vox--2020-11-12--How Joe Biden could make Brazil his first “climate outlaw”

President-elect Joe Biden has promised to recommit the US to the Paris climate agreement and leverage the international community to urge reluctant countries to get on board with the target of keeping global average temperatures from rising above 2°C .
As part of this effort , as outlined in Biden ’ s ambitious climate plan , his administration plans to “ Name and shame global climate outlaws ” in a new “ Global Climate Change Report , ” in order “ to hold countries to account for meeting , or failing to meet , their Paris commitments and for other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solutions.
” And during the first 2020 presidential debate , Biden gave an indication of one of the first countries to potentially be labeled an “ outlaw ” : Brazil .
Biden said he would rally countries to come up with $ 20 billion to give to Brazil to protect the Amazon .
He also stressed there would be serious consequences if Brazil didn ’ t stop its policies of deforestation .
For the past two years , Brazil has experienced record-setting wildfires which have been exacerbated by climate change and poor forest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pike wrote in September , “ As with 2019 , researchers have linked this year ’ s fires [ in Brazil ] to massive illegal deforestation .
Under Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro ’ s administration , ranchers , farmers , and miners have been given much freer rein to clear the rich rainforest for commercial activity , and setting fires is a cheap way to do that.
” Bolsonaro ’ s legacy of climate change denial and his lax attitude toward the clearing of the Amazon helped align him with Trump .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Amazon and disbelief in global warming may not be as easy to get away with .
“ There are people in the Democratic Party that would like to go after Bolsonaro and be very tough with him on this issue , and join forces with the Europeans to apply significant pressure , ” Mike Shifter , president of the Inter-American Dialogue , a foreign policy think tank , told Reuters in October .
With Trump gone and most countries in the world working toward achieving the 2-degree goal of the Paris agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government subjected to increased global pressure and shaming , led by the Biden administration .
Bolsonaro may remain defiant , but the US and international community have leverage Bolsonaro reacted defiantly to Biden ’ s debate comments in September about giving Brazil $ 20 billion to protect the Amazon , tweeting : “ What some have not yet understood is that Brazil has changed .
Today , its President , unlike the left , no longer accepts bribes , criminal demarcations or unfounded threats .
OUR SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE.
” Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election .
But Bolsonaro has yet to change his tune .
On November 10 , he again responded to Biden ’ s threat of financial repercussions if Brazil didn ’ t stop deforestation of the Amazon .
Still referring to President-elect Biden as a “ candidate ” despite his victory , Bolsonaro — who enjoyed a good relationship with President Trump and has yet to congratulate Biden on his win — sniped : “ I recently heard a presidential candidate to head of state say that if I don ’ t put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is going to raise trade barriers against Brazil .
How do we deal with all of that ?
Diplomacy is not enough .
When there is no more saliva , then there must be gunpowder.
” Bolsonaro ’ s aggressive comments suggest a difficult road could lie ahead for Brazil-US relations .
But the US and the international community have significant economic leverage they could bring to bear on Bolsonaro to push him to change his policies .
The global economic slowdown caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has hit Brazil ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hard .
China , the United States , and the European Union are Brazil ’ s three main trading partners , so if those countries chose to , they could apply substantial economic pressure on the country to encourage Bolsonaro to rethink his defiant stance .
“ The US has to get together with EU , China , and others that are major purchasers of products from Brazil — whether it ’ s soy , beef , timber — and lay down the law and say , ‘ If you don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police deforestation of the Amazon , we ’ re gon na cut off your supply chains , ’ ” said Alden Meyer , former director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists who now works as an independent strategist on climate policy and politics .
“ That ’ s the leverage other countries have over Brazil : If you ’ re not going to protect the Amazon , we ’ re not going to do business with you.
” But , Meyer noted , to become a leader on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be serious about reducing emissions in all sectors of its own economy : power , transportation , building , industry , agriculture , forests .
“ It ’ s viable if the US does it at home , ” Meyer said .

President-elect Joe Biden has promised to recommit the US to the Paris climate agreement and leverage the international community to urge reluctant countries to get on board with the target of keeping global average temperatures from rising above 2°C.
As part of this effort, as outlined in Biden’s ambitious climate plan, his administration plans to “Name and shame global climate outlaws” in a new “Global Climate Change Report,” in order “to hold countries to account for meeting, or failing to meet, their Paris commitments and for other steps that promote or undermine global climate solutions.”
And during the first 2020 presidential debate, Biden gave an indication of one of the first countries to potentially be labeled an “outlaw”: Brazil.
Biden said he would rally countries to come up with $20 billion to give to Brazil to protect the Amazon. He also stressed there would be serious consequences if Brazil didn’t stop its policies of deforestation.
For the past two years, Brazil has experienced record-setting wildfires which have been exacerbated by climate change and poor forest management. As Vox’s Lili Pike wrote in September, “As with 2019, researchers have linked this year’s fires [in Brazil] to massive illegal deforestation. Under Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration, ranchers, farmers, and miners have been given much freer rein to clear the rich rainforest for commercial activity, and setting fires is a cheap way to do that.”
Bolsonaro’s legacy of climate change denial and his lax attitude toward the clearing of the Amazon helped align him with Trump. But under a Biden administration, disregard for the Amazon and disbelief in global warming may not be as easy to get away with.
“There are people in the Democratic Party that would like to go after Bolsonaro and be very tough with him on this issue, and join forces with the Europeans to apply significant pressure,” Mike Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a foreign policy think tank, told Reuters in October.
With Trump gone and most countries in the world working toward achieving the 2-degree goal of the Paris agreement, Bolsonaro could find himself and his government subjected to increased global pressure and shaming, led by the Biden administration.
Bolsonaro may remain defiant, but the US and international community have leverage
Bolsonaro reacted defiantly to Biden’s debate comments in September about giving Brazil $20 billion to protect the Amazon, tweeting: “What some have not yet understood is that Brazil has changed. Today, its President, unlike the left, no longer accepts bribes, criminal demarcations or unfounded threats. OUR SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE.”
Of course, that was before Biden won the US presidential election. But Bolsonaro has yet to change his tune.
On November 10, he again responded to Biden’s threat of financial repercussions if Brazil didn’t stop deforestation of the Amazon. Still referring to President-elect Biden as a “candidate” despite his victory, Bolsonaro — who enjoyed a good relationship with President Trump and has yet to congratulate Biden on his win — sniped: “I recently heard a presidential candidate to head of state say that if I don’t put out the fire in the Amazon, he is going to raise trade barriers against Brazil. How do we deal with all of that? Diplomacy is not enough. When there is no more saliva, then there must be gunpowder.”
Bolsonaro’s aggressive comments suggest a difficult road could lie ahead for Brazil-US relations. But the US and the international community have significant economic leverage they could bring to bear on Bolsonaro to push him to change his policies.
The global economic slowdown caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has hit Brazil’s economy, and particularly its export market, hard. China, the United States, and the European Union are Brazil’s three main trading partners, so if those countries chose to, they could apply substantial economic pressure on the country to encourage Bolsonaro to rethink his defiant stance.
“The US has to get together with EU, China, and others that are major purchasers of products from Brazil — whether it’s soy, beef, timber — and lay down the law and say, ‘If you don’t restore and expand your efforts to police deforestation of the Amazon, we’re gonna cut off your supply chains,’” said Alden Meyer, former director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists who now works as an independent strategist on climate policy and politics. “That’s the leverage other countries have over Brazil: If you’re not going to protect the Amazon, we’re not going to do business with you.”
But, Meyer noted, to become a leader on the international climate stage, the US must be serious about reducing emissions in all sectors of its own economy: power, transportation, building, industry, agriculture, forests. “It’s viable if the US does it at home,” Meyer said.


vox--2020-11-12--2019 was a terrible year for measles. 2021 could be much worse.

The last several years have been terrible for measles , the highly contagious — and vaccine-preventable — childhood disease .
And , unfortunately , because of the Covid-19 pandemic , the next few years are shaping up to be much worse .
Measles cases increased by 556 percent globally by 2019 from a historic low in 2016 , according to a new Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report study .
Around the world , measles deaths also shot up by nearly 50 percent in that period , to 207,500 last year .
What ’ s driving the trend ?
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of the resurgence was a failure to vaccinate , ” the report authors , from the World Health Organization ( WHO ) and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , found .
( In the US and around the world , years of vaccine skepticism and barriers in access to health care have led to inadequate vaccine coverage . )
What ’ s more , the authors warned the Covid-19 pandemic is poised to worsen the spread of measles .
Already , there ’ s evidence that lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last eight months have led to a drop-off in routine childhood vaccinations in the US and globally .
“ Covid-19 has had a devastating effect on health services and in particular immunization services , worldwide , ” WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a November 6 statement .
US data published in May showed routine childhood vaccinations plummeted in March and April after the government declared a national emergency over the novel coronavirus .
The researchers compared vaccine ordering data from pediatricians who work with a federal vaccine program — which provides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with immunizations — this January through April , to the same period last year .
The study found a 2.5 million dose drop-off , including a 250,000 dose decline in measles vaccines .
The picture is similar in other countries .
In April , infectious disease and public health groups , through the Measles & Rubella Initiative , warned that measles immunization campaigns in 24 countries had already been pushed back .
By November , more than 94 million people were at risk of missing measles vaccines .
For now , the reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it may take some time to see the impact of these latest disruptions in vaccination in the form of new measles spike , Saad Omer , director of the Yale Institute for Global Health , told Vox .
Underresourced public health departments busy responding to the pandemic have fallen short on measuring exactly where gaps in measles vaccination are occurring .
So there are pockets of people susceptible to the highly contagious disease going unnoticed .
At the same time , social distancing mandates have created “ an artificial scenario ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he added .
People aren ’ t traveling , much less meeting , the way they used to — and when they do gather , they ’ re more likely to be wearing masks or taking other precautions , providing fewer opportunities for viruses , including measles , to spread .
When the pandemic slows down and social distancing restrictions begin to lift , Omer is fearing a measles surge .
“ This really scares me , ” Omer said .
“ You ’ re bringing tinder close to fire ... and even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wrong direction.
” According to the new MMWR report , the annual reported measles incidence dropped to 18 cases per million population globally in 2016 , and by 2019 , it had risen back up to 120 cases per million .
In 2020 , the pandemic is “ leading to fewer children receiving vaccinations and poorer surveillance , ” the study authors warned .
The US should organize a national vaccination catch-up campaign right now to make sure everybody who missed their shots earlier in the pandemic can get vaccinated , Omer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deaths reaching new heights and a lame-duck president in the White House for two more months , help isn ’ t coming fast enough .

The last several years have been terrible for measles, the highly contagious — and vaccine-preventable — childhood disease. And, unfortunately, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the next few years are shaping up to be much worse.
Measles cases increased by 556 percent globally by 2019 from a historic low in 2016, according to a new Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report study. Around the world, measles deaths also shot up by nearly 50 percent in that period, to 207,500 last year.
What’s driving the trend? It’s quite simple: “The fundamental cause of the resurgence was a failure to vaccinate,” the report authors, from the World Health Organization (WHO) and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found. (In the US and around the world, years of vaccine skepticism and barriers in access to health care have led to inadequate vaccine coverage.)
What’s more, the authors warned the Covid-19 pandemic is poised to worsen the spread of measles. Already, there’s evidence that lockdowns and disruptions to health care in the last eight months have led to a drop-off in routine childhood vaccinations in the US and globally.
“Covid-19 has had a devastating effect on health services and in particular immunization services, worldwide,” WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a November 6 statement.
US data published in May showed routine childhood vaccinations plummeted in March and April after the government declared a national emergency over the novel coronavirus. The researchers compared vaccine ordering data from pediatricians who work with a federal vaccine program — which provides about half the children in the US with immunizations — this January through April, to the same period last year. The study found a 2.5 million dose drop-off, including a 250,000 dose decline in measles vaccines.
The picture is similar in other countries. In April, infectious disease and public health groups, through the Measles & Rubella Initiative, warned that measles immunization campaigns in 24 countries had already been pushed back. By November, more than 94 million people were at risk of missing measles vaccines.
For now, the reported measles case count is lower in 2020, and it may take some time to see the impact of these latest disruptions in vaccination in the form of new measles spike, Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told Vox.
Underresourced public health departments busy responding to the pandemic have fallen short on measuring exactly where gaps in measles vaccination are occurring. So there are pockets of people susceptible to the highly contagious disease going unnoticed.
At the same time, social distancing mandates have created “an artificial scenario” that may be suppressing new infections, he added. People aren’t traveling, much less meeting, the way they used to — and when they do gather, they’re more likely to be wearing masks or taking other precautions, providing fewer opportunities for viruses, including measles, to spread.
When the pandemic slows down and social distancing restrictions begin to lift, Omer is fearing a measles surge.
“This really scares me,” Omer said. “You’re bringing tinder close to fire ... and even before that, things were going in the wrong direction.”
According to the new MMWR report, the annual reported measles incidence dropped to 18 cases per million population globally in 2016, and by 2019, it had risen back up to 120 cases per million. In 2020, the pandemic is “leading to fewer children receiving vaccinations and poorer surveillance,” the study authors warned.
The US should organize a national vaccination catch-up campaign right now to make sure everybody who missed their shots earlier in the pandemic can get vaccinated, Omer said. But, with Covid-19 cases and deaths reaching new heights and a lame-duck president in the White House for two more months, help isn’t coming fast enough.


vox--2020-11-12--Leaks suggest Trump knows his effort to stay in office is probably doomed

President Donald Trump is still refusing to concede that Joe Biden won the election and continuing to try to challenge the results in court— but a series of recent leaks suggests he might see the writing on the wall .
The Washington Post ’ s Philip Rucker , Josh Dawsey , and Ashley Parker reported Wednesday that “ in an indication [ Trump ] may be starting to come to terms with his loss , he is talking privately about running again in 2024.
” Steve Holland of Reuters similarly reported , per “ a source familiar with internal discussions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling allies he planned to run for president in 2024 and could announce it by the end of the year.
” Peter Alexander of NBC News reported that , per a top White House aide , Trump is “ very aware there is not a path to victory ” and is only contesting the results as a form of “ theater.
” And the Wall Street Journal ’ s Rebecca Ballhaus and Rebecca Davis O ’ Brien write : “ An official said Mr. Trump understands that the fight isn ’ t winnable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let me have the fight.
’ ” Other reports , such as one from Mike Allen of Axios , say Trump is telling friends he wants to start a media company as a competitor to Fox News .
All these cite anonymous sources and contrast with Trump ’ s public statements .
But if accurate , they suggest that , while Trump may never openly admit he lost and may continue to claim the election has been “ stolen ” from him , he is not going to keep actually trying to block @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Dana Bash cites a source who says Trump won ’ t publicly acknowledge his loss until the Georgia recount , expected to end November 20 , has concluded . )
As I wrote Wednesday , the next important steps in the electoral process are for the states to certify their results , and for the electors to officially be chosen .
For Trump to have any shot at overturning the results , he has to somehow block either certifications or electors from multiple states Biden won .
The president is currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his prospects for doing either appear dim .
Trump ’ s legal team has filed suits in various states to try to block the certification of results , but those suits look to be frivolous .
They have also discussed the possibility of getting GOP state legislators to appoint pro-Trump electors , but Ballhaus and O ’ Brien write that “ it isn ’ t known how seriously the campaign has considered this idea.
” None of this is to say that Trump would turn down an opportunity to stay in office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friendly judges or partisan state legislators .
But top Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have said that , while Trump is within his rights to pursue legal options now , the states ’ results certifications and the Electoral College will settle things .
Particularly if Trump is now talking about a 2024 presidential campaign , it would appear his thoughts are turning to ways he can remain in the spotlight and at the forefront of the political scene once he is no longer the president .

President Donald Trump is still refusing to concede that Joe Biden won the election and continuing to try to challenge the results in court— but a series of recent leaks suggests he might see the writing on the wall.
The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker, Josh Dawsey, and Ashley Parker reported Wednesday that “in an indication [Trump] may be starting to come to terms with his loss, he is talking privately about running again in 2024.”
Steve Holland of Reuters similarly reported, per “a source familiar with internal discussions,” that Trump has been “telling allies he planned to run for president in 2024 and could announce it by the end of the year.”
Peter Alexander of NBC News reported that, per a top White House aide, Trump is “very aware there is not a path to victory” and is only contesting the results as a form of “theater.”
And the Wall Street Journal’s Rebecca Ballhaus and Rebecca Davis O’Brien write: “An official said Mr. Trump understands that the fight isn’t winnable but characterized his feelings as: ‘Let me have the fight.’”
Other reports, such as one from Mike Allen of Axios, say Trump is telling friends he wants to start a media company as a competitor to Fox News.
All these cite anonymous sources and contrast with Trump’s public statements. But if accurate, they suggest that, while Trump may never openly admit he lost and may continue to claim the election has been “stolen” from him, he is not going to keep actually trying to block a Biden presidency indefinitely. (CNN’s Dana Bash cites a source who says Trump won’t publicly acknowledge his loss until the Georgia recount, expected to end November 20, has concluded.)
As I wrote Wednesday, the next important steps in the electoral process are for the states to certify their results, and for the electors to officially be chosen. For Trump to have any shot at overturning the results, he has to somehow block either certifications or electors from multiple states Biden won.
The president is currently not on track to accomplish either, and his prospects for doing either appear dim. Trump’s legal team has filed suits in various states to try to block the certification of results, but those suits look to be frivolous. They have also discussed the possibility of getting GOP state legislators to appoint pro-Trump electors, but Ballhaus and O’Brien write that “it isn’t known how seriously the campaign has considered this idea.”
None of this is to say that Trump would turn down an opportunity to stay in office should it present itself, whether through friendly judges or partisan state legislators.
But top Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have said that, while Trump is within his rights to pursue legal options now, the states’ results certifications and the Electoral College will settle things.
Particularly if Trump is now talking about a 2024 presidential campaign, it would appear his thoughts are turning to ways he can remain in the spotlight and at the forefront of the political scene once he is no longer the president.


vox--2020-11-12--How risky is air travel in the pandemic? Here’s what the science says.

Share All sharing options for : How risky is air travel in the pandemic ?
Here ’ s what the science says .
According to the airline industry , it ’ s safe to fly during the Covid-19 pandemic .
United Airlines boasts that the “ risk of exposure to Covid-19 is almost non-existent on our flights.
” Southwest Airlines has opened up middle seats for passengers , saying the odds of catching the coronavirus on a plane are “ similar to the odds of being struck by lightning.
” Airline companies clearly have an interest in selling more tickets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
At the beginning of the pandemic , people who were infected with the virus boarded planes and rapidly seeded outbreaks all over the world .
But whether planes themselves are a dangerous place to become infected , and infect others , has been more of an open question .
The truth is we don ’ t really know the answer yet .
There are few high-quality studies on transmission on airplanes , and they all come with important caveats and uncertainties .
But the best research available provides some clues .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not the most dangerous activity during the pandemic .
It ’ s safer than , say , going to a crowded bar for drinks .
But safer does not necessarily mean safe .
There have been credible instances of transmission on planes , particularly on longer flights and earlier on in the pandemic ( when the current guidelines for masking and other risk-reducing actions weren ’ t in place ) .
In ideal conditions — for example , everyone wears a mask , there ’ s staggered seating , and the aircraft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time — yes , flying is a relatively low-risk activity .
But there are many gray areas — situations that arise in an airport and on a plane — that probably increase the chance of virus spread but aren ’ t well understood .
For example , while scientists have looked at the risk of viral transmission in flight , they haven ’ t studied the transmission dangers posed by crowding during boarding or deplaning .
Flying may be a relatively low risk , but we must ask ourselves : Should we really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Getting on a plane might not even be the most dangerous part about travel — it could be the new exposure potential when you get to your destination .
Even though there isn ’ t one simple answer here , there are many , many ways both passengers and airlines can reduce risk .
Why we don ’ t know exactly how risky flying is “ How safe is air travel during the Covid-19 pandemic ?
” sounds like a simple question , but it ’ s deceptively hard to answer scientifically .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d need to run a study that involves something like isolating passengers for weeks before a flight and then testing them to make sure they do not have Covid-19 , while also blinding them to the reason they ’ re submitting to testing .
Then you ’ d put them on a plane with another passenger or crew member ( or both ) who is infectious .
David Freedman , an infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham , told Vox it ’ s the flight crew members who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air travel .
They ’ re the ones spending a lot of time interfacing with the public .
“ The airlines don ’ t like to talk about this , ” Freedman said .
Of course , no ethics review board would ever approve such an experiment — and the level of risk is different on a plane with zero or two cases versus five or 10 .
“ [ A ] long-haul flight is more risky than short-haul flights , since there ’ s more passenger and crew movement .
A full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flight , where hopefully they space you , ” said Anthony Harries , a senior adviser at the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease who authored a review of the research on the safety of flying during the pandemic .
We don ’ t have comprehensive real-world data on these travel scenarios because public health agencies and airlines don ’ t track down every passenger to see if they became sick after a flight .
And it ’ s not just the planes , either .
Airports are also potentially dangerous places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re closed in , no open windows .
You don ’ t know what the ventilation is like , if they ’ ve got decent filters like on airplanes , ” Harries added .
What we have instead is imperfect research evidence that ’ s mostly taken one of two approaches .
The first is an engineering approach : using controlled experiments or mathematical modeling to try to figure out the likelihood of the virus spreading in the airplane environment .
The second involves detective work : using contact tracers to track a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected people who were on a plane and spread the virus to others .
The best of these studies also use genome sequencing to confirm the virus is genetically linked in the passengers who became ill .
Modeling and experimental studies show that airplanes are pretty safe — under ideal conditions Let ’ s first look at the modeling studies .
Planes have an important built-in safety measure when it comes to the spread of respiratory viruses : air filtration and ventilation systems .
To help stop the spread of infectious diseases like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long recommended that air in an indoor space be filtered — where it ’ s passed through a membrane that catches virtually all of the tiny aerosols or droplets that might contain the virus — or replaced by fresh air around six times per hour .
In practice , planes have an air exchange rate closer to 20 or 30 times per hour .
( Federal Aviation Administration regulations require each passenger be provided 0.55 pounds of fresh air per minute . )
The airflow in the plane is also designed to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floating around the cabin .
The air flows from the top of a passenger ’ s head and is collected down by their feet , which keeps whatever we exhale from spreading too far horizontally .
In ideal circumstances , this air filtration system should work very well .
One study from the Department of Defense ( which was , in part , sponsored by the airline industry , so take that into consideration ) , fitted an aircraft with mannequins equipped with nebulizers to mimic real human breathing .
In the experiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mannequins was marked with a fluorescent tracer so that researchers could see what happened in real time .
The study concluded that due to the high air-circulation rate , the risk of being infected even while sitting next to an infectious person was very , very low : According to the test results , it would take 54 hours for someone sitting next to an infected passenger to be exposed to an infectious dose of the virus .
This number sounds precise — and encouraging — but the study had numerous limitations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plane was infected , that everyone was wearing masks at all times , and that the infected passenger never turned their head and sat facing forward for the entire flight .
The study also looked at only the spread of aerosolized particles that can linger in the air — it didn ’ t consider the spread of the larger viral-laden droplets that fall to the ground more quickly .
If you ’ re sitting next to a person who ’ s coughing out lots of big droplets , that could still be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The study makes an assumption about what constitutes an infectious dose of the coronavirus , though virologists haven ’ t determined that yet .
Meanwhile , researchers at Harvard also developed a mathematical model on Covid-19 transmission risk on airplanes , based on what ’ s known about ventilation systems .
They arrived at similar conclusions : The risk of infection while flying is very low because of those ventilation systems .
( The Harvard study , published independently by the university and not in a peer-reviewed journal , was partially funded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ association . )
But the authors of the study acknowledge they can ’ t account for all the behaviors that may occur on a plane , including walking up and down the aisles , eating , and drinking .
And they can ’ t account for the behaviors of other passengers , either .
“ All these systems can be defeated if people are not wearing masks , ” Ed Nardell , a professor of immunology and infectious diseases and a co-author of the Harvard analysis , said during a press call .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , like the risk of people standing less than 6 feet apart while boarding , waiting to use the bathroom , and deplaning .
“ That ’ s going to be an important thing , that people are not ganged up ... on the bridge , or standing in the aisles for a long period of time , ” he said .
These models also account for the plane ’ s ventilation systems running at full speed mid-flight .
But the ventilation systems aren ’ t always turned on at full blast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxiing , or sitting at the gate — again , the precise moments during a flight when people are most likely to crowd together .
“ We made a recommendation that the ventilation system be turned on when planes are on the ground , ” Lenny Marcus , another co-author of the Harvard paper , said on the press call .
But they ’ re not guaranteed to be .
In the worst-case scenario , you could be stuck for hours at the gate , stewing in less than perfectly filtered air .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are several documented examples of coronavirus spread Even better than modeling studies is the evidence we have from real-world examples where Covid-19 ( almost certainly ) spread on planes .
Freedman , the infectious disease specialist , co-authored one of the most comprehensive papers on the subject — a review of studies looking at flights with possible transmission , published in the Journal of Travel Medicine in late September .
He and co-author Annelies Wilder-Smith studied peer-reviewed research and public health publications from January to September to identify instances of Covid-19 spread on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainty with which we could trust the results .
Let ’ s look at the four strongest case studies , all of which were considered “ mass transmission events , ” or flights that generated at least two additional Covid-19 cases .
Two of those studies used the “ genetic detective ” approach mentioned previously : whole-genome sequencing to tease out whether cases that seemed to originate in flight were , in fact , genetically linked .
1 ) In the first paper , published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases , 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a March flight from Sydney to Perth , Australia — nine of them having recently disembarked from a cruise ship where there was an outbreak .
They infected 11 others on the flight — none of whom had been on the cruise ship — with a strain of the virus that hadn ’ t yet been identified in Australia .
Masks weren ’ t mandatory at the time , and in interviews , passengers said mask-wearing was rare ( though two passengers who got the virus in flight did wear masks , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 ) In another genetics study , also published in Emerging Infectious Diseases , researchers traced four Covid-19 cases recorded in Hong Kong backward to an international flight from Boston in early March ( when masking wasn ’ t required ) .
Not only were these four cases on the same flight , the authors of the paper concluded that each case had a virus with a genetic sequence that had never been documented in Hong Kong before .
The researchers deduced that two of the passengers on the flight must have acquired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in North America , then boarded a plane where they likely transmitted the virus to two flight attendants .
In both of these studies , it ’ s very difficult to prove that transmission happened in flight .
But the whole genome sequencing linking the cases with a strain of the virus — that wasn ’ t circulating in the places the passengers boarded the flights — tells us that ’ s very likely .
3 ) Two of the other four highest-quality papers didn ’ t use genetic sequencing , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on planes .
In one , also published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases , a symptomatic business-class passenger with Covid-19 boarded a London-Hanoi flight and appears to have infected 15 people ( 12 in business class , two in economy , and one flight attendant ) .
The authors reasoned that at the time of the flight — March 2 — neither the UK nor Vietnam had more than a handful of Covid-19 cases , so it ’ s very likely the transmissions occurred in the air .
4 ) The final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of the unethical experiment described earlier .
Since April in Hong Kong , air travel passengers are required to submit to PCR testing upon landing and then quarantine for 14 days .
The information on cases can tell us how many people on a flight are positive when they arrive at a destination , and how many go on to develop Covid-19 — suggesting they probably picked it up in the air .
The flight described in the paper was a virtual hotbed of Covid-19 : An astonishing 27 passengers had the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dubai , meaning they were probably already infectious when they got on the plane .
The researchers determined that they likely passed the virus on to two other people ( both people were negative upon landing but tested positive by day 14 ) .
Notably , this was a flight where mask-wearing was mandatory , which may explain why the 27 index cases only generated an additional two cases .
Given all the flying that ’ s happened during the pandemic and these relatively few well-documented examples of virus spread , the airline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a “ low incidence of inflight COVID-19 transmission.
” Freedman sees it a different way : “ The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
” Since the burden of proving a Covid-19 case was generated in the air — and not through contact just before getting on the plane or just after — is really high , and not all passengers are followed up with , there ’ s probably a lot we ’ re missing , he reasoned .
What this suggests about the risk of flying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies and contact tracing studies tell us a few things about flying in the pandemic : Covid-19 definitely spreads on planes , seemingly mostly to passengers who are seated near index cases , though it ’ s not clear how often this happens .
And there ’ s some good news : Masks seem to help .
So what does this mean for the people who want to go home for the holidays or visit loved ones across the country ?
There are a few things we can take away from the research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of catching the virus .
Three of the mass transmission events — where more than one person got infected — Freedman ’ s study uncovered happened on flights early in the pandemic , when masking wasn ’ t mandatory .
In contrast , in the flight from Dubai to Hong Kong , which carried 27 passengers who were coronavirus positive , there was universal masking in place and only two people got infected .
( One of them was seated in a row with five people who tested positive for the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence is extremely strong that these [ mass transmission ] incidences we know about really stopped happening after the airlines started implementing some form of masking , ” Freedman said .
Wearing glasses or a face shield to cover your eyes too is probably even more protective ( though face shields are not a substitute for masks ) .
2 ) Proximity matters .
In all four real-world examples mentioned above , most of the cases were clustered near the person who was sick — and a minority happened more than three rows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Harvard report authors , when more than 60 percent of seats on a plane are occupied , “ it is no longer possible to rely on physical distancing alone to mitigate the risk of virus transmission.
” 3 ) You ’ re subjected to other people ’ s behaviors on a flight in a way you can ’ t escape .
Even with universal mask-wearing , people might remove their mask to eat or talk .
Or they might not wear their mask properly .
And flying is different from other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk : If someone started coughing in a meeting or restaurant , you could simply walk away , but the same isn ’ t true for an airplane .
People “ don ’ t want to take a chance on being a prisoner in a circumstance they can ’ t control , ” Freedman said .
Overall , the risk of getting the virus on a plane is probably low , he noted , lower than going to a crowded bar or restaurant .
But it ’ s not zero .
What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process that is more than just the flight itself .
Passengers need to weigh their tolerance of risk in this context.
” You may wind up in a line for boarding or the bathroom , where it ’ s harder to distance .
“ When you ’ re traveling , I think you ’ re more at the hands of those around you in terms of how safe are they being , ” said Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist and assistant professor with George Mason University .
“ And that kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vulnerable position .
So there ’ s only so much we can control when we ’ re traveling .
And that ’ s the first step in really understanding the risks at hand.
” So : Should you fly ?
Even if flying is perfectly safe — and , by now , we know it ’ s not — it ’ s worth being really cautious about travel .
“ Travel is one of the things , ideally , we ’ d be trying to minimize right now , ” said Julia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while recognizing that ’ s not going to be possible for a lot of people who have to travel for work or a family emergency .
But think hard : Do you really need to go ?
Because travel , overall , is how this disease spreads between regions .
“ Airplanes are certainly vectors of disease , efficiently transporting infectious people around countries and the globe , ” Joseph Allen , a public health researcher at Harvard , wrote in the Washington Post .
“ This is obviously critical in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreaks grew to pandemic proportions because of air travel , but it ’ s not necessarily because of the planes themselves — it ’ s because of travelers ’ behavior once they arrived at their destinations .
You might , for example , end up at a gathering in a friend ’ s home with people who aren ’ t wearing masks .
So be especially cautious if you ’ re flying from an area with an uncontrolled or rising outbreak to an area with lower levels of infection , or vice versa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a community to the virus , or catching the virus yourself .
There ’ s also your individual risk profile and tolerance to consider .
Someone flying home to see a beloved family member perhaps for the last time simply has a different risk calculus than someone whose family members are all likely to be around for years to come .
People who are in higher-risk groups for serious Covid-19 illness might also be more hesitant than people who aren ’ t .
It is “ helpful to think somewhat long term because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Marcus said .
“ One of the ways that we can adapt is to have some flexibility around our traditions and rituals that are really important in our lives.
” If you decide to fly , how can you minimize your risk ?
First and foremost : Check the airline ’ s policy before you go .
Some airlines are still practicing physical distancing and spacing out passengers , but others aren ’ t .
Harries , who co-wrote a review of the research on the safety of flying , had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of getting sick on the plane or transmitting to anyone else .
• Wear a mask and bring extra masks in case the one you ’ re wearing gets dirty or breaks .
• Consider shielding your eyes with sunglasses , goggles , or a face shield .
• Do all the usual pandemic hygiene things you ’ ve gotten used to : Take alcohol-based sanitizers on the flight and wipe surfaces around you , regularly wash or sanitize your hands , and don ’ t touch your face .
• Stay away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — so don ’ t congregate in the bathroom , or in a lineup to board or deplane .
• Try not to talk or yell ( that ’ s how droplets spread ) .
• If you ’ re near someone who is coughing , ask to be moved away .
• Snag a window seat ( since people seated in window seats have less contact with other people ) .
• Minimize eating or drinking , since you have to de-mask to do these things .
• Minimize going to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where you ’ ll have contact with others and their germs ) .
• If there ’ s an air nozzle above you , keep it on maximum and point it at your head to keep air flowing from above you to your feet .
Harries also suggested thinking about how you get to the airport — taking a taxi or your own car instead of a crowded bus , for example .
And , of course , distancing while at the airport , boarding , or deplaning , too .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything you can to reduce your risk of catching or spreading anything , and that ’ ll go a long way even if you can ’ t control what others on the plane are doing .

Share All sharing options for: How risky is air travel in the pandemic? Here’s what the science says.
According to the airline industry, it’s safe to fly during the Covid-19 pandemic. United Airlines boasts that the “risk of exposure to Covid-19 is almost non-existent on our flights.” Southwest Airlines has opened up middle seats for passengers, saying the odds of catching the coronavirus on a plane are “similar to the odds of being struck by lightning.”
Airline companies clearly have an interest in selling more tickets. But should we buy their confidence?
At the beginning of the pandemic, people who were infected with the virus boarded planes and rapidly seeded outbreaks all over the world. But whether planes themselves are a dangerous place to become infected, and infect others, has been more of an open question.
The truth is we don’t really know the answer yet. There are few high-quality studies on transmission on airplanes, and they all come with important caveats and uncertainties.
But the best research available provides some clues.
Here’s where things stand: Flying is not the most dangerous activity during the pandemic. It’s safer than, say, going to a crowded bar for drinks. But safer does not necessarily mean safe. There have been credible instances of transmission on planes, particularly on longer flights and earlier on in the pandemic (when the current guidelines for masking and other risk-reducing actions weren’t in place).
In ideal conditions — for example, everyone wears a mask, there’s staggered seating, and the aircraft’s ventilation system runs all the time — yes, flying is a relatively low-risk activity.
But there are many gray areas — situations that arise in an airport and on a plane — that probably increase the chance of virus spread but aren’t well understood. For example, while scientists have looked at the risk of viral transmission in flight, they haven’t studied the transmission dangers posed by crowding during boarding or deplaning.
Flying may be a relatively low risk, but we must ask ourselves: Should we really be traveling in the first place? Getting on a plane might not even be the most dangerous part about travel — it could be the new exposure potential when you get to your destination.
Even though there isn’t one simple answer here, there are many, many ways both passengers and airlines can reduce risk.
Let’s dive in.
Why we don’t know exactly how risky flying is
“How safe is air travel during the Covid-19 pandemic?” sounds like a simple question, but it’s deceptively hard to answer scientifically.
To know with reasonable certainty, you’d need to run a study that involves something like isolating passengers for weeks before a flight and then testing them to make sure they do not have Covid-19, while also blinding them to the reason they’re submitting to testing. Then you’d put them on a plane with another passenger or crew member (or both) who is infectious. David Freedman, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told Vox it’s the flight crew members who are most likely to be infected via air travel. They’re the ones spending a lot of time interfacing with the public. “The airlines don’t like to talk about this,” Freedman said.
Of course, no ethics review board would ever approve such an experiment — and the level of risk is different on a plane with zero or two cases versus five or 10.
“[A] long-haul flight is more risky than short-haul flights, since there’s more passenger and crew movement. A full flight is more risky than a half-full flight, where hopefully they space you,” said Anthony Harries, a senior adviser at the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease who authored a review of the research on the safety of flying during the pandemic.
We don’t have comprehensive real-world data on these travel scenarios because public health agencies and airlines don’t track down every passenger to see if they became sick after a flight.
And it’s not just the planes, either. Airports are also potentially dangerous places for swapping microbes. “They’re closed in, no open windows. You don’t know what the ventilation is like, if they’ve got decent filters like on airplanes,” Harries added.
What we have instead is imperfect research evidence that’s mostly taken one of two approaches.
The first is an engineering approach: using controlled experiments or mathematical modeling to try to figure out the likelihood of the virus spreading in the airplane environment.
The second involves detective work: using contact tracers to track a cluster of cases involving one or more infected people who were on a plane and spread the virus to others. The best of these studies also use genome sequencing to confirm the virus is genetically linked in the passengers who became ill.
Modeling and experimental studies show that airplanes are pretty safe — under ideal conditions
Let’s first look at the modeling studies.
Planes have an important built-in safety measure when it comes to the spread of respiratory viruses: air filtration and ventilation systems. To help stop the spread of infectious diseases like the flu, air quality experts have long recommended that air in an indoor space be filtered — where it’s passed through a membrane that catches virtually all of the tiny aerosols or droplets that might contain the virus — or replaced by fresh air around six times per hour. In practice, planes have an air exchange rate closer to 20 or 30 times per hour. (Federal Aviation Administration regulations require each passenger be provided 0.55 pounds of fresh air per minute.)
The airflow in the plane is also designed to keep any droplets spewed by a passenger from floating around the cabin. The air flows from the top of a passenger’s head and is collected down by their feet, which keeps whatever we exhale from spreading too far horizontally.
In ideal circumstances, this air filtration system should work very well. One study from the Department of Defense (which was, in part, sponsored by the airline industry, so take that into consideration), fitted an aircraft with mannequins equipped with nebulizers to mimic real human breathing. In the experiment, the “breath” from the mannequins was marked with a fluorescent tracer so that researchers could see what happened in real time.
The study concluded that due to the high air-circulation rate, the risk of being infected even while sitting next to an infectious person was very, very low: According to the test results, it would take 54 hours for someone sitting next to an infected passenger to be exposed to an infectious dose of the virus.
This number sounds precise — and encouraging — but the study had numerous limitations. The researchers assumed only one person aboard the plane was infected, that everyone was wearing masks at all times, and that the infected passenger never turned their head and sat facing forward for the entire flight.
The study also looked at only the spread of aerosolized particles that can linger in the air — it didn’t consider the spread of the larger viral-laden droplets that fall to the ground more quickly. If you’re sitting next to a person who’s coughing out lots of big droplets, that could still be a problem.
A final caveat: The study makes an assumption about what constitutes an infectious dose of the coronavirus, though virologists haven’t determined that yet.
Meanwhile, researchers at Harvard also developed a mathematical model on Covid-19 transmission risk on airplanes, based on what’s known about ventilation systems. They arrived at similar conclusions: The risk of infection while flying is very low because of those ventilation systems. (The Harvard study, published independently by the university and not in a peer-reviewed journal, was partially funded by Airlines for America, an industry trade association.)
But the authors of the study acknowledge they can’t account for all the behaviors that may occur on a plane, including walking up and down the aisles, eating, and drinking. And they can’t account for the behaviors of other passengers, either.
“All these systems can be defeated if people are not wearing masks,” Ed Nardell, a professor of immunology and infectious diseases and a co-author of the Harvard analysis, said during a press call. He pointed to other gray areas as well, like the risk of people standing less than 6 feet apart while boarding, waiting to use the bathroom, and deplaning. “That’s going to be an important thing, that people are not ganged up ... on the bridge, or standing in the aisles for a long period of time,” he said.
These models also account for the plane’s ventilation systems running at full speed mid-flight. But the ventilation systems aren’t always turned on at full blast while a plane is being boarded, taxiing, or sitting at the gate — again, the precise moments during a flight when people are most likely to crowd together.
“We made a recommendation that the ventilation system be turned on when planes are on the ground,” Lenny Marcus, another co-author of the Harvard paper, said on the press call. But they’re not guaranteed to be. In the worst-case scenario, you could be stuck for hours at the gate, stewing in less than perfectly filtered air.
In contact-tracing studies on flights, there are several documented examples of coronavirus spread
Even better than modeling studies is the evidence we have from real-world examples where Covid-19 (almost certainly) spread on planes. Freedman, the infectious disease specialist, co-authored one of the most comprehensive papers on the subject — a review of studies looking at flights with possible transmission, published in the Journal of Travel Medicine in late September.
He and co-author Annelies Wilder-Smith studied peer-reviewed research and public health publications from January to September to identify instances of Covid-19 spread on flights, then ranked them by the certainty with which we could trust the results.
Let’s look at the four strongest case studies, all of which were considered “mass transmission events,” or flights that generated at least two additional Covid-19 cases.
Two of those studies used the “genetic detective” approach mentioned previously: whole-genome sequencing to tease out whether cases that seemed to originate in flight were, in fact, genetically linked.
1) In the first paper, published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11 people were PCR positive and symptomatic on a March flight from Sydney to Perth, Australia — nine of them having recently disembarked from a cruise ship where there was an outbreak. They infected 11 others on the flight — none of whom had been on the cruise ship — with a strain of the virus that hadn’t yet been identified in Australia. Masks weren’t mandatory at the time, and in interviews, passengers said mask-wearing was rare (though two passengers who got the virus in flight did wear masks, though not for the entire journey).
2) In another genetics study, also published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, researchers traced four Covid-19 cases recorded in Hong Kong backward to an international flight from Boston in early March (when masking wasn’t required). Not only were these four cases on the same flight, the authors of the paper concluded that each case had a virus with a genetic sequence that had never been documented in Hong Kong before. The researchers deduced that two of the passengers on the flight must have acquired the virus with this particular genetic sequence in North America, then boarded a plane where they likely transmitted the virus to two flight attendants.
In both of these studies, it’s very difficult to prove that transmission happened in flight. But the whole genome sequencing linking the cases with a strain of the virus — that wasn’t circulating in the places the passengers boarded the flights — tells us that’s very likely.
3) Two of the other four highest-quality papers didn’t use genetic sequencing, but they also offered compelling evidence of virus spread on planes. In one, also published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, a symptomatic business-class passenger with Covid-19 boarded a London-Hanoi flight and appears to have infected 15 people (12 in business class, two in economy, and one flight attendant). The authors reasoned that at the time of the flight — March 2 — neither the UK nor Vietnam had more than a handful of Covid-19 cases, so it’s very likely the transmissions occurred in the air.
4) The final example was essentially a slightly pared-down real-world version of the unethical experiment described earlier. Since April in Hong Kong, air travel passengers are required to submit to PCR testing upon landing and then quarantine for 14 days. The information on cases can tell us how many people on a flight are positive when they arrive at a destination, and how many go on to develop Covid-19 — suggesting they probably picked it up in the air.
The flight described in the paper was a virtual hotbed of Covid-19: An astonishing 27 passengers had the virus upon arrival in Hong Kong from Dubai, meaning they were probably already infectious when they got on the plane. The researchers determined that they likely passed the virus on to two other people (both people were negative upon landing but tested positive by day 14). Notably, this was a flight where mask-wearing was mandatory, which may explain why the 27 index cases only generated an additional two cases.
Given all the flying that’s happened during the pandemic and these relatively few well-documented examples of virus spread, the airline industry has been arguing that this means there’s a “low incidence of inflight COVID-19 transmission.”
Freedman sees it a different way: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Since the burden of proving a Covid-19 case was generated in the air — and not through contact just before getting on the plane or just after — is really high, and not all passengers are followed up with, there’s probably a lot we’re missing, he reasoned.
What this suggests about the risk of flying in the pandemic
Together, the modeling studies and contact tracing studies tell us a few things about flying in the pandemic: Covid-19 definitely spreads on planes, seemingly mostly to passengers who are seated near index cases, though it’s not clear how often this happens. And there’s some good news: Masks seem to help.
So what does this mean for the people who want to go home for the holidays or visit loved ones across the country? There are a few things we can take away from the research.
1) Mask-wearing probably reduces your risk of catching the virus. Three of the mass transmission events — where more than one person got infected — Freedman’s study uncovered happened on flights early in the pandemic, when masking wasn’t mandatory. In contrast, in the flight from Dubai to Hong Kong, which carried 27 passengers who were coronavirus positive, there was universal masking in place and only two people got infected. (One of them was seated in a row with five people who tested positive for the virus on arrival.)
“The circumstantial evidence is extremely strong that these [mass transmission] incidences we know about really stopped happening after the airlines started implementing some form of masking,” Freedman said. Wearing glasses or a face shield to cover your eyes too is probably even more protective (though face shields are not a substitute for masks).
2) Proximity matters. In all four real-world examples mentioned above, most of the cases were clustered near the person who was sick — and a minority happened more than three rows away from an index case. According to the Harvard report authors, when more than 60 percent of seats on a plane are occupied, “it is no longer possible to rely on physical distancing alone to mitigate the risk of virus transmission.”
3) You’re subjected to other people’s behaviors on a flight in a way you can’t escape. Even with universal mask-wearing, people might remove their mask to eat or talk. Or they might not wear their mask properly. And flying is different from other activities we do that involve some coronavirus risk: If someone started coughing in a meeting or restaurant, you could simply walk away, but the same isn’t true for an airplane. People “don’t want to take a chance on being a prisoner in a circumstance they can’t control,” Freedman said.
Overall, the risk of getting the virus on a plane is probably low, he noted, lower than going to a crowded bar or restaurant. But it’s not zero. What’s more, “Travel is a process that is more than just the flight itself. Passengers need to weigh their tolerance of risk in this context.” You may wind up in a line for boarding or the bathroom, where it’s harder to distance.
“When you’re traveling, I think you’re more at the hands of those around you in terms of how safe are they being,” said Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist and assistant professor with George Mason University. “And that kind of leaves you in a bit of a vulnerable position. So there’s only so much we can control when we’re traveling. And that’s the first step in really understanding the risks at hand.”
So: Should you fly?
Even if flying is perfectly safe — and, by now, we know it’s not — it’s worth being really cautious about travel. “Travel is one of the things, ideally, we’d be trying to minimize right now,” said Julia Marcus, an epidemiologist at Harvard, while recognizing that’s not going to be possible for a lot of people who have to travel for work or a family emergency.
But think hard: Do you really need to go? Because travel, overall, is how this disease spreads between regions. “Airplanes are certainly vectors of disease, efficiently transporting infectious people around countries and the globe,” Joseph Allen, a public health researcher at Harvard, wrote in the Washington Post. “This is obviously critical in terms of outbreak control for Covid-19.”
The Covid-19 outbreaks grew to pandemic proportions because of air travel, but it’s not necessarily because of the planes themselves — it’s because of travelers’ behavior once they arrived at their destinations. You might, for example, end up at a gathering in a friend’s home with people who aren’t wearing masks.
So be especially cautious if you’re flying from an area with an uncontrolled or rising outbreak to an area with lower levels of infection, or vice versa. You run the risk of exposing a community to the virus, or catching the virus yourself.
There’s also your individual risk profile and tolerance to consider. Someone flying home to see a beloved family member perhaps for the last time simply has a different risk calculus than someone whose family members are all likely to be around for years to come. People who are in higher-risk groups for serious Covid-19 illness might also be more hesitant than people who aren’t.
It is “helpful to think somewhat long term because we are in a long-term situation here,” Marcus said. “One of the ways that we can adapt is to have some flexibility around our traditions and rituals that are really important in our lives.”
If you decide to fly, how can you minimize your risk?
First and foremost: Check the airline’s policy before you go. Some airlines are still practicing physical distancing and spacing out passengers, but others aren’t.
Harries, who co-wrote a review of the research on the safety of flying, had some useful advice to reduce your risk of getting sick on the plane or transmitting to anyone else.
Wear a mask and bring extra masks in case the one you’re wearing gets dirty or breaks.
Consider shielding your eyes with sunglasses, goggles, or a face shield.
Do all the usual pandemic hygiene things you’ve gotten used to: Take alcohol-based sanitizers on the flight and wipe surfaces around you, regularly wash or sanitize your hands, and don’t touch your face.
Stay away from other people as much as possible — so don’t congregate in the bathroom, or in a lineup to board or deplane.
Try not to talk or yell (that’s how droplets spread).
If you’re near someone who is coughing, ask to be moved away.
Snag a window seat (since people seated in window seats have less contact with other people).
Minimize eating or drinking, since you have to de-mask to do these things.
Minimize going to the bathroom on the plane (again, where you’ll have contact with others and their germs).
If there’s an air nozzle above you, keep it on maximum and point it at your head to keep air flowing from above you to your feet.
Harries also suggested thinking about how you get to the airport — taking a taxi or your own car instead of a crowded bus, for example. And, of course, distancing while at the airport, boarding, or deplaning, too.
So, if you have to travel, do everything you can to reduce your risk of catching or spreading anything, and that’ll go a long way even if you can’t control what others on the plane are doing.


vox--2020-11-13--Trump’s war on Fox News and the future of right-wing media

What ’ s the future of conservative media after Trump ?
For as long as most of us can remember , Fox News has been at the center of the right-wing media world .
It ’ s hard to imagine that changing anytime soon , but there are early signs that a shake-up is afoot .
As a recent Washington Post story explained , the “ long love affair between Fox News and Trump may be over , ” mostly because the network hasn ’ t categorically embraced his false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s coverage is still Trump-friendly , particularly its primetime lineup that has given oxygen to the baseless narrative that the election was stolen .
But there have been notable moments when some of the network ’ s journalists have challenged this storyline and inflamed the diehards .
In the past week alone , hundreds of thousands of viewers have flocked to Newsmax , a new and decidedly more right-wing channel , looking for more biased coverage .
For now , it ’ s too soon to say whether this trend will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s audience , which is basically Trump ’ s base at this point , does revolt against the network , where would they go ?
What other networks might challenge Fox for supremacy on the right ?
And how would that change the broader media landscape ?
Brian Stelter is a longtime media reporter and the host of CNN ’ s Reliable Sources .
He ’ s also the author of Hoax : Donald Trump , Fox News , and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth .
I reached out to him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and if he thinks the internal struggles at the network are reaching a boiling point .
We also discuss whether Trump will launch his own right-wing media empire after he leaves office .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
Has Trump changed conservative media in any significant way ?
When you say conservative media , I think of a human body , with Fox News as the beating heart , but there are many other parts of conservative media as well .
That body is complicated , right ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are reality-based , and then there are resentment sites and full-blown conspiracy sites .
But if we ’ re talking about pro-Trump media , then that ’ s the big shift we ’ ve seen .
Obviously there was no pro-Trump media before he ran for office , and now there ’ s a vibrant pro-Trump media that exists in opposition to the rest of the media .
And this has evolved over the last few years , and it has hardened and become more loyal and more insular .
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump has been a tipping point for right-wing media , but his audacity has really dialed everything up in a way that forced everyone who supports him in the press to go all-in .
Yeah , but this may have been the direction that conservative media was already heading in , and Trump just sped up the travel .
Certainly , I think Tucker Carlson ’ s famous call to arms , at [ the 2009 ] CPAC , urging conservative media to do more reporting and to strengthen newsrooms — so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wayside .
That call has been forgotten .
It ’ s now entirely about whether you ’ re with Trump or against him .
Were we always heading in that direction ?
Maybe .
I don ’ t know .
I have a hard time remembering the pre-Trump years now .
People like you focus a lot on the media institutions — what they ’ re doing or not doing — but I wonder about the demand side of this .
Audiences , especially on the right , have come to expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all about affirmation and drama and high-stakes cultural conflict .
Even Fox has lost some ability to control their own product because their consumers are demanding less news and more propaganda .
The Trump years have definitely accelerated this dynamic .
In general , I think that ’ s right .
There are obvious exceptions , but in reporting my book Hoax , staffers at Fox kept pointing to the audience as the overriding issue .
I wrote toward the end of the book that the audience had been radicalized , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep up with their viewers ’ demands for propaganda .
Again , there are exceptions to that rule , but it ’ s clear that Fox ’ s audience , at least the extremely online audience , will not tolerate any dissent .
I don ’ t remember that in the Obama years .
I ’ m sure it existed to some degree , but I ’ ve had many staffers at Fox tell me that their audience has been radicalized much more in the Trump years .
In fact , I remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel like Fox is being held hostage by its audience.
” I get that that implies that the network is the victim , and not the cause of this information environment , but that word “ hostage ” kept coming up in my reporting .
So I think you ’ re right — there ’ s a demand issue here .
There are so many examples of Trump skeptics in Fox who felt they had to get aboard the train .
For some it took longer than others , but it was about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jumped on the bandwagon , because they could see that there was no market incentive for them to remain anti-Trump .
What even is Fox at this point ?
I mean , the center has kind of held up over the last couple weeks , but only barely and probably not for long .
I think of Fox as many things in one .
It is a news operation .
It is a propaganda operation .
It is a virtual community .
It is all these things at the same time , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the propaganda side has been growing .
I ’ m not sure if “ tug-of-war ” is the best way to describe what ’ s happened the past week at Fox .
There is this dynamic where daytime Fox shows are calling Biden the president-elect , but many Fox nighttime shows undermine that very description .
So you ’ ve even got opinion shows like Fox & Friends acknowledging the direction this is headed , and yet other shows are trying to destroy the Biden presidency before it begins .
What does that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the viewers ?
Well , it adds up to this complicated place , and some Fox viewers are resisting right now and turning to places like Newsmax or OAN [ One America News ] instead , because their coverage is more satisfyingly pro-Trump .
That ’ s a big question now , right ?
Is the Fox base revolting , or are they just throwing a tantrum ?
There are signs of revolt , but it ’ s hard to tell .
As we ’ re talking now , I ’ m pulling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Before the election , I would look at Newsmax ’ s ratings and chuckle .
Sean Spicer has a show over there and he would get 40,000 or 50,000 viewers a night , which isn ’ t even enough to fill a football stadium .
But I ’ m looking at Monday night ’ s ratings now and he had 600,000 viewers , and the next show had 800,000 on Newsmax , and the next show had 600,000 .
I hadn ’ t looked at the spreadsheet until now , but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up 500 to 1,000 percent from their pre-election averages .
Now , obviously , ratings are up across the board because it ’ s an election , but something ’ s happening on the right .
All of these networks are still small compared to Fox , and it ’ s not close , and yet there ’ s a real audience shift underway .
Fox ’ s numbers right now are basically flat compared to what they normally are .
Is this temporary or permanent ?
I have no idea .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it does seem that Fox has alienated part of its base .
Is it conceivable that one of these Fox competitors , like Newsmax or OAN , eventually supplants Fox News as the tone-setter on the right , especially if these outlets are even less constrained by journalistic standards ?
It ’ s a real risk to Fox ’ s bottom line in a way that it was not two weeks ago .
In the last year or so , when I asked Fox staffers about OAN or Newsmax , the response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ channels barely registered on the Nielsen ratings .
The difference now is that we ’ re in a post-Biden-election world and some Fox viewers feel betrayed by the network .
They feel betrayed by Fox ’ s reporting , by Fox ’ s reality-based observation that Biden is the president-elect , and so maybe for the first time some Fox viewers will finally flip their cable dial to another channel .
What are you hearing now from all your sources over at Fox ?
Is there a civil war going on inside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know what ’ s happening inside these companies right now because of the pandemic — most people aren ’ t at the office talking to each other .
But that said , I think there are different constituency groups within Fox News .
There are journalists who have felt suffocated by the Trump years .
There are executives who are focused on the profits .
There are opinion hosts and commentators and producers who are focused on advancing the agenda .
There are definitely internal skirmishes between the hardcore partisans and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in front of the cameras .
Fox , as a business , makes billions of dollars in profit and it has to be somewhat reality-based .
I know that some folks don ’ t believe it when I say that , but in order to appeal to advertisers and strike deals with cable operators , they can not put on a broadcast that says Biden lost .
There are just certain tenets of reality that can ’ t be denied , but that creates tension with some of these right-wing commentators who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deny reality .
I ’ m not sure they can maintain this tension between reality and unreality .
A recent poll shows that 70 percent of Republicans think the election was stolen — 70 percent !
That ’ s a crazy number , Brian , and Fox , to keep its customers happy , will have to indulge that fantasy moving forward .
But even as I say that now , I realize I ’ m probably underestimating the extent to which Fox has always done this and there ’ s no reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
My impression this week is that they are taking Trump ’ s lawsuits a lot more seriously than other media outlets .
They are leaning heavily into the possibility of mass voter fraud , where none exists .
They are bringing on so-called whistleblowers who imply that [ the election ] was rigged , while also covering the transition .
I mean , I have a hard time even describing this , because it makes no sense when I say it out loud , but it ’ s true .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are covering Biden , the president-elect , in one breath , and then they are imagining voter fraud in the next breath .
And remember , Fox is a collection of shows that barely talk to each other .
There ’ s some cross-pollination , but most of the opinion shows have awesome autonomy .
News anchors like Neil Cavuto will keep doing reality-based journalism , and Sean Hannity or Mark Levin will keep doing what they do .
I ’ d also say that Fox ’ s brand has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Democrats , and they ’ re pretty open about this .
This is not something they hide from .
It ’ s something they acknowledge to advertisers .
It ’ s something they sell to cable operators .
They are the voice of the opposition , and you can not drop Fox from your cable lineup because the audience will rebel , because Fox is the only voice of the opposition .
That ’ s always been the brand .
My working theory before the election was that Fox will have four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ channel .
The question now is , will enough Fox viewers feel betrayed and look elsewhere ?
All good points , and maybe the operation keeps humming along like it always has , but for all the demand reasons we discussed earlier , I think they ’ re going to have to keep dialing it up and up and up .
Neil Cavuto has 1.5 million viewers at 4 pm , because Fox ’ s viewers generally don ’ t want to hear him report the news .
Then at 5 pm , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewers with the show The Five , which is a pro-Trump talk show with one liberal .
The audience doubles when the opinion guys come on , and then the audience turns away for a while and comes back in massive numbers for Tucker Carlson .
So the trends are obvious .
Fox sees these numbers every day .
They know exactly what their audience wants .
This is why they keep pushing in a Trumpier and Trumpier direction .
There ’ s no reason to think this will change .
Before you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the possibility of Trump launching his own TV network to counter Fox .
This is something people have speculated about for years — do you buy it at all ?
I don ’ t buy Trump TV because of my belief that Fox is bigger than Trump , and because of my knowledge that launching a network from scratch is incredibly difficult and almost impossible in the year 2020 .
There are some caveats to that , and some reasons why I could be wrong .
Fox seems to have a stranglehold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe Trump ends up with a show on Fox .
He bitterly tweets against Fox from time to time , but he cares deeply about the programming .
He ’ s obsessed with the programming , and he has lots of friends there .
I ’ ll put it this way : Why would Trump try to build and open his own mall when there ’ s a hyper-successful mall right across the street and he could have prime real estate right inside it ?
Why not go where the shoppers already are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name on shit !
Fox News will always be Fox News , but Trump TV — that ’ s the good stuff , baby .
It ’ s possible that Newsmax or OAN would give him what he wants and put his name on the network , but those channels have a lot less distribution than Fox News .
Even though Newsmax is doing really well right now , they are not available in nearly as many homes .
Which gets to the root of why it ’ ll be so hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operators are not in the business of adding channels right now .
They ’ re in the business of subtracting channels .
They want to be carrying fewer channels , as the cable business goes through this really tumultuous period .
Would a channel from a former president be appealing ?
Maybe to some operators in some red states , but I think it would be very hard to get Comcast or AT & T or Charter to carry a new Trump-branded channel , especially knowing how more than half the country would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It also costs an enormous amount of money ; you ’ d have to have programming , you ’ d have to have producers .
There are all these challenges associated with launching a channel from scratch , but putting his name on something that already exists would be way easier .
He could also turn the Trump campaign webcasts into a streaming platform and ask people to sign up .
Could he go the Netflix route ?
He might actually make a lot more money trying to get people to sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would with a traditional cable or satellite channel .
All of this takes an enormous amount of work .
Does he want to put in the effort ?
Honestly , if I wanted to launch Trump TV and I just lost an election , I would be out there on camera every day after the election .
But we ’ ve barely seen him for a week .

What’s the future of conservative media after Trump?
For as long as most of us can remember, Fox News has been at the center of the right-wing media world. It’s hard to imagine that changing anytime soon, but there are early signs that a shake-up is afoot.
As a recent Washington Post story explained, the “long love affair between Fox News and Trump may be over,” mostly because the network hasn’t categorically embraced his false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election. To be clear, much of the network’s coverage is still Trump-friendly, particularly its primetime lineup that has given oxygen to the baseless narrative that the election was stolen.
But there have been notable moments when some of the network’s journalists have challenged this storyline and inflamed the diehards. In the past week alone, hundreds of thousands of viewers have flocked to Newsmax, a new and decidedly more right-wing channel, looking for more biased coverage. For now, it’s too soon to say whether this trend will continue.
If a sizable share of Fox’s audience, which is basically Trump’s base at this point, does revolt against the network, where would they go? What other networks might challenge Fox for supremacy on the right? And how would that change the broader media landscape?
Brian Stelter is a longtime media reporter and the host of CNN’s Reliable Sources. He’s also the author of Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth. I reached out to him to talk about where Fox might go after Trump and if he thinks the internal struggles at the network are reaching a boiling point. We also discuss whether Trump will launch his own right-wing media empire after he leaves office.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
Has Trump changed conservative media in any significant way?
Brian Stelter
When you say conservative media, I think of a human body, with Fox News as the beating heart, but there are many other parts of conservative media as well. That body is complicated, right? There are some aspects of conservative media that are reality-based, and then there are resentment sites and full-blown conspiracy sites.
But if we’re talking about pro-Trump media, then that’s the big shift we’ve seen. Obviously there was no pro-Trump media before he ran for office, and now there’s a vibrant pro-Trump media that exists in opposition to the rest of the media. And this has evolved over the last few years, and it has hardened and become more loyal and more insular.
Sean Illing
Well, it may be too much to say that Trump has been a tipping point for right-wing media, but his audacity has really dialed everything up in a way that forced everyone who supports him in the press to go all-in.
Brian Stelter
Yeah, but this may have been the direction that conservative media was already heading in, and Trump just sped up the travel. Certainly, I think Tucker Carlson’s famous call to arms, at [the 2009] CPAC, urging conservative media to do more reporting and to strengthen newsrooms — so much of that has been left by the wayside. That call has been forgotten. It’s now entirely about whether you’re with Trump or against him. Were we always heading in that direction? Maybe. I don’t know. I have a hard time remembering the pre-Trump years now.
Sean Illing
People like you focus a lot on the media institutions — what they’re doing or not doing — but I wonder about the demand side of this. Audiences, especially on the right, have come to expect a certain style of journalism, which is all about affirmation and drama and high-stakes cultural conflict. Even Fox has lost some ability to control their own product because their consumers are demanding less news and more propaganda. The Trump years have definitely accelerated this dynamic.
Brian Stelter
In general, I think that’s right. There are obvious exceptions, but in reporting my book Hoax, staffers at Fox kept pointing to the audience as the overriding issue. I wrote toward the end of the book that the audience had been radicalized, and the anchors did whatever they could to keep up with their viewers’ demands for propaganda.
Again, there are exceptions to that rule, but it’s clear that Fox’s audience, at least the extremely online audience, will not tolerate any dissent. I don’t remember that in the Obama years. I’m sure it existed to some degree, but I’ve had many staffers at Fox tell me that their audience has been radicalized much more in the Trump years. In fact, I remember one veteran staffer said, “I feel like Fox is being held hostage by its audience.” I get that that implies that the network is the victim, and not the cause of this information environment, but that word “hostage” kept coming up in my reporting.
So I think you’re right — there’s a demand issue here. There are so many examples of Trump skeptics in Fox who felt they had to get aboard the train. For some it took longer than others, but it was about how, not whether, the hosts jumped on the bandwagon, because they could see that there was no market incentive for them to remain anti-Trump.
Sean Illing
What even is Fox at this point? I mean, the center has kind of held up over the last couple weeks, but only barely and probably not for long.
Brian Stelter
I think of Fox as many things in one. It is a news operation. It is a propaganda operation. It is a virtual community. It is all these things at the same time, and the news side has been shrinking and the propaganda side has been growing.
I’m not sure if “tug-of-war” is the best way to describe what’s happened the past week at Fox. There is this dynamic where daytime Fox shows are calling Biden the president-elect, but many Fox nighttime shows undermine that very description. So you’ve even got opinion shows like Fox & Friends acknowledging the direction this is headed, and yet other shows are trying to destroy the Biden presidency before it begins.
What does that add up to in the minds of the viewers? Well, it adds up to this complicated place, and some Fox viewers are resisting right now and turning to places like Newsmax or OAN [One America News] instead, because their coverage is more satisfyingly pro-Trump.
Sean Illing
That’s a big question now, right? Is the Fox base revolting, or are they just throwing a tantrum?
Brian Stelter
There are signs of revolt, but it’s hard to tell. As we’re talking now, I’m pulling up Monday’s cable news ratings. Before the election, I would look at Newsmax’s ratings and chuckle. Sean Spicer has a show over there and he would get 40,000 or 50,000 viewers a night, which isn’t even enough to fill a football stadium.
But I’m looking at Monday night’s ratings now and he had 600,000 viewers, and the next show had 800,000 on Newsmax, and the next show had 600,000. I hadn’t looked at the spreadsheet until now, but I’m gobsmacked. These shows are up 500 to 1,000 percent from their pre-election averages.
Now, obviously, ratings are up across the board because it’s an election, but something’s happening on the right. All of these networks are still small compared to Fox, and it’s not close, and yet there’s a real audience shift underway. Fox’s numbers right now are basically flat compared to what they normally are.
Is this temporary or permanent? I have no idea. It’s too soon to say, but it does seem that Fox has alienated part of its base.
Sean Illing
Is it conceivable that one of these Fox competitors, like Newsmax or OAN, eventually supplants Fox News as the tone-setter on the right, especially if these outlets are even less constrained by journalistic standards?
Brian Stelter
It’s a real risk to Fox’s bottom line in a way that it was not two weeks ago. In the last year or so, when I asked Fox staffers about OAN or Newsmax, the response was usually laughter and mockery. These channels barely registered on the Nielsen ratings.
The difference now is that we’re in a post-Biden-election world and some Fox viewers feel betrayed by the network. They feel betrayed by Fox’s reporting, by Fox’s reality-based observation that Biden is the president-elect, and so maybe for the first time some Fox viewers will finally flip their cable dial to another channel.
Sean Illing
What are you hearing now from all your sources over at Fox? Is there a civil war going on inside the building?
Brian Stelter
It’s really hard to know what’s happening inside these companies right now because of the pandemic — most people aren’t at the office talking to each other. But that said, I think there are different constituency groups within Fox News. There are journalists who have felt suffocated by the Trump years. There are executives who are focused on the profits. There are opinion hosts and commentators and producers who are focused on advancing the agenda. There are definitely internal skirmishes between the hardcore partisans and the journalists, and we see this playing out in front of the cameras.
Fox, as a business, makes billions of dollars in profit and it has to be somewhat reality-based. I know that some folks don’t believe it when I say that, but in order to appeal to advertisers and strike deals with cable operators, they cannot put on a broadcast that says Biden lost. There are just certain tenets of reality that can’t be denied, but that creates tension with some of these right-wing commentators who are under pressure from their audiences to deny reality.
Sean Illing
I’m not sure they can maintain this tension between reality and unreality. A recent poll shows that 70 percent of Republicans think the election was stolen — 70 percent! That’s a crazy number, Brian, and Fox, to keep its customers happy, will have to indulge that fantasy moving forward.
But even as I say that now, I realize I’m probably underestimating the extent to which Fox has always done this and there’s no reason why they can’t keep doing it.
Brian Stelter
My impression this week is that they are taking Trump’s lawsuits a lot more seriously than other media outlets. They are leaning heavily into the possibility of mass voter fraud, where none exists. They are bringing on so-called whistleblowers who imply that [the election] was rigged, while also covering the transition.
I mean, I have a hard time even describing this, because it makes no sense when I say it out loud, but it’s true. It’s what they’re doing. They are covering Biden, the president-elect, in one breath, and then they are imagining voter fraud in the next breath. And remember, Fox is a collection of shows that barely talk to each other. There’s some cross-pollination, but most of the opinion shows have awesome autonomy. News anchors like Neil Cavuto will keep doing reality-based journalism, and Sean Hannity or Mark Levin will keep doing what they do.
I’d also say that Fox’s brand has been built on the years when it is against Democrats, and they’re pretty open about this. This is not something they hide from. It’s something they acknowledge to advertisers. It’s something they sell to cable operators. They are the voice of the opposition, and you cannot drop Fox from your cable lineup because the audience will rebel, because Fox is the only voice of the opposition. That’s always been the brand.
My working theory before the election was that Fox will have four very profitable years as the preeminent anti-Biden channel. The question now is, will enough Fox viewers feel betrayed and look elsewhere?
Sean Illing
All good points, and maybe the operation keeps humming along like it always has, but for all the demand reasons we discussed earlier, I think they’re going to have to keep dialing it up and up and up.
Brian Stelter
Neil Cavuto has 1.5 million viewers at 4 pm, because Fox’s viewers generally don’t want to hear him report the news. Then at 5 pm, the ratings shoot up to 3 million viewers with the show The Five, which is a pro-Trump talk show with one liberal. The audience doubles when the opinion guys come on, and then the audience turns away for a while and comes back in massive numbers for Tucker Carlson.
So the trends are obvious. Fox sees these numbers every day. They know exactly what their audience wants. This is why they keep pushing in a Trumpier and Trumpier direction. There’s no reason to think this will change.
Sean Illing
Before you go, I have to ask you about the possibility of Trump launching his own TV network to counter Fox. This is something people have speculated about for years — do you buy it at all?
Brian Stelter
I don’t buy Trump TV because of my belief that Fox is bigger than Trump, and because of my knowledge that launching a network from scratch is incredibly difficult and almost impossible in the year 2020. There are some caveats to that, and some reasons why I could be wrong. Fox seems to have a stranglehold on Trump’s audience, so maybe Trump ends up with a show on Fox. He bitterly tweets against Fox from time to time, but he cares deeply about the programming. He’s obsessed with the programming, and he has lots of friends there.
I’ll put it this way: Why would Trump try to build and open his own mall when there’s a hyper-successful mall right across the street and he could have prime real estate right inside it? Why not go where the shoppers already are?
Sean Illing
Because he loves to put his name on shit! Fox News will always be Fox News, but Trump TV — that’s the good stuff, baby.
Brian Stelter
It’s possible that Newsmax or OAN would give him what he wants and put his name on the network, but those channels have a lot less distribution than Fox News. Even though Newsmax is doing really well right now, they are not available in nearly as many homes. Which gets to the root of why it’ll be so hard to launch a network. Cable and satellite operators are not in the business of adding channels right now. They’re in the business of subtracting channels. They want to be carrying fewer channels, as the cable business goes through this really tumultuous period.
Would a channel from a former president be appealing? Maybe to some operators in some red states, but I think it would be very hard to get Comcast or AT&T or Charter to carry a new Trump-branded channel, especially knowing how more than half the country would react to the existence of that channel.
It also costs an enormous amount of money; you’d have to have programming, you’d have to have producers. There are all these challenges associated with launching a channel from scratch, but putting his name on something that already exists would be way easier.
He could also turn the Trump campaign webcasts into a streaming platform and ask people to sign up. Could he go the Netflix route? He might actually make a lot more money trying to get people to sign up for his streaming platform than he would with a traditional cable or satellite channel.
All of this takes an enormous amount of work. Does he want to put in the effort? Honestly, if I wanted to launch Trump TV and I just lost an election, I would be out there on camera every day after the election. But we’ve barely seen him for a week.