social distancing , good hygiene , and wearing face masks will remain essential to control the spread of Covid-19 until a vaccine is widely available .
Public acceptance will also be a major issue , and health officials will have to overcome a wave of vaccine hesitancy .

Drug companies around the world are working to develop a vaccine for Covid-19. In mid-November, both Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna, report that — based on early data — they have vaccines that are about 90 percent and 94 percent effective against Covid-19, respectively.
Even with this news, Vox’s Umair Irfan reports, many key steps remain before a vaccine is rolled out. First, the trials must be completed, the vaccines must be proven safe, and they need to get approved. Once that happens, a global supply chain, from the glass vials that hold the vaccine to the syringes used to inject them, needs to spool up to make huge quantities of the vaccines.
Manufacturers will also have to ensure that vaccines remain intact and under strict temperature controls from the factory to the hospitals and clinics where they will be used. The process of manufacturing, distributing, and administering a vaccine could take months.
And vaccine research doesn’t end once a vaccine gets approved. Researchers and companies will still have to track complications across millions of people and pay attention to how quickly immunity wanes.
It’s also important to remember that a vaccine is not enough on its own to end the pandemic. Measures like social distancing, good hygiene, and wearing face masks will remain essential to control the spread of Covid-19 until a vaccine is widely available. Public acceptance will also be a major issue, and health officials will have to overcome a wave of vaccine hesitancy.
(Photo credit: AFP/Getty Images)


vox--2020-11-16--The future of commercial space travel is almost here with the latest SpaceX launch

Elon Musk ’ s SpaceX just launched the first operational crewed flight into orbital space , following up on its successful test flight several months ago and bringing us one step closer to private commercial space travel .
SpaceX ’ s Crew Dragon Crew-1 capsule , seated on top of the company ’ s Falcon 9 rocket , took off on Sunday night with four astronauts on board — three from NASA and one from Japan ’ s JAXA — for a return flight to the International Space Station ( ISS ) .
The launch follows its crewed test flight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successfully launched , docked at ISS for two months , then safely returned to Earth with its crew .
Sunday ’ s flight was the first operational one — that is , the first flight since NASA certified the capsule for spaceflight , following its successful crewed test — in SpaceX ’ s contract with NASA to send astronauts to and from ISS , which both the company and the government agency hope will be a lasting and mutually beneficial relationship .
But it ’ s also a relationship born out of necessity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Space Shuttle program in 2011 , and has had to rely on Russian rockets to travel to the ISS ever since .
Rather than building its own spacecraft , NASA decided to invest billions in private companies like SpaceX to develop vehicles that would escort its supplies and crews instead .
Using $ 100 million of his PayPal payout , Musk founded SpaceX in 2002 , predating his Tesla car company by more than a year .
As the story goes , Musk wanted to put plants on Mars , but it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so .
So he started his own company , SpaceX , to see if he couldn ’ t get those costs down .
In early years , the venture seemed destined for failure : Between 2006 and 2008 , the first three launches of its Falcon 1 rocket failed .
But the fourth rocket succeeded later in 2008 , and the fifth carried a satellite into orbit in 2009 .
After this , and with some funding from NASA , SpaceX accelerated development of the Falcon 9 rocket , which first took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powered by nine Merlin engines has now launched nearly 100 times , carrying satellites into orbit and supplies to ISS ; now , it ’ s brought people to ISS as well .
It ’ s failed just twice : once in flight in 2015 and once on the launch pad in 2016 .
It ’ s also the first and only orbital rocket that ’ s partially reusable — the booster section lands itself back on Earth after launch — which significantly cuts down on operating costs .
There ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicle that looks like a Falcon 9 rocket with two Falcon 9 boosters strapped to the sides .
On its 2018 maiden voyage , it sent a Tesla into space , complete with a dummy driver clad in a spacesuit .
It ’ s still up there somewhere .
On the second Falcon Heavy launch , all three rockets returned safely to Earth .
After the third and most recent launch , the Falcon Heavy earned certification from the National Security Space Launch ( NSSL ) program , which is part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became the first private company to send a crew into orbital space with the Crew Dragon Demo-2 test flight , which was operated by NASA astronauts Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley .
With the successful test flight under its belt , SpaceX and NASA had the green light to begin operational flights to and from ISS .
The first of those was Sunday ’ s launch , with a crew of NASA astronauts Victor Glover , Michael S. Hopkins , and Shannon Walker , and JAXA ’ s Soichi Noguchi .
SpaceX astronauts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been escorted to their launches in Tesla cars , both giving Musk ’ s electric car company some nice cross-promotion and demonstrating just how commercial our new era of space travel has become .
Impressive as the success of SpaceX has been , Elon Musk still has his sights set on greater things .
The company ’ s most ambitious project yet , the SpaceX Starship , is underway .
Intended to be a fully reusable , stainless steel , heavy-lift launch vehicle that would tower over the iconic Saturn V rocket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Starship is supposed to go to the moon , Mars , “ and beyond.
” In fact , NASA has already included the Starship on its list of commercial launch systems for the Artemis missions , which are scheduled to land a man and a woman on the moon by 2024 .
The successful crewed flights set up SpaceX for an even brighter future .
The company has become NASA ’ s preferred launch partner and now handles about two-thirds of the agency ’ s launches under government contracts worth billions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ option that will carry smaller payloads to orbit for as little as $ 1 million .
The company also just raised more than $ 1.9 billion in fresh funding to keep developing its Crew Dragon capsule , Starship program , and Starlink satellite business .
A second operational crewed flight to ISS is already planned for spring 2021 .
SpaceX also hopes to sell seats to ( presumably wealthy ) space tourists someday .
SpaceX , now valued at about $ 46 billion , rose to prominence after NASA fell from grace .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on private companies to send its astronauts into space after NASA ended the Space Shuttle program in 2011 .
At that time , NASA shifted its attention to Mars and Earth science and away from space shuttles and a return trip to the moon .
Under President Trump , however , NASA has turned back again to putting astronauts back on the moon with the launch of its Artemis program in 2017 .
The incoming Biden administration may change things up once again .
Suffice it to say , there ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the years since the Space Shuttle program ended , American astronauts have had to hitch rides on Russian rockets to get to and from the ISS at a cost of $ 86 million each and an unquantifiable amount of national pride .
( SpaceX , by contrast , is estimated to charge $ 55 million per astronaut for these round-trip flights . )
This arrangement with Russia is not supposed to last forever .
Over the past decade , NASA ’ s Commercial Crew Program has awarded billions to a handful of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to carry NASA astronauts to and from the ISS .
Rather than use private companies as contractors that fulfill government orders , as it did in the past , NASA gave private companies funding to develop their own commercial efforts , which NASA could then use for its own ends .
That means space exploration is now a business , and many of its biggest innovations are coming from the private sector , which is partially subsidized by public money .
Through these arrangements , Boeing has developed its Starliner capsule , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been beset with difficulties , and SpaceX built the Crew Dragon capsule .
And NASA is just fine with this , as the new partnerships shifts some of the cost of developing and constructing spacecraft onto private industry .
And it ’ s not just companies that make spaceships ; NASA recently awarded Nokia the right to build a 4G mobile network on the moon as part of its effort to establish a more permanent presence there .
We need to talk about Elon No discussion of SpaceX would be complete with some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Musk himself has made sure of that .
His biographer Ashlee Vance interviewed Musk for Bloomberg as the Demo-2 launch approached .
Vance highlighted how Musk has recently made himself a lightning rod of criticism for suggesting that Covid-19 is fake and generally being awful on Twitter .
Vance added that Musk ’ s “ business tactics and behavior can oscillate between infuriating and appalling.
” Indeed .
Musk ’ s Twitter account has 40 million followers , and the tone of his tweets tends to alternate between that of a self-promotional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s tweets alone have gotten him sued by a cave diver and the Securities and Exchange Commission .
( He won the first case and settled the second , with an agreement that personally cost him $ 20 million and his chairmanship of Tesla ’ s board . )
Just this year , Musk has vowed in a tweet to sell his possessions , after which he tweeted , “ My gf … is mad at me.
” He also said the price of his own company ’ s stock was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child X Æ A-Xii , repeatedly downplayed the coronavirus pandemic , and forced his Tesla employees to work through it — even defying government orders to reopen a factory early .
SpaceX , which is considered critical infrastructure , never stopped .
When Musk did seem to take the pandemic seriously , it was to offer his companies ’ assistance in manufacturing ventilators .
But that help never really came — although in fairness , neither did the feared nationwide ventilator shortage that prompted those tweets .
Musk ’ s May tweet urging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” a term that has well-known far-right and men ’ s rights activist connections , got a response from Ivanka Trump , who simply said , “ Taken !
” Most recently , Musk appears to have contracted the coronavirus himself , tweeting that he “ most likely ” had the virus .
He complained of “ symptoms of a minor cold , ” which were apparently treated with DayQuil .
But after taking four rapid Covid antigen tests , two of which were positive and two of which were negative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going on.
” He was forced to miss Sunday ’ s launch and a Twitter user dubbed him “ Space Karen ” for his multiple complaints about the accuracy of coronavirus tests .
“ # SpaceKaren ” and “ Space Karen ” trended on the platform afterward .
( “ Karen ” has become a term for entitled white people who become outraged when they don ’ t get their way in various aspects of life . )
Yet while Musk ’ s bizarre , attention-seeking behavior may be a turnoff for many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are cool enough to investors that SpaceX and Tesla seem to be succeeding in spite of Musk ’ s increasingly controversial public image .
The US government , however , is not a business , and it has not taken well to Musk ’ s antics .
Along with the SEC ’ s $ 20 million fine , NASA investigated and scolded him after he smoked pot while appearing on a podcast in 2018 .
Still , SpaceX is undeniably an accomplishment , and its successful crewed launches will be an essential step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moon or Mars or wherever he ultimately decides to go .
At this point , it ’ s hard to imagine the future of space travel without SpaceX and without Musk .

Elon Musk’s SpaceX just launched the first operational crewed flight into orbital space, following up on its successful test flight several months ago and bringing us one step closer to private commercial space travel.
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Crew-1 capsule, seated on top of the company’s Falcon 9 rocket, took off on Sunday night with four astronauts on board — three from NASA and one from Japan’s JAXA — for a return flight to the International Space Station (ISS). The launch follows its crewed test flight last May, for which two astronauts successfully launched, docked at ISS for two months, then safely returned to Earth with its crew.
Sunday’s flight was the first operational one — that is, the first flight since NASA certified the capsule for spaceflight, following its successful crewed test — in SpaceX’s contract with NASA to send astronauts to and from ISS, which both the company and the government agency hope will be a lasting and mutually beneficial relationship.
Falcon 9 launches Crew Dragon on its first operational flight with astronauts on board, beginning regular crew flights to the @space_station from the U.S. pic.twitter.com/C8oBqMcAuj — SpaceX (@SpaceX) November 16, 2020
"It is not over. This was a beautiful launch... but remember, this is a six-month mission, and it's the first of many."
Administrator @JimBridenstine looking toward the future of the Crew-1 mission and the @Commercial_Crew program. #LaunchAmerica pic.twitter.com/7cKcu5mM1J — NASA (@NASA) November 16, 2020
But it’s also a relationship born out of necessity. The United States retired its own Space Shuttle program in 2011, and has had to rely on Russian rockets to travel to the ISS ever since. Rather than building its own spacecraft, NASA decided to invest billions in private companies like SpaceX to develop vehicles that would escort its supplies and crews instead.
SpaceX’s rise
Using $100 million of his PayPal payout, Musk founded SpaceX in 2002, predating his Tesla car company by more than a year. As the story goes, Musk wanted to put plants on Mars, but it was too expensive to acquire the rockets to do so. So he started his own company, SpaceX, to see if he couldn’t get those costs down. In early years, the venture seemed destined for failure: Between 2006 and 2008, the first three launches of its Falcon 1 rocket failed. But the fourth rocket succeeded later in 2008, and the fifth carried a satellite into orbit in 2009.
After this, and with some funding from NASA, SpaceX accelerated development of the Falcon 9 rocket, which first took flight in 2010. This two-stage rocket powered by nine Merlin engines has now launched nearly 100 times, carrying satellites into orbit and supplies to ISS; now, it’s brought people to ISS as well. It’s failed just twice: once in flight in 2015 and once on the launch pad in 2016. It’s also the first and only orbital rocket that’s partially reusable — the booster section lands itself back on Earth after launch — which significantly cuts down on operating costs.
There’s also the Falcon Heavy, a heavy-lift launch vehicle that looks like a Falcon 9 rocket with two Falcon 9 boosters strapped to the sides. On its 2018 maiden voyage, it sent a Tesla into space, complete with a dummy driver clad in a spacesuit. It’s still up there somewhere. On the second Falcon Heavy launch, all three rockets returned safely to Earth. After the third and most recent launch, the Falcon Heavy earned certification from the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, which is part of the United States Space Force.
SpaceX then became the first private company to send a crew into orbital space with the Crew Dragon Demo-2 test flight, which was operated by NASA astronauts Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley.
With the successful test flight under its belt, SpaceX and NASA had the green light to begin operational flights to and from ISS. The first of those was Sunday’s launch, with a crew of NASA astronauts Victor Glover, Michael S. Hopkins, and Shannon Walker, and JAXA’s Soichi Noguchi. SpaceX astronauts in both the test and operational missions have been escorted to their launches in Tesla cars, both giving Musk’s electric car company some nice cross-promotion and demonstrating just how commercial our new era of space travel has become.
Impressive as the success of SpaceX has been, Elon Musk still has his sights set on greater things. The company’s most ambitious project yet, the SpaceX Starship, is underway. Intended to be a fully reusable, stainless steel, heavy-lift launch vehicle that would tower over the iconic Saturn V rocket developed for the NASA Apollo missions, the Starship is supposed to go to the moon, Mars, “and beyond.” In fact, NASA has already included the Starship on its list of commercial launch systems for the Artemis missions, which are scheduled to land a man and a woman on the moon by 2024.
The successful crewed flights set up SpaceX for an even brighter future. The company has become NASA’s preferred launch partner and now handles about two-thirds of the agency’s launches under government contracts worth billions. SpaceX also offers a “rideshare” option that will carry smaller payloads to orbit for as little as $1 million. The company also just raised more than $1.9 billion in fresh funding to keep developing its Crew Dragon capsule, Starship program, and Starlink satellite business. A second operational crewed flight to ISS is already planned for spring 2021. SpaceX also hopes to sell seats to (presumably wealthy) space tourists someday.
NASA’s fall
SpaceX, now valued at about $46 billion, rose to prominence after NASA fell from grace. The federal space agency has to rely on private companies to send its astronauts into space after NASA ended the Space Shuttle program in 2011. At that time, NASA shifted its attention to Mars and Earth science and away from space shuttles and a return trip to the moon. Under President Trump, however, NASA has turned back again to putting astronauts back on the moon with the launch of its Artemis program in 2017. The incoming Biden administration may change things up once again.
Suffice it to say, there’s been some shifting of priorities at NASA. In the years since the Space Shuttle program ended, American astronauts have had to hitch rides on Russian rockets to get to and from the ISS at a cost of $86 million each and an unquantifiable amount of national pride. (SpaceX, by contrast, is estimated to charge $55 million per astronaut for these round-trip flights.) This arrangement with Russia is not supposed to last forever.
Over the past decade, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program has awarded billions to a handful of private companies to develop crewed space vehicles to carry NASA astronauts to and from the ISS. Rather than use private companies as contractors that fulfill government orders, as it did in the past, NASA gave private companies funding to develop their own commercial efforts, which NASA could then use for its own ends.
That means space exploration is now a business, and many of its biggest innovations are coming from the private sector, which is partially subsidized by public money. Through these arrangements, Boeing has developed its Starliner capsule, which has no launch date yet and has been beset with difficulties, and SpaceX built the Crew Dragon capsule. And NASA is just fine with this, as the new partnerships shifts some of the cost of developing and constructing spacecraft onto private industry. And it’s not just companies that make spaceships; NASA recently awarded Nokia the right to build a 4G mobile network on the moon as part of its effort to establish a more permanent presence there.
We need to talk about Elon
No discussion of SpaceX would be complete with some hand-wringing over its controversial founder and CEO — Musk himself has made sure of that.
His biographer Ashlee Vance interviewed Musk for Bloomberg as the Demo-2 launch approached. Vance highlighted how Musk has recently made himself a lightning rod of criticism for suggesting that Covid-19 is fake and generally being awful on Twitter.
Vance writes:
Even the most fervent Musk hater, of whom there are plenty in the US, has to feel some twinge of pride. At a moment when the American Empire can seem to be in decline, here’s a clear sign that great things remain possible and that humans have much left to achieve. “America is still the land of opportunity more than any other place, for sure,” Musk says, waxing patriotic. “There is definitely no other country where I could have done this—immigrant or not.” That it’s a multibillionaire, Covid-19-truthing, entrepreneurial huckster/hero delivering this message is pretty much perfect for America in 2020.
Vance added that Musk’s “business tactics and behavior can oscillate between infuriating and appalling.”
Indeed. Musk’s Twitter account has 40 million followers, and the tone of his tweets tends to alternate between that of a self-promotional businessman and an angsty teenager. Musk’s tweets alone have gotten him sued by a cave diver and the Securities and Exchange Commission. (He won the first case and settled the second, with an agreement that personally cost him $20 million and his chairmanship of Tesla’s board.)
Just this year, Musk has vowed in a tweet to sell his possessions, after which he tweeted, “My gf … is mad at me.” He also said the price of his own company’s stock was “too high,” named his new child X Æ A-Xii, repeatedly downplayed the coronavirus pandemic, and forced his Tesla employees to work through it — even defying government orders to reopen a factory early. SpaceX, which is considered critical infrastructure, never stopped.
When Musk did seem to take the pandemic seriously, it was to offer his companies’ assistance in manufacturing ventilators. But that help never really came — although in fairness, neither did the feared nationwide ventilator shortage that prompted those tweets. Musk’s May tweet urging followers to “take the red pill,” a term that has well-known far-right and men’s rights activist connections, got a response from Ivanka Trump, who simply said, “Taken!”
Most recently, Musk appears to have contracted the coronavirus himself, tweeting that he “most likely” had the virus. He complained of “symptoms of a minor cold,” which were apparently treated with DayQuil. But after taking four rapid Covid antigen tests, two of which were positive and two of which were negative, Musk said “something extremely bogus is going on.” He was forced to miss Sunday’s launch and a Twitter user dubbed him “Space Karen” for his multiple complaints about the accuracy of coronavirus tests. “#SpaceKaren” and “Space Karen” trended on the platform afterward. (“Karen” has become a term for entitled white people who become outraged when they don’t get their way in various aspects of life.)
Yet while Musk’s bizarre, attention-seeking behavior may be a turnoff for many, his businesses make enough money and are cool enough to investors that SpaceX and Tesla seem to be succeeding in spite of Musk’s increasingly controversial public image. The US government, however, is not a business, and it has not taken well to Musk’s antics. Along with the SEC’s $20 million fine, NASA investigated and scolded him after he smoked pot while appearing on a podcast in 2018.
Still, SpaceX is undeniably an accomplishment, and its successful crewed launches will be an essential step toward Musk’s plans for the moon or Mars or wherever he ultimately decides to go. At this point, it’s hard to imagine the future of space travel without SpaceX and without Musk.


vox--2020-11-16--The Crown season 4: Is the queen a bad mom?

I can tell I ’ m watching a particularly good episode of Netflix ’ s The Crown if I ’ ve already pulled up Wikipedia on my phone before it ’ s even over .
As an American who was never taught much about British history aside from its cameos in America ’ s own , I learned major events like the lethal smog of 1952 and the Aberfan disaster of 1966 through watching The Crown .
The show also sharpened for me the cloudy sort of things I heard people say about the royal family — that no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partier , that the queen didn ’ t care for Prince Charles — but perhaps never really felt compelled to delve into .
A good episode makes me want to know how much of what I ’ m watching really happened .
I suppose that generating an interest in what ’ s “ really ” the story is the sublime magic of this very expensive , well-executed show .
The cast and crew have maintained that the show , now in its fourth season , is fiction .
No one but the royal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at any given moment , nor the psychological play-by-play that accompanied each of these events .
But The Crown seems authentic , as authentic as any drama about the royal family that ’ s ever existed .
The show portrays a cogent , constant effort to maintain a balance between kindness and reality , humanity and sternness .
It colors , shades , and inquires between the lines of history to tell stories that feel so familiar and perhaps even nostalgic .
In its fourth season , those spaces that The Crown investigates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fourth season of The Crown might be the show ’ s best , and that ’ s a big claim .
Some of it is due to the actors having gotten comfortable with portraying their historical figures , and viewers having gotten comfortable with the actors ’ portrayals .
The fourth installment of The Crown sees actors brought in from season three to reprise their roles , and much like season two ( which also had actors reprising their roles ) , there ’ s a general ease of chemistry present .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the queen ’ s origin story the way it had to in earlier seasons , and instead allows her to fully come to terms with the life she ’ s created for herself .
This chapter introduces Princess Diana and the family dynamic she throws into a tailspin , arguably the most scandalous and fascinating era in royal history .
While the season prominently features Diana , however , it opens with and centers on Margaret Thatcher ’ s rise to power as prime minister .
Thatcher , played in all her fearsomeness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vexing figure for Queen Elizabeth II ( Olivia Colman ) because they have so much in common — mainly the criticisms that surround their wielding of power and their gender .
And yet , these powerful women are aligned so disparately .
Watching Thatcher ’ s assured assertiveness makes Elizabeth rethink her own identity and the way she ’ s lived her life in ways the show hasn ’ t been able to explore before ; this is one of those rare times Elizabeth has had a woman to suitably compare and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ star in some of the most eye-catching storylines , but there are several standout episodes following the other characters .
Among the excellence is Helena Bonham Carter in Princess Margaret ’ s scalding revelation in episode seven and the boiling-hot fight between Charles and Diana in the finale .
But my favorite episode of this season was the fourth episode , “ Favourites.
” In it , Thatcher ’ s son Mark goes missing during the Paris-Dakar rally in 1982 — an event that I was driven to Google mid-episode , already hungry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for six days , which apparently caused a lot of friction for his mother because the disappearance was peppered with unpaid hotel bills and expensive alcohol tabs .
The queen is surprised when , in a private chat , Thatcher readily admits Mark is her favorite child .
The Iron Lady has a brief breakdown talking about her son , and it catches the queen off guard — so much so that she has a conversation with her husband about the notion of favorite children and whether that ’ s a normal thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her that it is , and whether it ’ s because she wants to find out or whether she just feels like she ’ s neglecting her duty as a mom , the queen then decides to check in with her four children .
This slightly less-flashy episode is fascinating in how it Mark ’ s disappearance is used as a mirror to reflect Elizabeth ’ s insecurities as a mother and as a ruler .
It does so by tackling the season ’ s ongoing tension between Thatcher and the queen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ both powerful women .
And they both have attracted many skeptics and critics , largely because they are headstrong , powerful women .
Since they have these similarities , the queen seems to believe they should have a lot in common to discuss .
It ’ s such a shock to her that her relationship with Thatcher isn ’ t warmer and that they don ’ t exactly share the same views about gender and womanhood .
Thatcher ’ s self-assuredness makes the queen question if everything she ’ s been doing — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth realizes in talking to her kids is that she ’ s kind of been a not-great mother .
She doesn ’ t know anything about her kids and needs a dossier update on each one .
Her private meetings with each one make her even more worried .
Edward is bullied constantly , and she had no idea .
Anne is having an identity crisis , having grown up under the scrutiny of the press , and is ragingly jealous of Diana .
Andrew , whom Elizabeth gets along well with , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ royal and that worries her .
Charles , the heir to the throne , shocks his mother with his selfishness and hostility toward his wife , Diana .
These are sobering moments for the queen , now realizing that she may not have been the mother she thought she was being .
She didn ’ t give her kids the life she thought she had or was going to .
But Thatcher isn ’ t perfect either , the show tells us .
The queen doesn ’ t know the truth about Thatcher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if she only knew how badly Thatcher hurt her daughter , Carol , Elizabeth might have felt a little better about her parenting skills — or at least cut herself some slack for being a mother dealing with surreal circumstances .
Granted , this is all a dramatization of the complexities of the royal family .
We don ’ t know the truth beneath the surface of the real-life queen ’ s relationships with her real-life children .
But what The Crown is so good at in episodes like this one is using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatable story about family , parenthood , and identity .
Perhaps we viewers will never know what it ’ s actually like to be a neglected prince or insecure princess , but each of their stories is anchored in real human emotions of feeling unheard and isolated .
There are probably many parents out there who feel like they must ’ ve failed in shaping their sons into more respectful men than the ones they later became — even if those sons didn ’ t build an entire snooty garden to brag about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extension of themselves .
The queen and Thatcher ’ s relationship is relatable too , despite their being women with more important responsibilities than we may ever have ourselves .
We can ’ t help comparing ourselves to people we think we ’ re truly like , and struggling to find a connection with someone we admire — whether it ’ s a prime minister or a neighbor or a coworker — can make us question our world views , our identities , and maybe even our favorite children .
I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is in the story The Crown is telling about the royals , so I ’ ll keep busting out Wikipedia as I watch .
But the season ’ s insights into our emotions and familial volatility , and its ways of articulating it in such reflective ways , need no added research .

I can tell I’m watching a particularly good episode of Netflix’s The Crown if I’ve already pulled up Wikipedia on my phone before it’s even over.
As an American who was never taught much about British history aside from its cameos in America’s own, I learned major events like the lethal smog of 1952 and the Aberfan disaster of 1966 through watching The Crown. The show also sharpened for me the cloudy sort of things I heard people say about the royal family — that no one liked Diana, that Margaret was a partier, that the queen didn’t care for Prince Charles — but perhaps never really felt compelled to delve into. A good episode makes me want to know how much of what I’m watching really happened.
I suppose that generating an interest in what’s “really” the story is the sublime magic of this very expensive, well-executed show.
The cast and crew have maintained that the show, now in its fourth season, is fiction. No one but the royal family really knows the emotions they felt at any given moment, nor the psychological play-by-play that accompanied each of these events. But The Crown seems authentic, as authentic as any drama about the royal family that’s ever existed. The show portrays a cogent, constant effort to maintain a balance between kindness and reality, humanity and sternness. It colors, shades, and inquires between the lines of history to tell stories that feel so familiar and perhaps even nostalgic. In its fourth season, those spaces that The Crown investigates have only gotten more fascinating.
Gillian Anderson’s brutal Thatcher punctuates a splendid season
This fourth season of The Crown might be the show’s best, and that’s a big claim. Some of it is due to the actors having gotten comfortable with portraying their historical figures, and viewers having gotten comfortable with the actors’ portrayals. The fourth installment of The Crown sees actors brought in from season three to reprise their roles, and much like season two (which also had actors reprising their roles), there’s a general ease of chemistry present.
The show no longer has to function as the queen’s origin story the way it had to in earlier seasons, and instead allows her to fully come to terms with the life she’s created for herself. This chapter introduces Princess Diana and the family dynamic she throws into a tailspin, arguably the most scandalous and fascinating era in royal history. While the season prominently features Diana, however, it opens with and centers on Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power as prime minister.
Thatcher, played in all her fearsomeness by an adept Gillian Anderson, is a vexing figure for Queen Elizabeth II (Olivia Colman) because they have so much in common — mainly the criticisms that surround their wielding of power and their gender. And yet, these powerful women are aligned so disparately. Watching Thatcher’s assured assertiveness makes Elizabeth rethink her own identity and the way she’s lived her life in ways the show hasn’t been able to explore before; this is one of those rare times Elizabeth has had a woman to suitably compare and contrast herself with.
Elizabeth and Thatcher star in some of the most eye-catching storylines, but there are several standout episodes following the other characters. Among the excellence is Helena Bonham Carter in Princess Margaret’s scalding revelation in episode seven and the boiling-hot fight between Charles and Diana in the finale. But my favorite episode of this season was the fourth episode, “Favourites.”
In it, Thatcher’s son Mark goes missing during the Paris-Dakar rally in 1982 — an event that I was driven to Google mid-episode, already hungry for more information. Mark went missing for six days, which apparently caused a lot of friction for his mother because the disappearance was peppered with unpaid hotel bills and expensive alcohol tabs.
The queen is surprised when, in a private chat, Thatcher readily admits Mark is her favorite child. The Iron Lady has a brief breakdown talking about her son, and it catches the queen off guard — so much so that she has a conversation with her husband about the notion of favorite children and whether that’s a normal thing for parents to have. He assures her that it is, and whether it’s because she wants to find out or whether she just feels like she’s neglecting her duty as a mom, the queen then decides to check in with her four children.
This slightly less-flashy episode is fascinating in how it Mark’s disappearance is used as a mirror to reflect Elizabeth’s insecurities as a mother and as a ruler. It does so by tackling the season’s ongoing tension between Thatcher and the queen. They are both headstrong. They are both powerful women. And they both have attracted many skeptics and critics, largely because they are headstrong, powerful women.
Since they have these similarities, the queen seems to believe they should have a lot in common to discuss. It’s such a shock to her that her relationship with Thatcher isn’t warmer and that they don’t exactly share the same views about gender and womanhood. Thatcher’s self-assuredness makes the queen question if everything she’s been doing — personally and politically — is right.
Elizabeth realizes in talking to her kids is that she’s kind of been a not-great mother. She doesn’t know anything about her kids and needs a dossier update on each one. Her private meetings with each one make her even more worried. Edward is bullied constantly, and she had no idea. Anne is having an identity crisis, having grown up under the scrutiny of the press, and is ragingly jealous of Diana. Andrew, whom Elizabeth gets along well with, is a little too comfortable being a royal and that worries her. Charles, the heir to the throne, shocks his mother with his selfishness and hostility toward his wife, Diana.
These are sobering moments for the queen, now realizing that she may not have been the mother she thought she was being. She didn’t give her kids the life she thought she had or was going to. But Thatcher isn’t perfect either, the show tells us. The queen doesn’t know the truth about Thatcher’s relationship with her kids; if she only knew how badly Thatcher hurt her daughter, Carol, Elizabeth might have felt a little better about her parenting skills — or at least cut herself some slack for being a mother dealing with surreal circumstances.
Granted, this is all a dramatization of the complexities of the royal family. We don’t know the truth beneath the surface of the real-life queen’s relationships with her real-life children. But what The Crown is so good at in episodes like this one is using these heightened stakes to tell a very relatable story about family, parenthood, and identity.
Perhaps we viewers will never know what it’s actually like to be a neglected prince or insecure princess, but each of their stories is anchored in real human emotions of feeling unheard and isolated. There are probably many parents out there who feel like they must’ve failed in shaping their sons into more respectful men than the ones they later became — even if those sons didn’t build an entire snooty garden to brag about because they see their entire property as an extension of themselves.
The queen and Thatcher’s relationship is relatable too, despite their being women with more important responsibilities than we may ever have ourselves. We can’t help comparing ourselves to people we think we’re truly like, and struggling to find a connection with someone we admire — whether it’s a prime minister or a neighbor or a coworker — can make us question our world views, our identities, and maybe even our favorite children.
I don’t know how much literal truth there is in the story The Crown is telling about the royals, so I’ll keep busting out Wikipedia as I watch. But the season’s insights into our emotions and familial volatility, and its ways of articulating it in such reflective ways, need no added research.


vox--2020-11-16--Obama: The internet is “the single biggest threat to our democracy”

Back in 2008 , Barack Obama famously harnessed the internet and social media to help win the White House .
He kept up the embrace once he got there .
Now he worries that the internet and social media have helped create “ the single biggest threat to our democracy.
” Obama has been saying a version of this for four years — since he left the White House — but his words are getting steadily more pointed .
He ’ s clearly sounding an alarm , but it ’ s not exactly clear what he thinks we should do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a new interview between Obama and Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg , and before we go any further we should put it in full context : Obama was discussing a media landscape dominated not just by Facebook but by Fox News that allows Americans to choose their own distorted reality .
Which means , he says , we no longer have a shared set of facts .
That assessment is now conventional wisdom among many critics of the TV and internet ecosystem .
There ’ s almost no practical , constructive argument about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Obama doesn ’ t offer one in his interview , either .
And again , it ’ s incorrect to say that Obama is laying the problems of our broken information landscape solely at the feet of Facebook or any other particular tech company .
But he is certainly lacing into them now in a way he didn ’ t do prior to leaving the White House .
Obama : Now you have a situation in which large swaths of the country genuinely believe that the Democratic Party is a front for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a volunteer who was going door-to-door in Philadelphia in low-income African American communities , and was getting questions about QAnon conspiracy theories .
Goldberg : Is this new malevolent information architecture bending the moral arc away from justice ?
Obama : I think it is the single biggest threat to our democracy .
Later in the interview , Obama makes it quite clear that much of his concern is specifically about the internet — which he is also quite clear isn ’ t “ going away ” — and the big platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internet for most people : Obama : I don ’ t hold the tech companies entirely responsible , because this predates social media .
It was already there .
But social media has turbocharged it .
I know most of these folks .
I ’ ve talked to them about it .
The degree to which these companies are insisting that they are more like a phone company than they are like The Atlantic , I do not think is tenable .
They are making editorial choices , whether they ’ ve buried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Amendment doesn ’ t require private companies to provide a platform for any view that is out there .
At the end of the day , we ’ re going to have to find a combination of government regulations and corporate practices that address this , because it ’ s going to get worse .
If you can perpetrate crazy lies and conspiracy theories just with texts , imagine what you can do when you can make it look like you or me saying anything on video .
We ’ re pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s that famous Steve Bannon strategy : flood the zone with shit .
Obama : If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what ’ s true from what ’ s false , then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn ’ t work .
And by definition our democracy doesn ’ t work .
We are entering into an epistemological crisis .
Obama ’ s criticisms of Fox News and the Rupert Murdoch empire predate his time in the White House .
It continued once he was there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama was quite welcoming to the tech industry , and vice versa : Obama stocked the White House with Silicon Valley veterans , and White House veterans later landed important jobs in Silicon Valley .
And Google executives in particular , starting with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt , had frequent meetings with White House staff .
Near the end of Obama ’ s presidency , the Wall Street Journal reported that career regulators wanted to pursue antitrust charges against Google but were overruled by political appointees .
Obama certainly understood the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get into office .
In the last days of the 2016 presidential campaign , Obama was reportedly obsessed with a BuzzFeed story about Macedonian teens flooding Facebook with fake news .
But it wasn ’ t until after the election that Obama sounded off in public about “ active misinformation ” on Facebook and TV .
Days later , he pulled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg aside for a private plea “ to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously.
” And while Obama made a point of keeping a low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when he did surface , he would often take pains to spell out his criticisms of social media : “ I do think the large platforms — Google and Facebook being the most obvious , Twitter and others as well , are part of that ecosystem — have to have a conversation about their business model that recognizes they are a public good as well as a commercial enterprise , ” he said at an MIT event in 2018 .
“ We have to have a serious conversation about , what are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mechanisms , whereby we can create more of a common conversation .
And that can not just be a commercially driven conversation.
” Obama was calling for a “ serious conversation ” about our information dystopia two years ago .
Now he ’ s calling for “ a combination of government regulations and corporate practices ” to deal with it .
It is difficult to be optimistic that we ’ ll get there .
It ’ s hard to see the federal government regulating big tech in a serious way , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shared facts about the problem ; Republicans , in fact , have elected a QAnon promoter to Congress .
And Big Tech isn ’ t remotely comfortable regulating itself — it would rather have government regulate big tech .
And it would be surprising if Joe Biden — who had little to say about tech during his presidential campaign — and Kamala Harris — a longtime ally of Silicon Valley — make it a focus in a pandemic presidency .
A modest suggestion : Barack Obama is still working on the second volume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a problem worth focusing on after that .

Back in 2008, Barack Obama famously harnessed the internet and social media to help win the White House. He kept up the embrace once he got there.
Now he worries that the internet and social media have helped create “the single biggest threat to our democracy.”
Obama has been saying a version of this for four years — since he left the White House — but his words are getting steadily more pointed. He’s clearly sounding an alarm, but it’s not exactly clear what he thinks we should do about it.
His latest critique comes in a new interview between Obama and Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, and before we go any further we should put it in full context: Obama was discussing a media landscape dominated not just by Facebook but by Fox News that allows Americans to choose their own distorted reality. Which means, he says, we no longer have a shared set of facts.
That assessment is now conventional wisdom among many critics of the TV and internet ecosystem. There’s almost no practical, constructive argument about how we should respond to that problem. Obama doesn’t offer one in his interview, either.
And again, it’s incorrect to say that Obama is laying the problems of our broken information landscape solely at the feet of Facebook or any other particular tech company. But he is certainly lacing into them now in a way he didn’t do prior to leaving the White House.
Obama: Now you have a situation in which large swaths of the country genuinely believe that the Democratic Party is a front for a pedophile ring...I was talking to a volunteer who was going door-to-door in Philadelphia in low-income African American communities, and was getting questions about QAnon conspiracy theories. Goldberg: Is this new malevolent information architecture bending the moral arc away from justice? Obama: I think it is the single biggest threat to our democracy.
Later in the interview, Obama makes it quite clear that much of his concern is specifically about the internet — which he is also quite clear isn’t “going away” — and the big platforms that sort and distribute most of the internet for most people:
Obama: I don’t hold the tech companies entirely responsible, because this predates social media. It was already there. But social media has turbocharged it. I know most of these folks. I’ve talked to them about it. The degree to which these companies are insisting that they are more like a phone company than they are like The Atlantic, I do not think is tenable. They are making editorial choices, whether they’ve buried them in algorithms or not. The First Amendment doesn’t require private companies to provide a platform for any view that is out there. At the end of the day, we’re going to have to find a combination of government regulations and corporate practices that address this, because it’s going to get worse. If you can perpetrate crazy lies and conspiracy theories just with texts, imagine what you can do when you can make it look like you or me saying anything on video. We’re pretty close to that now... Goldberg: It’s that famous Steve Bannon strategy: flood the zone with shit. Obama: If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work. We are entering into an epistemological crisis.
Obama’s criticisms of Fox News and the Rupert Murdoch empire predate his time in the White House. It continued once he was there.
During his eight-year tenure, though, Obama was quite welcoming to the tech industry, and vice versa: Obama stocked the White House with Silicon Valley veterans, and White House veterans later landed important jobs in Silicon Valley.
And Google executives in particular, starting with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, had frequent meetings with White House staff. Near the end of Obama’s presidency, the Wall Street Journal reported that career regulators wanted to pursue antitrust charges against Google but were overruled by political appointees.
Obama certainly understood the power of social media, which helped him get into office. In the last days of the 2016 presidential campaign, Obama was reportedly obsessed with a BuzzFeed story about Macedonian teens flooding Facebook with fake news.
But it wasn’t until after the election that Obama sounded off in public about “active misinformation” on Facebook and TV. Days later, he pulled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg aside for a private plea “to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously.”
And while Obama made a point of keeping a low profile during most of the Trump era, when he did surface, he would often take pains to spell out his criticisms of social media:
“I do think the large platforms — Google and Facebook being the most obvious, Twitter and others as well, are part of that ecosystem — have to have a conversation about their business model that recognizes they are a public good as well as a commercial enterprise,” he said at an MIT event in 2018. “We have to have a serious conversation about, what are the business models, the algorithms, the mechanisms, whereby we can create more of a common conversation. And that can not just be a commercially driven conversation.”
Obama was calling for a “serious conversation” about our information dystopia two years ago. Now he’s calling for “a combination of government regulations and corporate practices” to deal with it.
It is difficult to be optimistic that we’ll get there. It’s hard to see the federal government regulating big tech in a serious way, because Democrats and Republicans don’t have shared facts about the problem; Republicans, in fact, have elected a QAnon promoter to Congress. And Big Tech isn’t remotely comfortable regulating itself — it would rather have government regulate big tech. And it would be surprising if Joe Biden — who had little to say about tech during his presidential campaign — and Kamala Harris — a longtime ally of Silicon Valley — make it a focus in a pandemic presidency.
A modest suggestion: Barack Obama is still working on the second volume of his memoirs. This seems like a problem worth focusing on after that.


vox--2020-11-16--The transition to a Biden-Harris administration

A presidential transition in the US is usually a fairly smooth process .
The outgoing president will welcome their successor to the White House , give the president-elect access to their daily briefings , and offer some helpful tips about the job .
Then , on January 20 , there will be a peaceful transfer of power as the new leader takes the oath of office .
This year , the process has been anything but smooth .
Joe Biden was declared the winner of the election on November 6 , but President Donald Trump initially claimed victory himself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the result of widespread voter fraud .
Some of his top officials have even said they are operating under the assumption that Trump will begin a second term in January .
To be clear , Trump conceding is not a requirement for a peaceful transfer of power — it ’ s just a norm that previous outgoing presidents have followed .
And Trump ’ s legal challenges have essentially no chance to succeed , so there ’ s no realistic scenario in which Trump stays in office past Inauguration Day .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis doesn ’ t mean everything is going well .
The head of the General Services Administration , a Trump appointee , has been obstructing the transition process .
In the meantime , Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris have begun preparing to assume their new roles .
Biden announced a 13-member Covid-19 task force the Monday after the election , to be co-chaired by Drs .
Vivek H. Murthy , David Kessler , and Marcella Nuñez-Smith .
Two days later , he announced that Ron Klain will be his chief of staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden was vice president .
One of the Biden administration ’ s biggest challenges , beyond dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change , will be to restore America ’ s relationship with some of its closest allies .
World leaders like Canada ’ s Justin Trudeau , the United Kingdom ’ s Boris Johnson , France ’ s Emmanuel Macron , and Germany ’ s Angela Merkel have all offered their congratulations to Biden and Harris .
Follow along below for Vox ’ s coverage of the transition to a Biden-Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking news updates , analysis , and more .

A presidential transition in the US is usually a fairly smooth process. The outgoing president will welcome their successor to the White House, give the president-elect access to their daily briefings, and offer some helpful tips about the job. Then, on January 20, there will be a peaceful transfer of power as the new leader takes the oath of office.
This year, the process has been anything but smooth.
Joe Biden was declared the winner of the election on November 6, but President Donald Trump initially claimed victory himself, falsely alleging that Biden’s victory was the result of widespread voter fraud. Some of his top officials have even said they are operating under the assumption that Trump will begin a second term in January. To be clear, Trump conceding is not a requirement for a peaceful transfer of power — it’s just a norm that previous outgoing presidents have followed. And Joe Biden has now officially been certified the winner by Congress, meaning there’s no realistic scenario in which Trump stays in office past Inauguration Day.
But just because there’s no democratic crisis doesn’t mean everything is going well. The head of the General Services Administration, a Trump appointee, has been obstructing the transition process.
In the meantime, Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris have begun preparing to assume their new roles. Biden announced a 13-member Covid-19 task force the Monday after the election, to be co-chaired by Drs. Vivek H. Murthy, David Kessler, and Marcella Nuñez-Smith. Two days later, he announced that Ron Klain will be his chief of staff, the same role he held while Biden was vice president.
One of the Biden administration’s biggest challenges, beyond dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change, will be to restore America’s relationship with some of its closest allies. World leaders like Canada’s Justin Trudeau, the United Kingdom’s Boris Johnson, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and Germany’s Angela Merkel have all offered their congratulations to Biden and Harris.
Follow along below for Vox’s coverage of the transition to a Biden-Harris administration, including Cabinet appointments, other breaking news updates, analysis, and more.