vox--2020-09-30--How bad is your state’s Covid-19 outbreak?

America ’ s national Covid-19 epidemic continues , with the US ’ s daily new cases still higher than most developed nations and the country recently surpassing 200,000 deaths due to the disease .
At the state level , things can look even worse than the national picture .
Public health experts look at a few markers to determine how bad things are in each state : the number of daily new cases ; the infection rate , which can show how likely the virus is to spread ; and the percentage of tests that come back positive , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient testing .
A Vox analysis indicates the vast majority of states report alarming trends across all three benchmarks for coronavirus outbreaks .
Most states still report a high — sometimes very high — number of daily new Covid-19 cases .
Most still have high infection rates .
And most have test positive rates that are too high , indicating they don ’ t have enough tests to track and contain the scope of their outbreaks .
Across these benchmarks , just one state — Maine — fares well on all three metrics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively under control for now .
America ’ s sustained outbreak , reaching from California to Florida , is the result of the public and the country ’ s leaders never taking the virus seriously enough and , to the extent they did , letting their guard down prematurely .
States , with the support of President Donald Trump , moved to reopen — often before they saw sizable drops in daily new Covid-19 cases , and at times so quickly they didn ’ t have time to see if each phase of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more cases .
The public embraced the reopenings , going out and often not adhering to recommended precautions like physical distancing and wearing a mask .
Even as cases began to fall later in the summer , America ’ s overall case load remained very high .
And yet many states moved to reopen once again , with much of the public embracing the looser restrictions and subsequently going out .
It ’ s this mix — of government withdrawal and public complacency — that experts have cited in explaining why states continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control .
“ It ’ s a situation that didn ’ t have to be , ” Jaime Slaughter-Acey , an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota , told me .
“ For almost three months , you had opportunities to be proactive with respect to mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic and to help normalize culture to adopt practices that would stem the tide of transmissions as well as the development of Covid-19 complications .
… It was not prioritized over the economy.
” The effects are felt not just in terms of more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions , and deaths , but in the long-term financial impact as the economy struggles , many people still refuse to go out , and businesses resist reopening during a pandemic .
“ Dead people don ’ t shop .
They don ’ t spend money .
They don ’ t invest in things , ” Jade Pagkas-Bather , an infectious diseases expert and doctor at the University of Chicago , told me .
“ When you fail to invest in the health of your population , then there are longitudinal downstream effects.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t cover every important facet of the pandemic .
Hospital capacity was previously included among Vox ’ s metrics , but it ’ s been removed due to inconsistent data reporting .
The data for contact tracing , when “ disease detectives ” track down people who may have been infected and push them to quarantine , is also poor .
Some measures that are helpful for gauging if a state can safely start to reopen , like the total test count and whether cases have fallen in the previous two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the status of each state ’ s current Covid-19 outbreak .
Together , these three benchmarks help give an idea of how each state is doing in its fight against Covid-19 .
Nationwide , it ’ s pretty grim .
1 ) Most states have too many daily new Covid-19 infections What ’ s the goal ?
Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Maine , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
Why is this important ?
The most straightforward way to measure whether any place is experiencing a big coronavirus outbreak is to look at the number of daily new Covid-19 cases .
There ’ s no widely accepted metric for how many cases , exactly , is too many .
But experts told me that aiming for below four daily new cases per 100,000 is generally a good idea — a level low enough that a state can say it ’ s starting to get significant control over the virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s only as good as a state ’ s testing .
Cases can only get picked up if states are actually testing people for the virus .
So if a state doesn ’ t have enough tests , it ’ s probably going to miss a lot of cases , and the reported cases won ’ t tell the full story .
That ’ s why it ’ s important not to use this benchmark by itself , but to use it alongside metrics like the test positive rate .
Along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new cases may give a delayed snapshot of a Covid-19 outbreak .
If test results take a week to get reported to the state , then the count for daily new cases will really reflect the state of the outbreak for the previous week .
If testing is adequate in a state , though , the toll of daily new cases gives perhaps the best snapshot of how big a state ’ s Covid-19 outbreak is .
2 ) The coronavirus is spreading too quickly in most states What ’ s the goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rt , below 1 , based on data from Rt.live , a site created by two Instagram founders and a data analyst .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alabama , Arizona , California , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Illinois , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Ohio , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , South Carolina , Tennessee , Texas , Virginia , and West Virginia — a total of 22 states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
Why is this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are infected by each person with Covid-19 .
If the Rt is 1 , then an infected person will , on average , spread the coronavirus to one other person .
If it ’ s 2 , then an infected person will spread it to two on average .
And so on .
It ’ s an attempt , then , to gauge how quickly a virus is spreading .
One way to think about it : Unlike the count for daily new cases , this doesn ’ t give you a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak today , but where the outbreak is heading in the near future .
The goal is to get the Rt below 1 .
If each infection doesn ’ t lead to another , that would over time lead to zero new Covid-19 cases .
The estimated Rt can be very imprecise , with margins of error that make it hard to know for certain in any state if it ’ s really above or below 1 .
Different modelers can also come up with different estimates .
That ’ s , unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data to come up with a rough estimate of a disease ’ s overall spread .
The Rt also reflects an average .
If 10 people are infected with Covid-19 , nine spread it to no one else , and one spreads it to 10 , that adds up to an Rt of 1 .
But it masks the fact that individuals , for whatever reason , can still cause superspreading events — which seem of particular concern with the coronavirus .
Still , the Rt is one of the better measures we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread across the whole population .
When paired with the other metrics on this list , it can give us a sense of each state ’ s outbreak now and in the future .
3 ) Most states ’ positive rates for tests are too high What ’ s the goal ?
Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , California , Connecticut , Illinois , Kentucky , Louisiana , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Ohio , Rhode Island , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , and West Virginia — 19 states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
Why is this important ?
To properly track and contain coronavirus outbreaks , states need to have enough testing .
There are all sorts of proposals for how much testing is needed in the US , up to the tens of millions .
But one way to see if a state is testing enough to match @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that come back positive .
An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people , many of whom don ’ t have the disease or don ’ t show severe symptoms .
High positive rates indicate that only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested , so there ’ s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak .
The goal for the positive rate is , in an ideal world , zero percent , since that would suggest that Covid-19 is vanquished entirely .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic , the positive rate should be below 5 percent .
But even if a state reaches 5 percent , experts argue it should continue trying to push that number further down — to match nations like Germany , New Zealand , and South Korea that have gotten their positive rates below 3 percent and even 1 percent — in order to truly get ahold of their outbreaks .
As long as a state is above 5 percent , chances are it ’ s still missing a significant number of Covid-19 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the more cases that are very likely getting missed .
So even if your state is reporting a low number of daily new cases , a high positive rate should be a cause for alarm — a sign that there ’ s an outbreak that ’ s only hidden due to a lack of testing .
And if your state is reporting a high number of daily new cases and a high positive rate , that ’ s all the more reason for concern , suggesting the epidemic is even worse than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

America’s national Covid-19 epidemic continues, with the US’s daily new cases down from an early January peak but still higher than those of most developed nations — and the country recently surpassing 500,000 deaths due to the disease.
At the state level, things can look even worse than the national picture.
Public health experts look at a few markers to determine how bad things are in each state: the number of daily new cases; the infection rate, which can show how likely the virus is to spread; and the percentage of tests that come back positive, which should be low in a state with sufficient testing. Combined, these three benchmarks can tell you whether or not a state’s coronavirus outbreak is under control.
Vox’s analysis, updated weekly, shows the vast majority of states are reporting alarming trends for coronavirus cases based on these benchmarks. Only one state — Hawaii — fares well on all three metrics, suggesting the vast majority of states don’t have their outbreaks fully under control right now.
The US outbreaks are due to the failure of both the American public and the country’s leaders to take the virus seriously enough; to the extent they did, many let their guard down prematurely. With the support of former President Donald Trump, states moved to reopen — often before seeing sizable drops in daily new Covid-19 cases, and at times so quickly they weren’t able to tell whether each phase of their reopening plan was leading to too many new infections.
The public embraced the reopenings, resuming their usual day-to-day activities and often refusing to adhere to recommended precautions like physical distancing and mask-wearing.
Even as cases began to fall later in the summer, America’s overall caseload remained very high. Yet many states moved to reopen once more, with much of the public embracing the looser restrictions and subsequently going out.
It’s this mix of government withdrawal and public complacency that experts have cited in explaining why states continue to struggle with getting the coronavirus under control.
“It’s a situation that didn’t have to be,” Jaime Slaughter-Acey, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, previously told me, adding, “You had opportunities to be proactive with respect to mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic and to help normalize culture to adopt practices that would stem the tide of transmissions as well as the development of Covid-19 complications. … It was not prioritized over the economy.”
The effects are felt not just in terms of more infections, critical illnesses, new chronic conditions, and deaths, but in the long-term financial impact as the economy struggles, many people still refuse to go out, and businesses resist reopening during a pandemic.
“Dead people don’t shop. They don’t spend money. They don’t invest in things,” Jade Pagkas-Bather, an expert in infectious diseases and a doctor at the University of Chicago, previously told me. “When you fail to invest in the health of your population, then there are longitudinal downstream effects.”
With a Covid-19 vaccination campaign underway, a finish line to this crisis in finally visible. But until America reaches sufficient population protection — and, preferably, herd immunity — every day the coronavirus spreads means more illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths.
As the country works toward vaccinating everyone, the three benchmarks tracked by Vox give an idea of how each state is doing in its fight against Covid-19 in the meantime. Nationwide, it’s pretty grim.
1) Most states have too many daily new Covid-19 infections
What’s the goal? Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Just one — Hawaii.
Why is this important? The most straightforward way to measure whether any place is experiencing a big coronavirus outbreak is to look at the number of daily new Covid-19 cases.
There’s no widely accepted metric for how many cases, exactly, is too many. But experts told me that aiming for below four daily new cases per 100,000 is generally a good idea — a level low enough that a state can say it’s starting to get significant control over the virus.
A big caveat to this metric: It’s only as good as a state’s testing. Cases can only get picked up if states are actually testing people for the virus. So if a state doesn’t have enough tests, it’s probably going to miss a lot of cases, and the reported cases won’t tell the full story. That’s why it’s important not to use this benchmark by itself, but to use it alongside metrics like the test positive rate.
The number of daily new cases may also give a delayed snapshot of a Covid-19 outbreak. If test results take a week to get reported to the state, the count for daily new cases will really reflect the state of the outbreak for the previous week.
If testing is adequate in a state, though, the toll of daily new cases is perhaps the best insight as to how big a state’s Covid-19 outbreak is.
2) The coronavirus is spreading too quickly in some states
What’s the goal? An effective reproduction number, or Rt, below 1, based on data from the Centre for Mathematical Modeling of Infectious Diseases.
Which states meet the goal? All but Alaska, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming — 45 states, as well as Washington, DC.
Why is this important? The Rt measures how many people are infected by each person with Covid-19. If the Rt is 1, then an infected person will, on average, spread the coronavirus to one other person. If it’s 2, then an infected person will spread it to two on average. And so on.
It’s an attempt, then, to gauge how quickly a virus is spreading. One way to think about it: Unlike the count for daily new cases, this gives you a snapshot not of a state’s Covid-19 outbreak today, but of where the outbreak is heading in the near future.
The goal is to get the Rt below 1. If each infection doesn’t lead to another, that would over time lead to zero new Covid-19 cases.
The estimated Rt can be very imprecise, with margins of error that make it hard to know for certain in any state if it’s really above or below 1. Different modelers can also come up with different estimates. That’s, unfortunately, just the reality of using limited data to come up with a rough estimate of a disease’s overall spread.
The Rt also reflects an average. If 10 people are infected with Covid-19, nine spread it to no one else, and one spreads it to 10, that adds up to an Rt of 1. But it masks the fact that individuals, for whatever reason, can still cause superspreading events — which seem of particular concern with the coronavirus.
And the Rt is only as good as the data that goes into calculating it. If a state’s data is poor quality or inconsistent, it might skew the picture. That can help explain why some states with bad and continuing outbreaks may fare better on this benchmark than others.
Still, the Rt is one of the better measures we have for tracking a pathogen’s spread across the whole population. When paired with the other metrics on this list, it can give us a sense of each state’s outbreak now and in the future.
3) Most states’ positive rates for tests are too high
What’s the goal? Less than 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the previous week, based on data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center and the Covid Tracking Project.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — 24 states, as well as Washington, DC.
Why is this important? To properly track and contain coronavirus outbreaks, states need to have enough testing. There are all sorts of proposals for how much testing is needed in the US, up to the tens of millions.
But one way to see if a state is testing enough to match its outbreak is the rate of tests that come back positive. An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people, many of whom don’t have the disease or don’t show severe symptoms. High positive rates indicate that only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested, so there’s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak.
The goal for the positive rate is, in an ideal world, zero percent, since that would suggest that Covid-19 is vanquished entirely. More realistically, in a world going through a pandemic, the positive rate should be below 5 percent. But even if a state reaches 5 percent, experts argue it should continue trying to push that number further down — to match nations like Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, which have gotten their positive rates below 3 percent or even 1 percent — in order to truly get ahold of their outbreaks.
As long as a state is above 5 percent, chances are it’s still missing a significant number of Covid-19 cases. And the higher that number is, the more cases that are very likely getting missed.
So even if your state is reporting a low number of daily new cases, a high positive rate should be a cause for alarm — a sign that there’s an outbreak that’s only hidden due to a lack of testing. And if your state is reporting a high number of daily new cases and a high positive rate, that’s all the more reason for concern, suggesting the epidemic is even worse than the total case count indicates.
Sign up for the Weeds newsletter. Every Friday, you’ll get an explainer of a big policy story from the week, a look at important research that recently came out, and answers to reader questions — to guide you through the first 100 days of President Joe Biden’s administration.


vox--2020-09-30--Netflix’s The Boys in the Band is a polished remake of a caustic classic

I grimly joked with a friend last week about the trailer for the seemingly very weepy movie Supernova .
The film , which comes out in November , stars Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci as a gay couple coping with the stark and cruel reality that one of them has early-onset dementia .
“ Well , at least gay men have survived long enough that [ in movies ] we now get to be old and die tragically from something other than AIDS , ” I said .
“ That ’ s a victory , I guess ?
” My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where Tucci hogs the bed was funny , he said .
I was being grumpy , I said .
I am sure that Tucci and Firth and Supernova will be great .
I also realize that I ’ m lucky enough to have been born at a time that allowed me to live my gay adult life with scientific advances such as the HIV-prevention drug PrEP .
Being able to joke , now , about how the AIDS crisis became a cultural fascination is a privilege that hundreds of thousands of gay men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enabled by a cruel administration , wiped out nearly an entire generation of American gay men and their futures , it ’ s not hard to see why suffering , death , and our fragile existence became the basis for so much of our art over the last few decades .
That art has been magnificent ( see : Angels in America , Philadelphia , And The Band Played On ; and more recently , The Normal Heart and BPM ) , but it was also inescapable for me growing up .
Tragedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become one of the underpinnings to our cultural identity , though that ’ s slowly changing as mainstream culture allows room for more gay mens ’ stories ( think : Moonlight , Call Me By Your Name , even Love , Simon ) .
The Boys in the Band — a play Mart Crowley created in 1968 , ported over to cinema in 1970 , and revived on Broadway in 2018 — is , in hindsight , a bit of a twist .
It ’ s considered a massive cultural artifact because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it did so before the crisis that altered their history .
The Boys in the Band is a glimpse into gay mens ’ lives independent of the AIDS crisis , though not without its own brand of suffering .
Their existence is far from heaven .
Since one could still be arrested for being gay when the play was written in the late ’ 60s , the men in The Boys spend their days pretending to be anyone but themselves because society deems their true selves unworthy — of employment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That heaviness is all tucked into the play ’ s seemingly breezy setting , what seems to be a gathering of friends who happen to be gay men .
It ’ s supposed to be a celebration , an alcohol-fueled , joyous occasion .
But the beauty of the original work is how Crowley slowly reveals the damage and trauma that each of these men carry , not turning them into saints who rise above their adversity but showing how the societal hate they internalize manifests in the pain they inflict upon one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by far the frankest treatment of homosexuality I have ever seen on the stage , ” New York Times critic Clive Barnes wrote in his review .
“ The point is that this is not a play about a homosexual , but a play that takes the homosexual milieu , and the homosexual way of life , totally for granted and uses this as a valid basis of human experience.
” For gay men , survival meant finding your chosen family , and though times have changed and struggles have evolved , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Boys in the Band did so well was show that survival isn ’ t necessarily a beautiful thing .
We ’ re all uglier on the other side of it .
Fifty-two years later , the brutality , pain , and thrill of The Boys in the Band live on in a new , proficient film adaptation directed by Joe Mantello , now streaming on Netflix .
As in the original play , it begins as a story about the universal human desire of finding people like yourself and unfurls into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bare the rage and insecurity that roll in its characters ’ hearts .
The bitchy beats are hit , the venom still runs hot , and some of the scenes steal your breath and plunge you into that uncomfortable space between comedy and horror .
Yet I was left wanting just a bit more , something resembling the daring spirit that floored Barnes in 1968 .
The original play ’ s and subsequent film ’ s ability to shock was The Boys ’ best argument in support of its own existence , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film adaptation lacks .
That isn ’ t totally the fault of Mantello or his cast ; times and politics have obviously changed .
But the difference feels like greatness versus a performance of greatness .
And the new movie left me feeling like I was a watching a well-executed , flawless emulation rather than art that demands to stand on its own .
The Boys in the Band and the rage of gay existence The Boys in the Band is truly about the rottenest birthday party ever thrown .
Michael ( Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his friend Harold ( Zachary Quinto ) .
The term “ friend ” is generous , as Michael and Harold seem to hate each other but also desperately want to sleep with each other .
The invited guests are Donald ( Matt Bomer ) ; caustic couple Larry ( Andrew Rannells ) and Hank ( Tuc Watkins ) ; effeminate Emory ( Robin de Jesus ) ; and stoic Bernard ( Michael Benjamin Washington ) .
There are also a couple of surprise attendees in Michael ’ s college friend Alan ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convinced is closeted , and a prostitute in cowboy garb played by Charlie Carver .
While it ’ s a birthday party in name and there is a cake ( left out in the rain , not unlike the one in Donna Summer ’ s “ MacArthur Park ” ) , the gathering quickly unravels into a prickly reunion .
Everyone arrives grumpy and irritable and slowly gets drunk — and by extension , exponentially grumpier and more irritable — by the night ’ s end .
It ’ s not long before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blunt attacks about one another ’ s cowardice , intelligence , age , and appearance .
The dialogue that sharpens and launches attacks is The Boys ’ strongest selling point , a staccato of barbs wrapped in casual delivery .
Blink and you ’ ll miss the acid and the venom .
The boys are all-in on a game of poking and prodding to find each other ’ s vulnerabilities .
And once they ’ ve found one , they sink their fangs into that soft , unguarded tissue .
The poison in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story .
It ’ s supposed to feel ugly and make you want to leave .
The comedy falls off fast as the “ jokes ” grow dark and bitter .
The self-pity , insecurity , and terrifying self-loathing were , in 1968 , the private parts of these mens ’ lives that no one but other gay men knew about .
That pain and awfulness is their unspoken bond .
One of the men you feel sorry for in the new movie is Bomer ’ s angelic Donald .
He and Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he currently serves as Michael ’ s safety net .
Bomer gets to be a little funnier and acerbic than we usually see him ( for example : his dramatic , dashing turn in The Normal Heart ) , but it ’ s mostly playful , and mostly at his character ’ s own expense .
Washington ’ s dignified Bernard and de Jesus ’ s charming Emory , who also caught in the crossfire , are a little less terrible than the rest of the guests but still game to engage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t about Rannells ’ s Larry and Watkins ’ s Hank , the movie ’ s bitter , brittle couple .
Their romantic struggles with desire are just one facet of the original play .
But they end up just about slinking away with the entire film .
Larry doesn ’ t believe in monogamy the way Hank does .
Hank doesn ’ t believe in compromise the way Larry does .
And even though they both have big , splashy scenes with which to get their points across , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small spaces — wicked glances here and there ; the way one of their bodies stiffen when the other speaks — that tell a lifetime ’ s worth of story .
While Larry and Hank ’ s anguish is believable , at times brilliantly so , I found myself stretching a bit more to believe that all of these men actually , in some way , love and care about one another — a complaint also lodged against the 2018 Broadway revival whose cast reprises their roles in the new movie .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if they don ’ t all love one another , they at least all love either the party host ( Parsons ’ s terminally unhappy but extremely elegant Michael ) or the guest of honor ( Quinto ’ s devilish Harold ) .
Perhaps that ’ s the point — that they don ’ t necessarily love one another so much as they need one another to survive .
But then there ’ s that well-worn saying about how we always hurt the ones we love the most .
The Boys ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the people saying such nasty things don ’ t really care about one another deep down .
Without that tenderness , the insults fall apart and become hollow combinations of words .
If we ’ re meant to realize the pain of what these men are saying and inflicting upon one another , we should also be able to recognize what ’ s at stake .
And the movie struggles to make the latter clear .
Who is The Boys in the Band for ?
The one question I kept asking myself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Boys in the Band for ?
When the play debuted in 1968 ( with the cinematic adaptation following two years later ) , I can imagine how it could have been a multitude of things — a plea for help ; an indulgent , flashy flex of wit ; a call to action about prejudice — but I ’ ve always interpreted it as a mirror .
It was as if Mart Crowley was shaking his audience , rubbing their nose in the cruel ways gay men could treat each other to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shame , anger , and repression manifests itself in ways that we don ’ t see out in the open .
Here ’ s what you created .
Now lick it up , Crowley seemed to say .
The 2020 Netflix adaptation functions more like a history lesson about why so many gay men hate themselves .
It ’ s adept at showing us gay mens ’ caustic tendencies , but the societal ills it highlights feel distant , barely updated for or connected to today .
It ’ s as though we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sigh of relief after watching it — maybe to say , thank goodness times have changed — rather than reflect on our own personal rages boiling beneath the surface .
And what if satisfaction isn ’ t the point ?
Whereas Crowley left no one off the hook in his scathing play , creating a purposely painful experience , this remake seems to lack the same purpose of frightening accountability .
The flourishes that made the original work so risky and raw feel more like polished , glimmering performance in the adaptation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
But more discriminating viewers hoping to feel discomfort instead of just seeing it may find themselves craving something more .
The Boys in the Band is currently streaming on Netflix .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

I grimly joked with a friend last week about the trailer for the seemingly very weepy movie Supernova. The film, which comes out in November, stars Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci as a gay couple coping with the stark and cruel reality that one of them has early-onset dementia.
“Well, at least gay men have survived long enough that [in movies] we now get to be old and die tragically from something other than AIDS,” I said. “That’s a victory, I guess?”
My friend changed the conversation. The scene where Tucci hogs the bed was funny, he said. I was being grumpy, I said.
I am sure that Tucci and Firth and Supernova will be great. I also realize that I’m lucky enough to have been born at a time that allowed me to live my gay adult life with scientific advances such as the HIV-prevention drug PrEP. Being able to joke, now, about how the AIDS crisis became a cultural fascination is a privilege that hundreds of thousands of gay men never had.
Considering how AIDS, enabled by a cruel administration, wiped out nearly an entire generation of American gay men and their futures, it’s not hard to see why suffering, death, and our fragile existence became the basis for so much of our art over the last few decades. That art has been magnificent (see: Angels in America, Philadelphia, And The Band Played On; and more recently, The Normal Heart and BPM), but it was also inescapable for me growing up.
Tragedy was our reality. And our suffering has become one of the underpinnings to our cultural identity, though that’s slowly changing as mainstream culture allows room for more gay mens’ stories (think: Moonlight, Call Me By Your Name, even Love, Simon).
The Boys in the Band — a play Mart Crowley created in 1968, ported over to cinema in 1970, and revived on Broadway in 2018 — is, in hindsight, a bit of a twist. It’s considered a massive cultural artifact because it explored the lives of gay men, but it did so before the crisis that altered their history.
The Boys in the Band is a glimpse into gay mens’ lives independent of the AIDS crisis, though not without its own brand of suffering. Their existence is far from heaven. Since one could still be arrested for being gay when the play was written in the late ’60s, the men in The Boys spend their days pretending to be anyone but themselves because society deems their true selves unworthy — of employment, of friendship, and of love.
That heaviness is all tucked into the play’s seemingly breezy setting, what seems to be a gathering of friends who happen to be gay men. It’s supposed to be a celebration, an alcohol-fueled, joyous occasion. But the beauty of the original work is how Crowley slowly reveals the damage and trauma that each of these men carry, not turning them into saints who rise above their adversity but showing how the societal hate they internalize manifests in the pain they inflict upon one another.
The original play was “by far the frankest treatment of homosexuality I have ever seen on the stage,” New York Times critic Clive Barnes wrote in his review. “The point is that this is not a play about a homosexual, but a play that takes the homosexual milieu, and the homosexual way of life, totally for granted and uses this as a valid basis of human experience.”
For gay men, survival meant finding your chosen family, and though times have changed and struggles have evolved, that is still true even today. What The Boys in the Band did so well was show that survival isn’t necessarily a beautiful thing. We’re all uglier on the other side of it.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
Fifty-two years later, the brutality, pain, and thrill of The Boys in the Band live on in a new, proficient film adaptation directed by Joe Mantello, now streaming on Netflix.
As in the original play, it begins as a story about the universal human desire of finding people like yourself and unfurls into a fanged, snarling creature as it lays bare the rage and insecurity that roll in its characters’ hearts. The bitchy beats are hit, the venom still runs hot, and some of the scenes steal your breath and plunge you into that uncomfortable space between comedy and horror.
Yet I was left wanting just a bit more, something resembling the daring spirit that floored Barnes in 1968. The original play’s and subsequent film’s ability to shock was The Boys’ best argument in support of its own existence, and one of the few things the 2020 film adaptation lacks. That isn’t totally the fault of Mantello or his cast; times and politics have obviously changed. But the difference feels like greatness versus a performance of greatness. And the new movie left me feeling like I was a watching a well-executed, flawless emulation rather than art that demands to stand on its own.
The Boys in the Band and the rage of gay existence
The Boys in the Band is truly about the rottenest birthday party ever thrown. Michael (Jim Parsons) is hosting a birthday party for his friend Harold (Zachary Quinto). The term “friend” is generous, as Michael and Harold seem to hate each other but also desperately want to sleep with each other. The invited guests are Donald (Matt Bomer); caustic couple Larry (Andrew Rannells) and Hank (Tuc Watkins); effeminate Emory (Robin de Jesus); and stoic Bernard (Michael Benjamin Washington). There are also a couple of surprise attendees in Michael’s college friend Alan (Brian Hutchison), whom Michael is convinced is closeted, and a prostitute in cowboy garb played by Charlie Carver.
While it’s a birthday party in name and there is a cake (left out in the rain, not unlike the one in Donna Summer’s “MacArthur Park”), the gathering quickly unravels into a prickly reunion.
Everyone arrives grumpy and irritable and slowly gets drunk — and by extension, exponentially grumpier and more irritable — by the night’s end. It’s not long before thinly veiled insults become naked, with blunt attacks about one another’s cowardice, intelligence, age, and appearance. The dialogue that sharpens and launches attacks is The Boys’ strongest selling point, a staccato of barbs wrapped in casual delivery.
Blink and you’ll miss the acid and the venom.
The boys are all-in on a game of poking and prodding to find each other’s vulnerabilities. And once they’ve found one, they sink their fangs into that soft, unguarded tissue. The poison in these men defines every iteration of their story. It’s supposed to feel ugly and make you want to leave. The comedy falls off fast as the “jokes” grow dark and bitter. The self-pity, insecurity, and terrifying self-loathing were, in 1968, the private parts of these mens’ lives that no one but other gay men knew about.
That pain and awfulness is their unspoken bond.
One of the men you feel sorry for in the new movie is Bomer’s angelic Donald. He and Michael used to be a thing, and he currently serves as Michael’s safety net. Bomer gets to be a little funnier and acerbic than we usually see him (for example: his dramatic, dashing turn in The Normal Heart), but it’s mostly playful, and mostly at his character’s own expense. Washington’s dignified Bernard and de Jesus’s charming Emory, who also caught in the crossfire, are a little less terrible than the rest of the guests but still game to engage.
Meanwhile, the crux of the story isn’t about Rannells’s Larry and Watkins’s Hank, the movie’s bitter, brittle couple. Their romantic struggles with desire are just one facet of the original play. But they end up just about slinking away with the entire film. Larry doesn’t believe in monogamy the way Hank does. Hank doesn’t believe in compromise the way Larry does. And even though they both have big, splashy scenes with which to get their points across, the beauty happens when the two actors find small spaces — wicked glances here and there; the way one of their bodies stiffen when the other speaks — that tell a lifetime’s worth of story.
While Larry and Hank’s anguish is believable, at times brilliantly so, I found myself stretching a bit more to believe that all of these men actually, in some way, love and care about one another — a complaint also lodged against the 2018 Broadway revival whose cast reprises their roles in the new movie. It’s also not entirely convincing that even if they don’t all love one another, they at least all love either the party host (Parsons’s terminally unhappy but extremely elegant Michael) or the guest of honor (Quinto’s devilish Harold).
Perhaps that’s the point — that they don’t necessarily love one another so much as they need one another to survive.
But then there’s that well-worn saying about how we always hurt the ones we love the most. The Boys’ impressive verbal flayings don’t matter if the people saying such nasty things don’t really care about one another deep down. Without that tenderness, the insults fall apart and become hollow combinations of words. If we’re meant to realize the pain of what these men are saying and inflicting upon one another, we should also be able to recognize what’s at stake. And the movie struggles to make the latter clear.
Who is The Boys in the Band for?
The one question I kept asking myself throughout the movie was: Who is The Boys in the Band for?
When the play debuted in 1968 (with the cinematic adaptation following two years later), I can imagine how it could have been a multitude of things — a plea for help; an indulgent, flashy flex of wit; a call to action about prejudice — but I’ve always interpreted it as a mirror. It was as if Mart Crowley was shaking his audience, rubbing their nose in the cruel ways gay men could treat each other to ultimately show them how a society of shame, anger, and repression manifests itself in ways that we don’t see out in the open.
Here’s what you created. Now lick it up, Crowley seemed to say.
The 2020 Netflix adaptation functions more like a history lesson about why so many gay men hate themselves. It’s adept at showing us gay mens’ caustic tendencies, but the societal ills it highlights feel distant, barely updated for or connected to today.
It’s as though we’re all expected to breathe a sigh of relief after watching it — maybe to say, thank goodness times have changed — rather than reflect on our own personal rages boiling beneath the surface. And what if satisfaction isn’t the point?
Whereas Crowley left no one off the hook in his scathing play, creating a purposely painful experience, this remake seems to lack the same purpose of frightening accountability. The flourishes that made the original work so risky and raw feel more like polished, glimmering performance in the adaptation. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. But more discriminating viewers hoping to feel discomfort instead of just seeing it may find themselves craving something more.
The Boys in the Band is currently streaming on Netflix.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-09-30--Pope Francis refused to meet with Mike Pompeo so as not to boost Trump

When President Donald Trump ’ s top diplomat can ’ t get a meeting with God ’ s ambassador , you know something is wrong .
While on a weeklong trip to Europe , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo planned to sit down with Pope Francis during a visit to the Vatican .
But the Catholic leader refused the photo ops and handshakes with America ’ s top diplomat out of one major concern : That he ’ d be a pawn in Trump ’ s reelection efforts .
“ Yes , that is precisely why the pope will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher , the Vatican ’ s secretary for relations with states , told Italian news agency Ansa on Wednesday .
That ’ s jarring , especially since the men met in person last October to discuss promoting religious freedom , even amid impeachment hearings in Washington .
Pompeo still met with top Vatican officials , but the papal stiff-arming underscored two key changes .
First , Pompeo wanted to criticize the Vatican ’ s still-secret deal with China , agreed to two years ago , so instead he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make his points publicly .
“ Nowhere is religious freedom under assault more than in China , ” Pompeo said during a conference on religious freedom hosted by the US embassy to the Holy See , clearly directing his comments at Pope Francis .
“ We must support those demanding freedom in our time.
” It ’ s not a surprise Pompeo went after the deal .
He ’ s led the administration ’ s fierce pushback against China and wants much of the world to follow suit .
Plus , Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue during his time at the State Department .
Second , the 2020 US presidential election is just over a month away , and pictures of Pompeo and His Holiness smiling and chuckling could conceivably alter some Americans ’ views on the current administration .
Pope Francis , it seems , didn ’ t want to run that risk .
But wait : The Secretary of State is America ’ s top diplomat , not Trump ’ s personal envoy .
Why , then , would the Vatican boss have any concerns that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen as picking sides in the US presidential race ?
The answer lies with Pompeo ’ s unsavory decision of late to act as Trump ’ s campaign surrogate , even in his official capacity — and it seems that decision may now be harming the administration ’ s ability to meet with foreign leaders .
Pompeo is trying to boost Trump ’ s reelection efforts During the Republican National Convention in August , Pompeo filmed a short video while on official travel in Jerusalem , Israel , to back Trump .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting Cabinet members , and especially high-profile ones like secretaries of state , don ’ t engage in openly political and partisan activities .
It was a norm Pompeo ’ s predecessors — in both Republican and Democratic administrations — believed was important to uphold .
And earlier this month , the secretary spoke at a Baptist church in Plano , Texas , about the role of faith while serving in government .
However , he waded into the domestic battles that animate the presidential discussion today .
“ We need to return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith and how this Judeo-Christian nation is central to the world , and we must stand with it and we can ’ t let anybody try and rewrite history to suggest otherwise , ” he told the audience .
“ It is an absolute imperative that we stand on these traditions and continue to build them up .
It ’ s for our kids and for our grandkids .
It ’ s absolutely imperative.
” These aren ’ t normal comments for a secretary of state — the nation ’ s top diplomat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him to make them in .
That ’ s why government ethics experts like the Brookings Institution ’ s Norm Eisen are concerned .
This all “ appears to be part of a coordinated effort to showcase senior administration personnel in battleground states in close proximity to the election to benefit President Trump ’ s political interests rather than to serve the public interest , ” Eisen told me last week .
There ’ s a further problem : “ Pompeo ’ s politicking , especially in his official capacity , undermines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the world , ” said Donald Sherman , deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ) , a watchdog group .
“ He ’ s either America ’ s chief diplomat or he ’ s a political crony for one political party.
” Pope Francis ’ s decision not to meet with Pompeo seems to make it clear which one the Vatican thinks he is .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

When President Donald Trump’s top diplomat can’t get a meeting with God’s ambassador, you know something is wrong.
While on a weeklong trip to Europe, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo planned to sit down with Pope Francis during a visit to the Vatican. But the Catholic leader refused the photo ops and handshakes with America’s top diplomat out of one major concern: That he’d be a pawn in Trump’s reelection efforts.
“Yes, that is precisely why the pope will not meet American secretary of state Mike Pompeo,” Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, the Vatican’s secretary for relations with states, told Italian news agency Ansa on Wednesday.
That’s jarring, especially since the men met in person last October to discuss promoting religious freedom, even amid impeachment hearings in Washington.
Pompeo still met with top Vatican officials, but the papal stiff-arming underscored two key changes.
First, Pompeo wanted to criticize the Vatican’s still-secret deal with China, agreed to two years ago, so instead he used a speech in Rome on Wednesday to make his points publicly. “Nowhere is religious freedom under assault more than in China,” Pompeo said during a conference on religious freedom hosted by the US embassy to the Holy See, clearly directing his comments at Pope Francis. “We must support those demanding freedom in our time.”
It’s not a surprise Pompeo went after the deal. He’s led the administration’s fierce pushback against China and wants much of the world to follow suit. Plus, Pompeo has made promoting religious liberty a key issue during his time at the State Department.
Second, the 2020 US presidential election is just over a month away, and pictures of Pompeo and His Holiness smiling and chuckling could conceivably alter some Americans’ views on the current administration. Pope Francis, it seems, didn’t want to run that risk.
But wait: The Secretary of State is America’s top diplomat, not Trump’s personal envoy. Why, then, would the Vatican boss have any concerns that such a meeting with Pompeo might be seen as picking sides in the US presidential race?
The answer lies with Pompeo’s unsavory decision of late to act as Trump’s campaign surrogate, even in his official capacity — and it seems that decision may now be harming the administration’s ability to meet with foreign leaders.
Pompeo is trying to boost Trump’s reelection efforts
During the Republican National Convention in August, Pompeo filmed a short video while on official travel in Jerusalem, Israel, to back Trump.
His decision shattered years of precedent in which sitting Cabinet members, and especially high-profile ones like secretaries of state, don’t engage in openly political and partisan activities. It was a norm Pompeo’s predecessors — in both Republican and Democratic administrations — believed was important to uphold.
From Jerusalem, the City of David — see you soon! pic.twitter.com/KNPTIXfK0K — Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) August 26, 2020
And earlier this month, the secretary spoke at a Baptist church in Plano, Texas, about the role of faith while serving in government. However, he waded into the domestic battles that animate the presidential discussion today.
“We need to return to the founders’ central understandings about faith and how this Judeo-Christian nation is central to the world, and we must stand with it and we can’t let anybody try and rewrite history to suggest otherwise,” he told the audience. “It is an absolute imperative that we stand on these traditions and continue to build them up. It’s for our kids and for our grandkids. It’s absolutely imperative.”
These aren’t normal comments for a secretary of state — the nation’s top diplomat — to make, or normal forums for him to make them in. That’s why government ethics experts like the Brookings Institution’s Norm Eisen are concerned.
This all “appears to be part of a coordinated effort to showcase senior administration personnel in battleground states in close proximity to the election to benefit President Trump’s political interests rather than to serve the public interest,” Eisen told me last week.
There’s a further problem: “Pompeo’s politicking, especially in his official capacity, undermines his ability to represent the United States across the world,” said Donald Sherman, deputy director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group. “He’s either America’s chief diplomat or he’s a political crony for one political party.”
Pope Francis’s decision not to meet with Pompeo seems to make it clear which one the Vatican thinks he is.


vox--2020-09-30--What voter suppression looks like online

According to a report by CNN , the federal government has warned that Russia “ might seek to covertly discourage or suppress US voters from participating ” in the upcoming election .
If so , it would be a repeat of their tactics four years ago , when Russian operatives posing as Americans on social media discouraged Black Americans from voting or encouraged them to vote for the third-party candidate , Jill Stein .
The Trump campaign itself also pursued a strategy of voter suppression targeted at African Americans , who vote against Republicans at higher rates than any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many forms — from intimidation at polling places to purges of voter rolls to strict ID requirements — this video focuses on digital voter suppression , where the goal is to infiltrate communities online and deliver messages that discourage participation in elections .
We explain what those messages look like , and why they so often target Black voters .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from @ @ @ @ @ @

According to a report by CNN, the federal government has warned that Russia “might seek to covertly discourage or suppress US voters from participating” in the upcoming election.
If so, it would be a repeat of their tactics four years ago, when Russian operatives posing as Americans on social media discouraged Black Americans from voting or encouraged them to vote for the third-party candidate, Jill Stein.
The Trump campaign itself also pursued a strategy of voter suppression targeted at African Americans, who vote against Republicans at higher rates than any other demographic group.
While voter suppression takes many forms — from intimidation at polling places to purges of voter rolls to strict ID requirements — this video focuses on digital voter suppression, where the goal is to infiltrate communities online and deliver messages that discourage participation in elections. We explain what those messages look like, and why they so often target Black voters.


vox--2020-09-30--Why the very richest Americans are refusing to take sides in the presidential race

The nation ’ s very richest people are sitting out the presidential race .
Not a single one of the 10 wealthiest people in the US — almost all of them tech billionaires — have shared who they ’ re voting for in November .
That , in part , reflects two simultaneous dynamics that undergird Silicon Valley : • Public animosity toward the ultra-wealthy , particularly those leading Big Tech companies , has been rising in recent years , making an endorsement from one of these ultra-wealthy people as much of a liability as an asset for a candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval , tech billionaires are politically beleaguered these days , especially those who are running companies and must traipse across an antitrust minefield and unproven accusations of political bias .
So they aren ’ t exactly rushing to extend themselves even more by taking sides on President Donald Trump ’ s reelection .
So it nets out in a convenient way for all sides : The world ’ s richest people aren ’ t offering their endorsements .
And candidates aren ’ t asking .
These high-profile figures don ’ t typically endorse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tech giants and their leaders are consistently at odds with Trump ’ s White House on issues ranging from immigration to climate change .
Many tech leaders have consolidated around former Vice President Joe Biden , especially over the summer after he wrapped up the nomination .
People like Reid Hoffman , Eric Schmidt , and Laurene Powell Jobs — billionaires , yes , but not household names — are investing their money and energy to oust Trump .
But at the tippy top of America ’ s billionaire rankings — the rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who measure their net worth not by the billions but by the tens of billions , the few who have celebrity cachet — there is silence .
That ’ s true also for the single non-tech billionaire in the top 10 , Warren Buffett , who is similarly declining to weigh in after pushing hard to beat Trump in 2016 .
Many of these tech billionaires have gotten even more fantastically wealthy during the Trump era as their companies ’ stock prices surged .
But on the whole , they have positioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civic-minded leaders who take principled stands when the moment demands it , like when Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accord .
It doesn ’ t exactly seem like cultivating the public support of these leaders has been a priority for Biden .
In a sign of how political campaigns see Silicon Valley as a partial liability these days , the Biden campaign has not unveiled a list of endorsements from business and tech leaders .
That is a departure from 2016 , when Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign announced a list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reed Hastings , Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg , and the three billionaire founders of Airbnb .
( None of them have offered formal endorsements this year , though some have made donations to Biden . )
One person who signed that list in 2016 said they weren ’ t aware of any efforts to organize a similar list four years later .
There are some less-developed efforts affiliated with the Biden campaign to privately organize tech leaders for fundraising purposes , but there ’ s no flashy public endorsement rollout .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Democratic Party is locked in a debate about whether these Silicon Valley billionaires and their companies have too much power in American society , a debate that was on the margins during the 2016 campaign .
The Biden campaign has been particularly critical of Facebook for not policing Trump ’ s posts more aggressively — so it would be quite cacophonous for it to boast about an endorsement from Sandberg in 2020 , for instance .
And for some of the billionaires themselves , it likely boils down to a business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person , Jeff Bezos , has recently been more willing to make donations to political candidates , and , as the owner of the Washington Post , has frequently tangled with Trump .
Mark Zuckerberg , the world ’ s fourth-richest person and an advocate for criminal justice reform , has said that he has been “ disgusted ” by Trump ’ s rhetoric on race .
But neither of them have endorsed Biden in the presidential race , which would risk exposing them to Trump ’ s wrath .
It could also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken to portray their companies as politically neutral .
Trump and his allies frequently accuse Big Tech companies of having an anti-conservative bias , and the Silicon Valley giants often prove skittish about giving that largely unproven argument even the perception of credibility .
And then Elon Musk , whose net worth has skyrocketed in 2020 under Trump but who pitches himself as an environmentalist , said in an interview published on Monday that he was an undecided voter and cast doubt on Biden ’ s mental sharpness , which has come into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has recently sought to exploit .
Even those who are not public company CEOs are skittish about becoming partisan combatants .
Bill Gates , Microsoft ’ s retired founder and the second wealthiest American , has emerged as a civic leader during the Covid-19 pandemic and has been unsparingly critical in his comments about how Trump is handling the crisis .
But despite being ‘ tempted ” to issue an endorsement , he and his wife declined to do so because of their desire to remain steadfastly nonpartisan ( they have a policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-founders of Google , Larry Page and Sergey Brin , rank as the eighth and ninth richest people in the US .
But they hardly make public statements of any kind these days , even though Brin has quietly made some donations to progressive groups and even protested the Trump administration ’ s immigration ban at San Francisco ’ s airport the week after Trump ’ s inauguration .
Neither has weighed in on Trump vs. Biden , although Brin ’ s wife made a small donation to Biden this summer .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a request for comment on whether Brin shared her thinking . )
The two mega billionaires who have flirted with making their views clear have been Oracle founder Larry Ellison and former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer .
Ellison has emerged this year as a rare Trump ally in Silicon Valley , hosting a fundraiser for Trump that collected $ 7 million for his reelection bid .
But Ellison did not attend the event , and has insisted that it should only be read as his patriotic desire to root for any incumbent president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s wife , Connie , gave half a million dollars to a pro-Biden super PAC earlier this year , although Ballmer himself has not .
Asked if Steve Ballmer was backing Biden , a spokesperson said he was “ nonpartisan ” and declined to comment on his politics .
It doesn ’ t take much guesswork to surmise who each of these tech titans is choosing as Election Day draws near .
But not saying it out loud says something about Silicon Valley ’ s popularity in 2020 .
Will you help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The nation’s very richest people are sitting out the presidential race. Not a single one of the 10 wealthiest people in the US — almost all of them tech billionaires — have shared who they’re voting for in November.
That, in part, reflects two simultaneous dynamics that undergird Silicon Valley:
Public animosity toward the ultra-wealthy, particularly those leading Big Tech companies, has been rising in recent years, making an endorsement from one of these ultra-wealthy people as much of a liability as an asset for a candidate.
Even if candidates wanted their approval, tech billionaires are politically beleaguered these days, especially those who are running companies and must traipse across an antitrust minefield and unproven accusations of political bias. So they aren’t exactly rushing to extend themselves even more by taking sides on President Donald Trump’s reelection.
So it nets out in a convenient way for all sides: The world’s richest people aren’t offering their endorsements. And candidates aren’t asking.
These high-profile figures don’t typically endorse presidential candidates. But most of the tech giants and their leaders are consistently at odds with Trump’s White House on issues ranging from immigration to climate change.
Many tech leaders have consolidated around former Vice President Joe Biden, especially over the summer after he wrapped up the nomination. People like Reid Hoffman, Eric Schmidt, and Laurene Powell Jobs — billionaires, yes, but not household names — are investing their money and energy to oust Trump.
But at the tippy top of America’s billionaire rankings — the rich who are prominent outside of Silicon Valley, who measure their net worth not by the billions but by the tens of billions, the few who have celebrity cachet — there is silence. That’s true also for the single non-tech billionaire in the top 10, Warren Buffett, who is similarly declining to weigh in after pushing hard to beat Trump in 2016.
Many of these tech billionaires have gotten even more fantastically wealthy during the Trump era as their companies’ stock prices surged. But on the whole, they have positioned themselves as inclusive, progressive, and civic-minded leaders who take principled stands when the moment demands it, like when Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accord.
It doesn’t exactly seem like cultivating the public support of these leaders has been a priority for Biden. In a sign of how political campaigns see Silicon Valley as a partial liability these days, the Biden campaign has not unveiled a list of endorsements from business and tech leaders. That is a departure from 2016, when Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced a list of endorsements from people like Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, and the three billionaire founders of Airbnb. (None of them have offered formal endorsements this year, though some have made donations to Biden.)
One person who signed that list in 2016 said they weren’t aware of any efforts to organize a similar list four years later. There are some less-developed efforts affiliated with the Biden campaign to privately organize tech leaders for fundraising purposes, but there’s no flashy public endorsement rollout.
Much has changed since 2016, though. The Democratic Party is locked in a debate about whether these Silicon Valley billionaires and their companies have too much power in American society, a debate that was on the margins during the 2016 campaign. The Biden campaign has been particularly critical of Facebook for not policing Trump’s posts more aggressively — so it would be quite cacophonous for it to boast about an endorsement from Sandberg in 2020, for instance.
And for some of the billionaires themselves, it likely boils down to a business decision. The world’s richest person, Jeff Bezos, has recently been more willing to make donations to political candidates, and, as the owner of the Washington Post, has frequently tangled with Trump. Mark Zuckerberg, the world’s fourth-richest person and an advocate for criminal justice reform, has said that he has been “disgusted” by Trump’s rhetoric on race. But neither of them have endorsed Biden in the presidential race, which would risk exposing them to Trump’s wrath.
It could also endanger the efforts that tech leaders have taken to portray their companies as politically neutral. Trump and his allies frequently accuse Big Tech companies of having an anti-conservative bias, and the Silicon Valley giants often prove skittish about giving that largely unproven argument even the perception of credibility.
And then Elon Musk, whose net worth has skyrocketed in 2020 under Trump but who pitches himself as an environmentalist, said in an interview published on Monday that he was an undecided voter and cast doubt on Biden’s mental sharpness, which has come into question and is an aspect that Trump has recently sought to exploit.
Even those who are not public company CEOs are skittish about becoming partisan combatants. Bill Gates, Microsoft’s retired founder and the second wealthiest American, has emerged as a civic leader during the Covid-19 pandemic and has been unsparingly critical in his comments about how Trump is handling the crisis. But despite being ‘tempted” to issue an endorsement, he and his wife declined to do so because of their desire to remain steadfastly nonpartisan (they have a policy to not issue endorsements).
The co-founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, rank as the eighth and ninth richest people in the US. But they hardly make public statements of any kind these days, even though Brin has quietly made some donations to progressive groups and even protested the Trump administration’s immigration ban at San Francisco’s airport the week after Trump’s inauguration. Neither has weighed in on Trump vs. Biden, although Brin’s wife made a small donation to Biden this summer. (A Brin spokesperson didn’t return a request for comment on whether Brin shared her thinking.)
The two mega billionaires who have flirted with making their views clear have been Oracle founder Larry Ellison and former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Ellison has emerged this year as a rare Trump ally in Silicon Valley, hosting a fundraiser for Trump that collected $7 million for his reelection bid. But Ellison did not attend the event, and has insisted that it should only be read as his patriotic desire to root for any incumbent president, not a formal endorsement. Ballmer’s wife, Connie, gave half a million dollars to a pro-Biden super PAC earlier this year, although Ballmer himself has not.
Asked if Steve Ballmer was backing Biden, a spokesperson said he was “nonpartisan” and declined to comment on his politics.
It doesn’t take much guesswork to surmise who each of these tech titans is choosing as Election Day draws near. But not saying it out loud says something about Silicon Valley’s popularity in 2020.


vox--2020-09-30--Trump promised 200,000 Covid-19 vaccinations a day. That’s 5 to 9 years to vaccinate the US.

At the first presidential debate of the 2020 general election , President Donald Trump tried to reassure viewers about his Covid-19 response by promising that he ’ s ready to distribute a vaccine : “ We have the military all set up .
Logistically , they ’ re all set up .
We have our military that delivers soldiers , and they can do 200,000 a day .
They ’ re going to be delivering the vaccine.
” In reality , this would be a paltry amount of vaccine distribution .
At a rate of 200,000 vaccinations a day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days — nearly five years — to vaccinate the entire country .
If everyone needs two doses , which could be the case with the first generation of vaccines , it would take more than nine years .
Presumably , Trump was saying the military would play a supplementary role to other efforts , with hospitals , family physicians , pharmacies , and others distributing the vaccine alongside the military .
But if the military piece is really the highlight of Trump ’ s plan , the math shows it ’ s so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump also claimed that the US will have a vaccine in the coming weeks , echoing previous comments he ’ s made that a vaccine will be ready in October .
In the past , he ’ s also claimed that the vaccine will be available to everyone quickly — what he called “ full distribution.
” He repeated that last night , claiming , “ Well , we ’ re going to deliver it right away.
” If you talk to experts , including some within the Trump administration , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the board .
It ’ s possible , even likely , that we ’ ll get a vaccine by the end of the year , but October is far too soon for the ongoing , necessary trials to conclude , with November or December much more likely .
Even once a vaccine is approved by federal regulators and made available , supply will be limited .
And the distribution process will likely be extremely difficult and slow for the first generation of vaccines .
( One of the big challenges : One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be kept at temperatures as low as -94 degrees Fahrenheit , which requires freezing equipment that even some advanced facilities don ’ t have . )
That ’ s why many experts believe the vaccination process could take well into 2021 — and potentially 2022 or 2023 .
That means the Covid-19 pandemic could be with us for up to years , even after if we get a vaccine , and could remain a significant problem until the next round of elections .
Covid-19 “ will continue to come up as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ashish Jha , dean of the Brown University School of Public Health , previously told me .
“ It ’ s not going away.
” It would be one thing if Trump had done anything to assure the American public that he has the pandemic under control .
Maybe that would have earned him some faith in how he and his administration will roll out a vaccine .
But Trump has done the opposite , repeatedly blundering his response to the coronavirus : He ’ s deliberately downplayed the pandemic , demanded states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing and tracing down to local and state governments with more limited resources than the federal government , mocked masks , and tried to politicize public health institutions instead of letting science lead the response .
As a result , America has more than 200,000 deaths from Covid-19 — by far the highest recorded death toll in the world .
When controlling for population , the US hasn ’ t had the highest death rate for Covid-19 , but it ’ s among the top 20 percent of developed nations , and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ median developed country .
If the US had the same Covid-19 death rate as , say , Canada , more than 120,000 more Americans would likely be alive today .
Trump , however , has repeatedly refused to admit any fault or culpability .
That continued at last night ’ s debate , in which he tried to shift blame : “ It ’ s China ’ s fault .
It should have never happened .
They stopped it from going in , but it was China ’ s fault.
” Help keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

At the first presidential debate of the 2020 general election, President Donald Trump tried to reassure viewers about his Covid-19 response by promising that he’s ready to distribute a vaccine: “We have the military all set up. Logistically, they’re all set up. We have our military that delivers soldiers, and they can do 200,000 a day. They’re going to be delivering the vaccine.”
In reality, this would be a paltry amount of vaccine distribution. At a rate of 200,000 vaccinations a day, it’d take more than 1,650 days — nearly five years — to vaccinate the entire country. If everyone needs two doses, which could be the case with the first generation of vaccines, it would take more than nine years.
Presumably, Trump was saying the military would play a supplementary role to other efforts, with hospitals, family physicians, pharmacies, and others distributing the vaccine alongside the military. But if the military piece is really the highlight of Trump’s plan, the math shows it’s so little it shouldn’t reassure anyone.
Trump also claimed that the US will have a vaccine in the coming weeks, echoing previous comments he’s made that a vaccine will be ready in October. In the past, he’s also claimed that the vaccine will be available to everyone quickly — what he called “full distribution.” He repeated that last night, claiming, “Well, we’re going to deliver it right away.”
If you talk to experts, including some within the Trump administration, they disagree with Trump’s assessment across the board. It’s possible, even likely, that we’ll get a vaccine by the end of the year, but October is far too soon for the ongoing, necessary trials to conclude, with November or December much more likely.
Even once a vaccine is approved by federal regulators and made available, supply will be limited. And the distribution process will likely be extremely difficult and slow for the first generation of vaccines. (One of the big challenges: One of the leading vaccine candidates in the US must be kept at temperatures as low as -94 degrees Fahrenheit, which requires freezing equipment that even some advanced facilities don’t have.)
That’s why many experts believe the vaccination process could take well into 2021 — and potentially 2022 or 2023. That means the Covid-19 pandemic could be with us for up to years, even after if we get a vaccine, and could remain a significant problem until the next round of elections.
Covid-19 “will continue to come up as an issue in the next midterms,” Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, previously told me. “It’s not going away.”
It would be one thing if Trump had done anything to assure the American public that he has the pandemic under control. Maybe that would have earned him some faith in how he and his administration will roll out a vaccine.
But Trump has done the opposite, repeatedly blundering his response to the coronavirus: He’s deliberately downplayed the pandemic, demanded states reopen too quickly, punted problems with testing and tracing down to local and state governments with more limited resources than the federal government, mocked masks, and tried to politicize public health institutions instead of letting science lead the response.
As a result, America has more than 200,000 deaths from Covid-19 — by far the highest recorded death toll in the world. When controlling for population, the US hasn’t had the highest death rate for Covid-19, but it’s among the top 20 percent of developed nations, and has seven times the death rate of the median developed country. If the US had the same Covid-19 death rate as, say, Canada, more than 120,000 more Americans would likely be alive today.
Trump, however, has repeatedly refused to admit any fault or culpability. That continued at last night’s debate, in which he tried to shift blame: “It’s China’s fault. It should have never happened. They stopped it from going in, but it was China’s fault.”


vox--2020-09-30--Exclusive poll: Biden won the debate convincingly

A new poll by Data for Progress provided exclusively to Vox shows that viewers thought Democratic nominee Joe Biden decisively won Tuesday ’ s first presidential debate against President Donald Trump , by a 52-39 margin .
The poll surveyed debate watchers but then weighted the demographics of the survey group to the population of likely voters in November .
Most pollsters don ’ t do this , which ends up skewing their results toward Democrats because left-leaning college graduates are disproportionately likely to watch debates .
But even with the more Trump-friendly weighting , the poll shows a clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a fairly overwhelming sense that Biden ’ s conduct during the debate was more presidential .
When DFP asked about the actual policy exchanges during the debate , Biden ’ s performance was somewhat weaker than his topline numbers .
Respondents preferred Biden on nominating someone to the Supreme Court , for example , but did so by a relatively narrow 48-40 margin ; he was also the winner on “ the integrity of the election ” by a 49-36 margin .
Those are good numbers , but smaller than his wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of respondents said Biden mostly told the truth , while only 36 percent said the same about Trump .
• 62 percent said that Biden is “ a decent man ” versus 38 percent for Trump .
Last but by no means least , on the question of which candidate came off as “ more mentally sharp and stable , ” Biden held a narrow lead .
This is significant because the Trump campaign has spent months trying to portray the former vice president as over the hill .
Data for Progress also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various moments from the debate are likely to influence voters ’ decisions in November .
On the economy , race and policing , Covid-19 , candidates ’ tone , and candidates ’ style of communication , Biden was universally preferred .
Trump performed best when he spoke about the economy , where 34 percent of respondents said the back-and-forth made them more likely to support him versus 38 percent who said they were more likely to support Biden .
The biggest gap in Biden ’ s favor came on the tone question , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including advantages for Biden with white voters and male voters .
Historically , debates have only a modest influence on election outcomes .
But as measured by this survey , Trump experienced essentially a top-to-bottom fiasco .
He entered the debate behind , and he failed to pick up any support that might meaningfully help him on Election Day .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as @ @ @

A new poll by Data for Progress provided exclusively to Vox shows that viewers thought Democratic nominee Joe Biden decisively won Tuesday’s first presidential debate against President Donald Trump, by a 52-39 margin.
The poll surveyed debate watchers but then weighted the demographics of the survey group to the population of likely voters in November. Most pollsters don’t do this, which ends up skewing their results toward Democrats because left-leaning college graduates are disproportionately likely to watch debates.
But even with the more Trump-friendly weighting, the poll shows a clear win for Biden and, not coincidentally, a fairly overwhelming sense that Biden’s conduct during the debate was more presidential.
When DFP asked about the actual policy exchanges during the debate, Biden’s performance was somewhat weaker than his topline numbers.
Respondents preferred Biden on nominating someone to the Supreme Court, for example, but did so by a relatively narrow 48-40 margin; he was also the winner on “the integrity of the election” by a 49-36 margin. Those are good numbers, but smaller than his wins on character questions:
53 percent of respondents said Biden mostly told the truth, while only 36 percent said the same about Trump.
62 percent said that Biden is “a decent man” versus 38 percent for Trump.
Last but by no means least, on the question of which candidate came off as “more mentally sharp and stable,” Biden held a narrow lead. This is significant because the Trump campaign has spent months trying to portray the former vice president as over the hill.
Data for Progress also asked a series of questions regarding whether various moments from the debate are likely to influence voters’ decisions in November. On the economy, race and policing, Covid-19, candidates’ tone, and candidates’ style of communication, Biden was universally preferred.
Trump performed best when he spoke about the economy, where 34 percent of respondents said the back-and-forth made them more likely to support him versus 38 percent who said they were more likely to support Biden. The biggest gap in Biden’s favor came on the tone question, where Biden had a 42-34 edge — including advantages for Biden with white voters and male voters.
Historically, debates have only a modest influence on election outcomes. But as measured by this survey, Trump experienced essentially a top-to-bottom fiasco. He entered the debate behind, and he failed to pick up any support that might meaningfully help him on Election Day.