vox--2020-05-15--The good news and the bad news in pharma’s response to Covid-19

For all the problems with the US health system , innovation is supposed to be the one area where the country excels .
America ’ s drug industry has been the gold standard for the rest of the world , as has the federal agency that regulates it , the FDA .
The country ’ s intellectual property laws and drug approval process are ostensibly designed to reward breakthrough therapies , granting years-long monopolies to companies that can deliver novel cures and treatments .
Yet the coronavirus crisis has become a significant test of that premise , with an end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normalcy dependent on the rapid development of vaccines or treatments by scientists and biopharmaceutical companies .
The next phase of the crisis is heavily dependent on one question : Where is the innovation ?
The good news is America ’ s drug makers have quickly ramped up their work on Covid-19 .
They are repurposing and combining existing medications , hoping the right mixture could effectively treat coronavirus infections in people who already have it .
At the same time , they are racing to find a vaccine that could prevent most people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there is some ( measured ) optimism that a coronavirus vaccine could be delivered in record time , as Vox ’ s German Lopez reported .
But these positives undergirded by two unavoidable negatives .
First , antiviral research has become one of the most neglected fields in pharmaceutical development .
There are not many incentives for companies to pursue it .
The work is time-consuming , with an uncertain and unstable market .
Other , easier avenues provide bigger financial rewards , even if they don ’ t have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral outbreaks to which most of the world ’ s population is still vulnerable .
Secondly , the innovation industry ’ s Covid-19 work has also been hindered by a disorganized federal government .
Companies both don ’ t know where they should focus their attention , and they don ’ t know whom to coordinate with if they do have ideas for development , because there is no overarching federal strategy .
Only now , more than 1 million confirmed US cases and 80,000 deaths into the pandemic , is the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ venture capitalist to oversee therapeutics development — somebody with no prior government experience .
Drug makers have moved fast to treat and eventually prevent Covid-19 .
That is a testament to American innovation .
But because of the market we have built for drug development , and with the federal government asleep at the wheel , we still started a step behind in the race for a cure .
“ Covid-19 is not the last epidemic or pandemic .
Viruses are not the only threat , ” Robin Feldman , director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Unless we think about our long-term incentives structure , we will always be reactive .
We ’ ll never be ahead of the game.
” Drug makers are working on short-term treatments and long-term vaccines For the immediate coronavirus crisis , there is a strong case to be made that drug companies are acting both quickly in the best interest of public health and rationally toward their own market-driven ends .
“ I ’ d say that the biopharma industry is actually doing pretty well in this epidemic , ” Derek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Science , told me over email , “ but that there ’ s an expectations problem.
” The fastest way to find a new treatment for Covid-19 is to deploy two resources already available to us : existing drugs and the antibodies from people who have been infected with the coronavirus and survived .
Most of the media attention has been on the first category — hydroxychloroquine , touted by President Trump and his allies but unproven in trials , and then remdesivir , which has shown promise but remains a work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the expectations problem that Lowe describes .
“ Drug repurposing gets a lot of coverage , but the successes are very few .
It mostly doesn ’ t work , ” Lowe said .
“ And it ’ s mostly not going to work against the coronavirus , either — I ’ ll be very pleased if some existing drugs can help out a bit , keep some people out of the ICU or off ventilators , but I think that ’ s all we can expect.
” The more promising avenue for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ monoclonal antibodies.
” In brief , as STAT explained , that means taking blood plasma from people who have been infected with the coronavirus and developed immunity ( i.e .
antibodies that fight off the disease ) and then isolating and injecting those antibodies into infected patients who need treatment .
It ’ s not foolproof — a recent early trial focused on critically ill patients still had a 15-percent mortality rate — but it looks like the most promising therapy in the near term .
Those efforts have largely been led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vir Biotechnology ) or by major international firms like GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca that have a large American presence and work with other US companies or organizations .
Knowing that drug makers are also at work on a Covid-19 vaccine , which would effectively eliminate the need for other treatments , it makes both medical and business sense for the biopharmaceutical industry to focus for now on these possibilities , hunting for an effective treatment until the vaccines come to market .
“ That ’ s the fastest way , the way to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Rachel Sachs , a law professor who studies innovation policy at Washington University in St. Louis , told me .
The current record for vaccine development , from start to finish , is four years .
We could conceivably cut that time in half , if we get lucky , for Covid-19 .
But producing a “ de novo ” treatment as Lowe called it — a truly novel therapy , heretofore unknown to science — takes even longer .
So this two-track approach is logical right now , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking its heavy toll .
But a step back reveals America has not set up a market that rewards companies for anticipating this outbreak — or the next one .
Drug companies don ’ t have much incentive to prepare for the next pandemic Drug companies actually do the kind of work they are doing now for Covid-19 all the time : repurposing or tweaking drugs for new indications .
According to Feldman ’ s research , nearly 80 percent of drugs associated with new patents are actually a variation on something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being used in combination with another therapy .
That has its usefulness .
Drug makers have decades of data on treatments that have been around for a long time .
They know more about the risks and side effects than they would for something new .
That helps them produce drugs that can be used more safely .
But the attention and resources dedicated to repurposing old drugs detracts from the pursuit of new therapies that would be true breakthroughs , exponential advancements in science .
Feldman describes such innovation as “ value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rare , it ’ s beautiful , it ’ s startling , it ’ s a thing of beauty , ” she said .
But that kind of innovation takes time and money with no certain payoff .
It ’ s simpler and cheaper to modify existing products to somewhat improve their efficacy or to tweak them to treat a different condition .
“ I worry that our system is not well primed for it , ” she said .
“ It ’ s all about the incentives .
Our incentives aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shift away from antibacterial resistance research and drug development , even though researchers anticipate millions of global deaths annually within the next few decades because bacteria have become resistant to the drugs that we already have to fight them .
Drug makers currently devote a lot of their attention to end-stage cancers , because they can benefit from “ orphan drug ” designation and other competitively advantageous policies , while Feldman argued that chronic conditions have been underserved .
Looking at it from a societal perspective , the latter obviously has more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is not necessarily what our innovation system has been designed to reward .
Or look at the antiviral space , which is the most relevant to the coronavirus response .
Antiviral research investment historically has not been a priority for the major drugmakers .
The Wall Street Journal reported Pfizer had to reestablish its antiviral research department for its Covid-19 work because the unit was disbanded in 2009 .
Novartis ended its antiviral and antibacterial research in 2018 .
One systemic review of the past 30 years of antiviral research found “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treat acute viral infections ” in that time .
“ Antibiotics and antivirals are both areas that haven ’ t seen a tremendous amount of new drug development because the economic incentives haven ’ t justified significant R & D in this area , ” Caroline Pearson , senior fellow with NORC-University of Chicago , told me recently .
So long as these incentive structures remain in place , Feldman warned , we will never be ahead of the curve in fighting off the next pandemic .
She said that the US should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of value and what should we incentivize people to do ?
” We can improve drug development — but we need a competent government There are many ideas for how to better incentivize drug development and better reward companies for pursuing the kind of treatments we want them to .
Most of them fall under the broad rubric of “ value-based pricing ” : paying companies for the societal benefits that their treatments provide .
“ If you have a vaccine that completely stops a widespread disease , ” Feldman said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a similar concept known as advanced market commitments , developed by Harvard economist Michael Kremer last decade .
The gist is simple : a government or some other entity ( the first AMC was a joint venture between five countries and the Gates Foundation ) agrees to pay a set dollar amount for a product , like a vaccine , before it ever comes on the market .
The price would presumably set high enough that a company would know it could recoup investment , no matter the actual number of sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea was that if we designed a program to pre-commit to paying a particular amount , that would encourage companies to develop these products , ” Sachs said .
In the abstract , there are plenty of options available to us .
But they require a federal government with the will and ability to execute them .
That is what ’ s been sorely lacking in the Covid-19 response .
“ I think that one of the problems with innovation has been the extremely disorganized response of the federal government .
As far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC , the NIH , HHS , and the FDA have all been various levels of bad during this crisis , ” Lowe said .
“ The bungled testing regime at the beginning , the chaotic test approvals since then , the trouble that ’ s apparent in [ former US vaccine chief Rick ] Bright ’ s whistleblower complaint : it ’ s a mess.
” The federal government can not only spend money and speed drug approvals .
It can convene scientists , drug makers and regulatory officials .
It can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopefully speeding up the breakthroughs everybody wants to see .
But it hasn ’ t really happened .
The Trump administration announced “ Operation Warp Speed ” in late April with the goal of rapidly developing a vaccine .
That was already months into the pandemic , and the White House didn ’ t pick somebody to oversee it until mid-May .
The new head of that operation , Moncef Slaoui , is a former pharmaceutical executive who has no prior experience in government , unlike some of the other contenders for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts I spoke with largely regarded the federal response , and specifically its work to accelerate innovation , as a wasted opportunity .
“ To focus the country , to focus the NIH , to focus private sector investment on a particular challenge that American ingenuity can defeat , there is an opportunity to do that here that has not been taken broadly , ” Sachs said .
So for now , we must wait for the treatment or the cure that will allow the coronavirus crisis to truly come to an end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

For all the problems with the US health system, innovation is supposed to be the one area where the country excels. America’s drug industry has been the gold standard for the rest of the world, as has the federal agency that regulates it, the FDA. The country’s intellectual property laws and drug approval process are ostensibly designed to reward breakthrough therapies, granting years-long monopolies to companies that can deliver novel cures and treatments.
Yet the coronavirus crisis has become a significant test of that premise, with an end to the pandemic and a return to normalcy dependent on the rapid development of vaccines or treatments by scientists and biopharmaceutical companies. The next phase of the crisis is heavily dependent on one question: Where is the innovation?
The good news is America’s drug makers have quickly ramped up their work on Covid-19. They are repurposing and combining existing medications, hoping the right mixture could effectively treat coronavirus infections in people who already have it. At the same time, they are racing to find a vaccine that could prevent most people from ever getting sick from the virus, and there is some (measured) optimism that a coronavirus vaccine could be delivered in record time, as Vox’s German Lopez reported.
But these positives undergirded by two unavoidable negatives. First, antiviral research has become one of the most neglected fields in pharmaceutical development. There are not many incentives for companies to pursue it. The work is time-consuming, with an uncertain and unstable market. Other, easier avenues provide bigger financial rewards, even if they don’t have the same medical efficacy as treatments for unexpected viral outbreaks to which most of the world’s population is still vulnerable.
Secondly, the innovation industry’s Covid-19 work has also been hindered by a disorganized federal government. Companies both don’t know where they should focus their attention, and they don’t know whom to coordinate with if they do have ideas for development, because there is no overarching federal strategy. Only now, more than 1 million confirmed US cases and 80,000 deaths into the pandemic, is the Trump administration appointing a former pharmaceutical executive and venture capitalist to oversee therapeutics development — somebody with no prior government experience.
Drug makers have moved fast to treat and eventually prevent Covid-19. That is a testament to American innovation. But because of the market we have built for drug development, and with the federal government asleep at the wheel, we still started a step behind in the race for a cure.
“Covid-19 is not the last epidemic or pandemic. Viruses are not the only threat,” Robin Feldman, director of the UC-Hastings Center for Innovation, told me. “Unless we think about our long-term incentives structure, we will always be reactive. We’ll never be ahead of the game.”
Drug makers are working on short-term treatments and long-term vaccines
For the immediate coronavirus crisis, there is a strong case to be made that drug companies are acting both quickly in the best interest of public health and rationally toward their own market-driven ends.
“I’d say that the biopharma industry is actually doing pretty well in this epidemic,” Derek Lowe, who writes about drug discovery for Science, told me over email, “but that there’s an expectations problem.”
The fastest way to find a new treatment for Covid-19 is to deploy two resources already available to us: existing drugs and the antibodies from people who have been infected with the coronavirus and survived.
Most of the media attention has been on the first category — hydroxychloroquine, touted by President Trump and his allies but unproven in trials, and then remdesivir, which has shown promise but remains a work in progress — and that may explain the expectations problem that Lowe describes.
“Drug repurposing gets a lot of coverage, but the successes are very few. It mostly doesn’t work,” Lowe said. “And it’s mostly not going to work against the coronavirus, either — I’ll be very pleased if some existing drugs can help out a bit, keep some people out of the ICU or off ventilators, but I think that’s all we can expect.”
The more promising avenue for quick treatment, he said, is “monoclonal antibodies.” In brief, as STAT explained, that means taking blood plasma from people who have been infected with the coronavirus and developed immunity (i.e. antibodies that fight off the disease) and then isolating and injecting those antibodies into infected patients who need treatment. It’s not foolproof — a recent early trial focused on critically ill patients still had a 15-percent mortality rate — but it looks like the most promising therapy in the near term.
Those efforts have largely been led by US biopharmaceutical companies (Regeneron, Vir Biotechnology) or by major international firms like GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca that have a large American presence and work with other US companies or organizations.
Knowing that drug makers are also at work on a Covid-19 vaccine, which would effectively eliminate the need for other treatments, it makes both medical and business sense for the biopharmaceutical industry to focus for now on these possibilities, hunting for an effective treatment until the vaccines come to market.
“That’s the fastest way, the way to get something to market as fast as possible,” Rachel Sachs, a law professor who studies innovation policy at Washington University in St. Louis, told me.
The current record for vaccine development, from start to finish, is four years. We could conceivably cut that time in half, if we get lucky, for Covid-19. But producing a “de novo” treatment as Lowe called it — a truly novel therapy, heretofore unknown to science — takes even longer.
So this two-track approach is logical right now, with the coronavirus already spreading through the US and taking its heavy toll. But a step back reveals America has not set up a market that rewards companies for anticipating this outbreak — or the next one.
Drug companies don’t have much incentive to prepare for the next pandemic
Drug companies actually do the kind of work they are doing now for Covid-19 all the time: repurposing or tweaking drugs for new indications. According to Feldman’s research, nearly 80 percent of drugs associated with new patents are actually a variation on something that already existed, either slightly tweaked or being used in combination with another therapy.
That has its usefulness. Drug makers have decades of data on treatments that have been around for a long time. They know more about the risks and side effects than they would for something new. That helps them produce drugs that can be used more safely.
But the attention and resources dedicated to repurposing old drugs detracts from the pursuit of new therapies that would be true breakthroughs, exponential advancements in science. Feldman describes such innovation as “value beyond pearls.”
“It’s rare, it’s beautiful, it’s startling, it’s a thing of beauty,” she said.
But that kind of innovation takes time and money with no certain payoff. It’s simpler and cheaper to modify existing products to somewhat improve their efficacy or to tweak them to treat a different condition.
“I worry that our system is not well primed for it,” she said. “It’s all about the incentives. Our incentives aren’t directed properly.”
She pointed to the shift away from antibacterial resistance research and drug development, even though researchers anticipate millions of global deaths annually within the next few decades because bacteria have become resistant to the drugs that we already have to fight them.
Drug makers currently devote a lot of their attention to end-stage cancers, because they can benefit from “orphan drug” designation and other competitively advantageous policies, while Feldman argued that chronic conditions have been underserved. Looking at it from a societal perspective, the latter obviously has more value than the former — and yet that is not necessarily what our innovation system has been designed to reward.
Or look at the antiviral space, which is the most relevant to the coronavirus response.
Antiviral research investment historically has not been a priority for the major drugmakers. The Wall Street Journal reported Pfizer had to reestablish its antiviral research department for its Covid-19 work because the unit was disbanded in 2009. Novartis ended its antiviral and antibacterial research in 2018. One systemic review of the past 30 years of antiviral research found “only a few drugs were approved to treat acute viral infections” in that time.
“Antibiotics and antivirals are both areas that haven’t seen a tremendous amount of new drug development because the economic incentives haven’t justified significant R&D in this area,” Caroline Pearson, senior fellow with NORC-University of Chicago, told me recently.
So long as these incentive structures remain in place, Feldman warned, we will never be ahead of the curve in fighting off the next pandemic. She said that the US should be asking: “What’s of value and what should we incentivize people to do?”
We can improve drug development — but we need a competent government
There are many ideas for how to better incentivize drug development and better reward companies for pursuing the kind of treatments we want them to. Most of them fall under the broad rubric of “value-based pricing”: paying companies for the societal benefits that their treatments provide.
“If you have a vaccine that completely stops a widespread disease,” Feldman said, “it should be extraordinarily valuable.”
There is a similar concept known as advanced market commitments, developed by Harvard economist Michael Kremer last decade.
The gist is simple: a government or some other entity (the first AMC was a joint venture between five countries and the Gates Foundation) agrees to pay a set dollar amount for a product, like a vaccine, before it ever comes on the market. The price would presumably set high enough that a company would know it could recoup investment, no matter the actual number of sales that are eventually made.
“The idea was that if we designed a program to pre-commit to paying a particular amount, that would encourage companies to develop these products,” Sachs said.
In the abstract, there are plenty of options available to us. But they require a federal government with the will and ability to execute them. That is what’s been sorely lacking in the Covid-19 response.
“I think that one of the problems with innovation has been the extremely disorganized response of the federal government. As far as I’m concerned, the CDC, the NIH, HHS, and the FDA have all been various levels of bad during this crisis,” Lowe said. “The bungled testing regime at the beginning, the chaotic test approvals since then, the trouble that’s apparent in [former US vaccine chief Rick] Bright’s whistleblower complaint: it’s a mess.”
The federal government can not only spend money and speed drug approvals. It can convene scientists, drug makers and regulatory officials. It can grease the wheels of US innovation, hopefully speeding up the breakthroughs everybody wants to see.
But it hasn’t really happened. The Trump administration announced “Operation Warp Speed” in late April with the goal of rapidly developing a vaccine. That was already months into the pandemic, and the White House didn’t pick somebody to oversee it until mid-May. The new head of that operation, Moncef Slaoui, is a former pharmaceutical executive who has no prior experience in government, unlike some of the other contenders for the role, as Politico reported.
The experts I spoke with largely regarded the federal response, and specifically its work to accelerate innovation, as a wasted opportunity.
“To focus the country, to focus the NIH, to focus private sector investment on a particular challenge that American ingenuity can defeat, there is an opportunity to do that here that has not been taken broadly,” Sachs said.
So for now, we must wait for the treatment or the cure that will allow the coronavirus crisis to truly come to an end.


vox--2020-05-15--Trump seems to think there’d be no coronavirus if there was no testing. It doesn’t work like that.

Nearly four months since the first coronavirus case in the US was reported , President Donald Trump continues to struggle to come to grips with how testing for the virus works and why it ’ s important .
During remarks on Thursday at the Owens & Minor distribution center in Allentown , Pennsylvania , Trump tried to downplay the severity of the US ’ s coronavirus outbreak by arguing the country wouldn ’ t be leading the world in cases if it weren ’ t for the fact that so much testing is being done here — as if coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we didn ’ t test to find them .
“ Don ’ t forget , we have more cases than anybody in the world .
But why ?
Because we do more testing , ” Trump said .
“ When you test , you have a case .
When you test , you find something is wrong with people .
If we didn ’ t do any testing , we would have very few cases .
They [ the media ] don ’ t want to write that.
” It stands to reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more cases — but that ’ s a good thing .
More testing helps public health experts and policymakers understand the full scope of the problem , isolate those who have tested positive , and then trace their contacts to help contain potential outbreaks .
But for Trump , the downside is it undercuts his argument that it ’ s already safe for states to lift stay-at-home orders that are hurting the economy and therefore hurting his reelection hopes .
Not doing any testing for the coronavirus might make it easier for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great job handling the current public health crisis , but it ’ d result in the Covid-19 disease spreading in an even more out-of-control and deadly manner .
Trump , of all people , should understand this .
Just last week , Katie Miller , press secretary for Vice President Mike Pence , tested positive for the coronavirus .
Miller , whose positive test came on the heels of Trump ’ s personal valet testing positive , said she was asymptomatic , meaning that if she hadn ’ t been able to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for many people throughout the country — she might have continued going to work and possibly spread the virus to Pence , Trump , or others working in the White House .
But if you thought that chain of events would serve as a wake-up call to Trump about the importance of businesses , schools , and other institutions having similar testing capacity to the White House , you ’ d be mistaken .
Trump responded to the news of Miller ’ s positive test by claiming it served as evidence of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t necessarily great ” because “ she tested very good for a long period of time , and then all of the sudden she tested positive.
” That is how communicable diseases work — you don ’ t have them until you do .
The point of testing is allowing people to know when they have a disease so they can take the necessary measures to not spread it .
That ’ s especially important for viruses like the coronavirus that can be spread by asymptomatic carriers .
Trump , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days of the coronavirus outbreak that he ’ s not above juking the numbers .
Recall his comments from early March about how he was reluctant to let American passengers off a coronavirus-infected cruise ship because the resulting increase in US coronavirus cases would look bad for him .
During his remarks in Pennsylvania on Thursday , Trump went as far as to describe coronavirus testing as “ overrated.
” But experts broadly agree that for businesses and schools to reopen in some semblance of a safe manner , US testing capacity must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is aware of it or not , progress is being made on that front .
There ’ s actually good news on the testing front that Trump could be talking about Despite what Trump would have you believe , the US is not leading the world in testing .
According to data compiled by Worldometer , on a per-million-people basis , the US ranks 39th .
That ’ s not to say that testing capacity in the US isn ’ t improving .
As my colleague German Lopez detailed on Thursday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the country now is roughly double the number from early April .
The numbers are still significantly short of the 500,000 tests per day that experts believe is the minimum necessary to fully control the outbreak , but progress is being made .
It ’ s not the case , however , that the ramp-up in testing has caused the US to have more than five times more coronavirus cases ( more than 1.4 million confirmed cases as of May 15 ) than the second-worst country ( Russia , with nearly 263,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just getting tested for fun — they ’ re actually getting sick and dying .
This is reflected not only in the fact that the US has endured more than double the number of deaths as the second-hardest-hit country ( more than 85,000 , followed by the UK with more than 34,000 ) , but also that the US is 13th in the world when it comes to deaths per million people .
The high case number here correlates with high death numbers , not just high testing numbers .
Ironically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak has been so bad here is because the US fell way short on testing in February and March , allowing the coronavirus to spread across the country in a largely undetected way .
So when Trump compares America ’ s raw testing numbers favorably with countries like South Korea , as he did in Pennsylvania , he leaves out the crucial context that South Korea was able to get the coronavirus under control early in a way the US wasn ’ t because it had more testing capacity during a critical period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuance of that sort , especially when it reflects unfavorably on him .
He wants the economy to rebound as soon as possible , and to that end he wants schools and businesses to reopen ASAP .
And if that means making a nonsensical case against the idea of object permanence , so be it .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Nearly four months after the first coronavirus case in the US was reported, President Donald Trump continues to struggle to come to grips with how testing for the virus works and why it’s important.
During remarks on Thursday at the Owens & Minor distribution center in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Trump tried to downplay the severity of the US’s coronavirus outbreak by arguing the country wouldn’t be leading the world in cases if it weren’t for the fact that so much testing is being done here — as if coronavirus cases simply wouldn’t exist if we didn’t test to find them.
“Don’t forget, we have more cases than anybody in the world. But why? Because we do more testing,” Trump said. “When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases. They [the media] don’t want to write that.”
TRUMP: "When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases." pic.twitter.com/tEX1uXQbmp — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2020
It stands to reason that conducting more tests correlates with finding more cases — but that’s a good thing. More testing helps public health experts and policymakers understand the full scope of the problem, isolate those who have tested positive, and then trace their contacts to help contain potential outbreaks. But for Trump, the downside is it undercuts his argument that it’s already safe for states to lift stay-at-home orders that are hurting the economy and therefore hurting his reelection hopes.
Not doing any testing for the coronavirus might make it easier for Trump to argue he’s doing a great job handling the current public health crisis, but it’d result in the Covid-19 disease spreading in an even more out-of-control and deadly manner.
Trump, of all people, should understand this. Just last week, Katie Miller, press secretary for Vice President Mike Pence, tested positive for the coronavirus. Miller, whose positive test came on the heels of Trump’s personal valet testing positive, said she was asymptomatic, meaning that if she hadn’t been able to get tested — as is still the case for many people throughout the country — she might have continued going to work and possibly spread the virus to Pence, Trump, or others working in the White House.
But if you thought that chain of events would serve as a wake-up call to Trump about the importance of businesses, schools, and other institutions having similar testing capacity to the White House, you’d be mistaken. Trump responded to the news of Miller’s positive test by claiming it served as evidence of “why the whole concept of tests aren’t necessarily great” because “she tested very good for a long period of time, and then all of the sudden she tested positive.”
TRUMP: “Katie, she tested very good for a long period of time, and then all of the sudden she tested positive ... this is why the whole concept of tests aren't necessarily great ... today, I guess, for some reason, she tested positive." pic.twitter.com/xNFEJn3W9s — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 8, 2020
That is how communicable diseases work — you don’t have them until you do. The point of testing is allowing people to know when they have a disease so they can take the necessary measures to not spread it. That’s especially important for viruses like the coronavirus that can be spread by asymptomatic carriers.
Trump, however, has made it clear from the early days of the coronavirus outbreak that he’s not above juking the numbers. Recall his comments from early March about how he was reluctant to let American passengers off a coronavirus-infected cruise ship because the resulting increase in US coronavirus cases would look bad for him.
"I like the numbers being where they are. I don't need to have the numbers double because of one ship" -- Trump explains that he doesn't want to let people off the Grand Princess cruise ship because he doesn't want the number of coronavirus cases in the country to go up pic.twitter.com/ELhZDjiZW9 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 6, 2020
During his remarks in Pennsylvania on Thursday, Trump went as far as to describe coronavirus testing as “overrated.” But experts broadly agree that for businesses and schools to reopen in some semblance of a safe manner, US testing capacity must be ramped up.
Whether the president is aware of it or not, progress is being made on that front.
There’s actually good news on the testing front that Trump could be talking about
Despite what Trump would have you believe, the US is not leading the world in testing. According to data compiled by Worldometer, on a per-million-people basis, the US ranks 39th.
That’s not to say that testing capacity in the US isn’t improving. As my colleague German Lopez detailed on Thursday, the roughly 300,000 tests per day being conducted in the country now is roughly double the number from early April. The numbers are still significantly short of the 500,000 tests per day that experts believe is the minimum necessary to fully control the outbreak, but progress is being made.
It’s not the case, however, that the ramp-up in testing has caused the US to have more than five times more coronavirus cases (more than 1.4 million confirmed cases as of May 16) than the second-worst country (Russia, with about 272,000).
People in the US aren’t just getting tested for fun — they’re actually getting sick and dying. This is reflected not only in the fact that the US has endured more than double the number of deaths as the second-hardest-hit country (more than 88,000 as of May 16, followed by the UK with more than 34,000), but also that the US is 13th in the world when it comes to deaths per million people. The high case number here correlates with high death numbers, not just high testing numbers.
Ironically, one of the reasons the coronavirus outbreak has been so bad here is because the US fell way short on testing in February and March, allowing the coronavirus to spread across the country in a largely undetected way. So when Trump compares America’s raw testing numbers favorably with countries like South Korea, as he did in Pennsylvania, he leaves out the crucial context that South Korea was able to get the coronavirus under control early in a way the US wasn’t, because it had more testing capacity during a critical period.
Trump isn’t big on nuance of that sort, especially when it reflects unfavorably on him. He wants the economy to rebound as soon as possible, and to that end he wants schools and businesses to reopen ASAP. And if that means making a nonsensical case against the idea of object permanence, so be it.


vox--2020-05-16--The moral logic of coronavirus

The moral logic of coronavirus

Editor ’ s note : This essay was first published on March 17 .
The coronavirus pandemic is an enormous crisis that has descended before most people have had time to learn the facts , much less process or properly contextualize them .
Consequently , there are lots of gut reactions on display , including from the president .
And what gut reactions they are .
Because the coronavirus is such a rapid and severe threat , so outside of our ordinary experience , it is triggering extreme versions of our everyday moral instincts .
It is instructive to examine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the wider public — as they are flushed to the surface , as there are lessons embedded in them that carry forward to the many other threats humans are likely face in the 21st century .
Here ’ s a spoiler : Bernie Sanders is right .
Or rather , the political philosophy Sanders has spent a lifetime championing is right .
Threats like the coronavirus are not as rare as they seem ; they are likely to get less rare ; and they make the case for a more social democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutual care rather than zero-sum competition .
The moral logic of coronavirus , if we ’ re willing to heed it , leads to more socialism .
To see how we get there , let ’ s start by looking at conservatives ’ response to the crisis .
Over the past several decades , a variety of trends — most notably the shrinking and homogenization of the conservative demographic and the rise to domination of conservative media — have pushed the right further and further toward the fringe .
As racial and ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ versions of conservatism , authoritarianism , and the authoritarian personality have come to the fore , elevated in both media and politics .
( Amanda Taub wrote an amazingly prescient piece on this for Vox in 2016 . )
One notable feature of the authoritarian personality is that it is preoccupied with clear lines between Good/Us and Bad/Them , and consequently preoccupied with the purity of the former and infection by the latter .
That is why right-wing parties are so focused on borders , on incursions and invasions by foreigners , immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s why they valorize the purity of an imagined past .
( See the work of psychologist Jonathan Haidt for more on the role purity , disgust , and infection play in the conservative moral universe . )
That personality finds its ultimate expression in President Donald Trump .
His instincts and reactions serve , as always , as a kind of comically exaggerated caricature of the type .
What Trump ’ s response has revealed is that an actual infection , a virus , poses a problem to the authoritarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other , at least not a satisfying one , with a face and an alien culture upon whom resentment and violence can be focused .
The only villain is an impersonal natural force ; everyone with a face is a victim , an Us to be tended .
In the face of a virus , only the conventionally feminine approach of mutual care is useful .
That leaves the lens through which the authoritarian sees the world ( domination and submission ) blind , and the tools available to him ( scapegoating , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is no one to punish , no one to make suffer .
Without that , the authoritarian is scarcely able to process the threat as a threat at all .
A threat without an Other is like a wavelength of light that is invisible to him .
This dynamic has been on display across the conservative response to the coronavirus .
The immediate instinct was to ignore or downplay the threat , which Trump kept doing long after it was clear to experts ( and which some conservative politicians are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Republicans are far less likely to understand and appreciate the threat than Democrats .
The second instinct , on display across the conservative landscape ( and , sadly , across the world ) , is to find an Other , someone to blame and demonize .
That instinct was visible in the efforts to rename the virus “ Wuhan virus ” or “ Chinese virus ” — something Republicans are still doing .
It was visible in the immediate rush to accuse the media of using the virus to hurt Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ongoing conviction that the whole thing is somehow being used by Democrats to win the election .
Trump , his administration , and his coalition are in politics to help friends and destroy enemies .
All they know is zero-sum competition , domination , and submission — and with no one to dominate , no one upon whom they can impose ritual cruelty to appease the bloodlust of their base , they are ... adrift .
They simply aren ’ t confident , or competent , in expressing , organizing , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will likely be lost as a result .
The authoritarian personality that comprises such a high proportion of the conservative base , media , and political leadership is only a small portion of the overall population .
The much more common reaction to the virus has been a sense that , because we are all victims of an impersonal natural force , we should pull together and care for one another .
That ’ s why even some Republicans ( though , apparently , not enough ) seem willing to pass an aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick leave .
But this more common moral instinct is also worth interrogating a bit .
Studies have found that lack of health care kills 45,000 Americans a year , auto accidents kill 37,000 a year , and drug overdoses kill 70,000 a year .
Heart disease kills 647,000 a year , cancer 599,000 , and respiratory diseases 160,000 .
Why does all this ongoing suffering and death not lead , as the coronavirus has , to bipartisan calls for financial aid , paid sick leave , working-class tax relief , and intensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s salience .
We pay the most attention to threats experienced on the temporal and spatial scales of our everyday lives , the ones that make us feel the most .
Lots of deaths close to home and over a short period of time are more salient than deaths spread out further , both temporally and geographically .
Second , there ’ s responsibility .
A virus is clearly an external threat , something that happens to someone through no fault of their own .
But there is a common sentiment , sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases , accidents , lost jobs , and addictions are the result of choices , something people brought upon themselves , for which they are at least partially responsible .
I don ’ t think either of these is a particularly good reason to limit our instinct for mutual care .
As for salience , the mechanisms that govern it were developed over centuries of evolution in highly different circumstances .
They are not particularly good indicators in the modern world , where the most substantial threats are structural and incremental .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a piece on luck , much more of what happens in our lives — the identities and behaviors we adopt , the risks we face — is determined by forces outside of our control than we , especially the “ we ” that includes the privileged and well-off ( the lucky ) , like to admit .
A single mother who works a low-wage job at a diner and is laid off because she has to spend time at home with a child who has the flu is not appreciably more responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she would be when stranded at home by a virus .
A teen born and raised around opiates who finds himself with an addiction by the age of 18 did not choose where he was born or how he was raised any more than he might choose to be struck by a virus .
All across America , millions of people live in precarity , one step ahead of financial ruin , with lives that can be upended overnight by a health or employment twist entirely outside of their control .
Metaphorically speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — poverty , poor health care , inequality , systemic discrimination , loneliness , and isolation — that infect innocent victims every day by the thousands .
Those victims deserve care as well , and not churlish , moralistic , “ means-tested ” care .
Just care , enough to get by and to live a life of dignity .
We ’ ve seen , with the coronavirus , that our more clannish , authoritarian , aggressive instincts will only get us deeper into trouble , and that our instincts of mutual care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to minimize the suffering .
Both of those lessons ought to be extended to the many other threats facing Americans .
What would that look like in practice ?
Well , let ’ s ask Bernie Sanders .
Social democracy is the institutionalization of the compassion awakened by the virus As my colleagues Matt Yglesias and Zack Beauchamp have written , the difference between Biden ’ s response to the coronavirus and Sanders ’ s was that Biden treats it like a management problem , while Sanders made the explicit connection to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s speech on the virus was infinitely better than anything Trump has said .
A competent response to the virus , guided by experts and the best scientific understanding , is important no matter the larger ideological disposition of the administration .
And Biden may have the best of it politically .
As Elizabeth Warren understood , the US is experiencing a crisis of trust , and simple , good governance is the first step in restoring that trust .
Calm and competence may be what voters want more than anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only want it more after several additional months of chaos and suffering .
But on the merits , on the larger question , Sanders is right .
A one-off response to the virus is insufficient .
“ God willing , this crisis is going to end , ” he said at the March debate .
“ And we ’ re going to have to develop an economy in which half of our people are not living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to put food on the table.
” The globalized 21st century promises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , incremental risks exacerbated by climate change , including not only sea level rise , migration , and resource conflicts but also more pandemics .
The economic and technological transitions necessary to avoid the worst of climate change will themselves cause regional dislocations .
( Thus the Green New Deal . )
Big , disruptive forces are swirling all around the US now and for the foreseeable future , and they are going to manifest in more crises and disruptions , more ordinary Americans tossed about by forces beyond their control .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and uncharted waters , is each other .
We can never get through it by dividing and attacking one another ; we ’ re in it together .
That is the whole point of social democracy : universal health care , universal public benefits , decent wages and housing , publicly funded elections , citizen participation in corporate boards and politics .
A social democracy builds a robust public sector because shit happens , and when it does , people need help .
That is an old idea — for Democrats , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it becomes more relevant with every passing year .
The coronavirus is a brutal reminder of our fragility and interdependence , of how necessary trust and cooperation are to our survival .
It is a reminder that , in the face of 21st-century threats , the blustering bullies of the world locked in zero-sum struggles for dominance are worse than useless .
They spin every disaster into a greater disaster .
Finally , it is a reminder that surviving and prospering in the century ahead means building the social trust and robust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone from the viruses to come .
The coronavirus is already spinning into a tragedy ; it will be a bigger tragedy if we learn nothing from it .

Editor’s note: This essay was first published on March 17.
The coronavirus pandemic is an enormous crisis that has descended before most people have had time to learn the facts, much less process or properly contextualize them. Consequently, there are lots of gut reactions on display, including from the president.
And what gut reactions they are. Because the coronavirus is such a rapid and severe threat, so outside of our ordinary experience, it is triggering extreme versions of our everyday moral instincts. It is instructive to examine these reactions — those of both Trump and the wider public — as they are flushed to the surface, as there are lessons embedded in them that carry forward to the many other threats humans are likely to face in the 21st century.
Here’s a spoiler: Bernie Sanders is right. Or rather, the political philosophy Sanders has spent a lifetime championing is right. Threats like the coronavirus are not as rare as they seem; they are likely to get less rare; and they make the case for a more social democratic form of government, one based on mutual care rather than zero-sum competition. The moral logic of coronavirus, if we’re willing to heed it, leads to more socialism.
To see how we get there, let’s start by looking at conservatives’ response to the crisis.
The authoritarian search for a “Them”
Over the past several decades, a variety of trends — most notably the shrinking and homogenization of the conservative demographic and the rise to domination of conservative media — have pushed the right further and further toward the fringe. As racial and ideological diversity have declined, the most extreme versions of conservatism, authoritarianism, and the authoritarian personality have come to the fore, elevated in both media and politics. (Amanda Taub wrote an amazingly prescient piece on this for Vox in 2016.)
One notable feature of the authoritarian personality is that it is preoccupied with clear lines between Good/Us and Bad/Them, and consequently preoccupied with the purity of the former and infection by the latter. That is why right-wing parties are so focused on borders, on incursions and invasions by foreigners, immigrants, and Others of various kinds. It’s why they valorize the purity of an imagined past. (See the work of psychologist Jonathan Haidt for more on the role purity, disgust, and infection play in the conservative moral universe.)
That personality finds its ultimate expression in President Donald Trump. His instincts and reactions serve, as always, as a kind of comically exaggerated caricature of the type.
What Trump’s response has revealed is that an actual infection, a virus, poses a problem to the authoritarian. There is no Them, no Other, at least not a satisfying one, with a face and an alien culture upon which resentment and violence can be focused. The only villain is an impersonal natural force; everyone with a face is a victim, an Us to be tended. In the face of a virus, only the conventionally feminine approach of mutual care is useful.
That leaves the lens through which the authoritarian sees the world (domination and submission) blind, and the tools available to him (scapegoating, exclusion, retribution, violence) impotent. There is no one to punish, no one to make suffer. Without that, the authoritarian is scarcely able to process the threat as a threat at all. A threat without an Other is like a wavelength of light that is invisible to him.
Related The partisan culture war over masks
This dynamic has been on display across the conservative response to the coronavirus. The immediate instinct was to ignore or downplay the threat, which Trump kept doing long after its severity was clear to experts (and which some conservative politicians are still doing today). The result is that Republicans are far less likely to understand and appreciate the threat than Democrats.
“In your more politically conservative regions, closing is not interpreted as caring for you. It’s interpreted as liberalism, or buying into the hype,” said King, whose church draws about 1,100 worshipers on a typical Sunday.
https://t.co/ww2zRP9Fb0 — Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) March 15, 2020
The second instinct, on display across the conservative landscape (and, sadly, across the world), is to find an Other, someone to blame and demonize. That instinct was visible in the efforts to rename the virus “Wuhan virus” or “Chinese virus” — something Republicans are still doing. It was visible in the immediate rush to accuse the media of using the virus to hurt Trump. And it is visible in Trump’s ongoing conviction that the whole thing is somehow being used by Democrats to win the election.
“They’re trying to scare everybody, from meetings, cancel the meetings, close the schools — you know, destroy the country. And that’s ok, as long as we can win the election,” POTUS told guests at Mar-a-Lago last weekend. https://t.co/UxZb0GumFU — Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) March 15, 2020
Trump, his administration, and his coalition are in politics to help friends and destroy enemies. All they know is zero-sum competition, domination, and submission — and with no one to dominate, no one upon whom they can impose ritual cruelty to appease the bloodlust of their base, they are ... adrift. They simply aren’t confident, or competent, in expressing, organizing, and administering care. Many thousands of lives will likely be lost as a result.
Using coronavirus to build a bigger “Us”
The authoritarian personality that comprises such a high proportion of the conservative base, media, and political leadership is only a small portion of the overall population. The much more common reaction to the virus has been a sense that, because we are all victims of an impersonal natural force, we should pull together and care for one another. That’s why even some Republicans (though, apparently, not enough) seem willing to pass an aid package that contains emergency measures like paid sick leave.
But this more common moral instinct is also worth interrogating a bit.
Studies have found that lack of health care kills 45,000 Americans a year, auto accidents kill 37,000 a year, and drug overdoses kill 70,000 a year. Heart disease kills 647,000 a year, cancer 599,000, and respiratory diseases 160,000.
Why does all this ongoing suffering and death not lead, as the coronavirus has, to bipartisan calls for financial aid, paid sick leave, working-class tax relief, and intensive scientific research?
First, there’s salience. We pay the most attention to threats experienced on the temporal and spatial scales of our everyday lives, the ones that make us feel the most. Lots of deaths close to home and over a short period of time are more salient than deaths spread out further, both temporally and geographically.
Second, there’s responsibility. A virus is clearly an external threat, something that happens to someone through no fault of their own. But there is a common sentiment, sometimes explicitly articulated and sometimes implicit, that diseases, accidents, lost jobs, and addictions are the result of choices, something people brought upon themselves, for which they are at least partially responsible.
I don’t think either of these is a particularly good reason to limit our instinct for mutual care.
As for salience, the mechanisms that govern it were developed over centuries of evolution in highly different circumstances. They are not particularly good indicators in the modern world, where the most substantial threats are structural and incremental.
As for responsibility, as I wrote in a piece on luck, much more of what happens in our lives — the identities and behaviors we adopt, the risks we face — is determined by forces outside of our control than we, especially the “we” that includes the privileged and well-off (the lucky), like to admit.
A single mother who works a low-wage job at a diner and is laid off because she has to spend time at home with a child who has the flu is not appreciably more responsible for the emergency that struck her life than she would be when stranded at home by a virus. A teen born and raised around opiates who finds himself with an addiction by the age of 18 did not choose where he was born or how he was raised any more than he might choose to be struck by a virus.
All across America, millions of people live in precarity, one step ahead of financial ruin, with lives that can be upended overnight by a health or employment twist entirely outside of their control. Metaphorically speaking, this country is full of viruses — poverty, poor health care, inequality, systemic discrimination, loneliness, and isolation — that infect innocent victims every day by the thousands. Those victims deserve care as well, and not churlish, moralistic, “means-tested” care. Just care, enough to get by and to live a life of dignity.
We’ve seen, with the coronavirus, that our more clannish, authoritarian, aggressive instincts will only get us deeper into trouble, and that our instincts of mutual care are the only way we’re going to minimize the suffering. Both of those lessons ought to be extended to the many other threats facing Americans.
What would that look like in practice? Well, let’s ask Bernie Sanders.
Social democracy is the institutionalization of the compassion awakened by the virus
As my colleagues Matt Yglesias and Zack Beauchamp have written, the difference between Biden’s response to the coronavirus and Sanders’s was that Biden has treated it like a management problem, while Sanders made the explicit connection to social democracy.
To be clear, Biden’s speech on the virus was infinitely better than anything Trump has said. A competent response to the virus, guided by experts and the best scientific understanding, is important no matter the larger ideological disposition of the administration.
And Biden may have the best of it politically. As Elizabeth Warren understood, the US is experiencing a crisis of trust, and simple, good governance is the first step in restoring that trust. Calm and competence may be what voters want more than anything else right now — and they may only want it more after several additional months of chaos and suffering.
But on the merits, on the larger question, Sanders is right. A one-off response to the virus is insufficient. “God willing, this crisis is going to end,” he said at the March debate. “And we’re going to have to develop an economy in which half of our people are not living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to put food on the table.”
The globalized 21st century promises to be tumultuous, full of systemic, incremental risks exacerbated by climate change, including not only sea level rise, migration, and resource conflicts but also more pandemics. The economic and technological transitions necessary to avoid the worst of climate change will themselves cause regional dislocations. (Thus the Green New Deal.)
Big, disruptive forces are swirling all around the US now and for the foreseeable future, and they are going to manifest in more crises and disruptions, more ordinary Americans tossed about by forces beyond their control.
All we have, sailing through these choppy and uncharted waters, is each other. We can never get through it by dividing and attacking one another; we’re in it together. That is the whole point of social democracy: universal health care, universal public benefits, decent wages and housing, publicly funded elections, citizen participation in corporate boards and politics. A social democracy builds a robust public sector because shit happens, and when it does, people need help.
That is an old idea — for Democrats, it traces back to at least FDR — but it becomes more relevant with every passing year. The coronavirus is a brutal reminder of our fragility and interdependence, of how necessary trust and cooperation are to our survival. It is a reminder that, in the face of 21st-century threats, the blustering bullies of the world locked in zero-sum struggles for dominance are worse than useless. They spin every disaster into a greater disaster.
Finally, it is a reminder that surviving and prospering in the century ahead means building the social trust and robust public institutions necessary to protect everyone from the viruses to come. The coronavirus is already spinning into a tragedy; it will be a bigger tragedy if we learn nothing from it.


vox--2020-05-16--Essential workers are losing their hazard pay even though the hazard isn’t over

At Megan McHonie ’ s job , social distancing is all but impossible .
A floral clerk at a King Soopers grocery store in Colorado Springs , Colorado , she comes into close contact with shoppers every day .
“ When I ’ m outside watering the plants , the customers don ’ t keep within six feet of me at all , ” she told Vox .
“ They ’ re actually within touching distance.
” McHonie has been anxious about coming to work during the pandemic , but one thing she appreciated was the $ 2-an-hour “ hero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company , Kroger , gave essential workers like her starting at the end of March .
But Kroger ’ s “ hero bonus ” raises are scheduled to end on May 16 , even as coronavirus cases continue to rise across the country .
The grocer isn ’ t alone — other companies that instituted some form of additional pay for workers earlier this year in recognition of their position on the front lines are now rolling back those increases , even though the danger is far from gone .
Starbucks , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 3-per-hour raise for workers at the end of May , according to the Los Angeles Times .
Meanwhile , some companies that employ essential workers right now have seen increased sales and boosted executive pay in recent months .
Kroger , for example , saw same-store sales increase 30 percent in March as customers stocked up on groceries , according to Winsight Grocery Business .
And Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen received a 21 percent increase in compensation last year , boosting his income to more than $ 14 million .
The company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests for comment .
Many essential workers , by contrast , are making less than a living wage even with the increase in pay .
And they urgently need more money both to pay their bills and to stay safe during the pandemic , says Molly Kinder , a fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies hazard pay .
For example , many low-wage workers can ’ t afford cars , meaning they risk exposure to the virus on public transit during their commutes to work .
Millions of essential workers also lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek treatment and making any illness potentially financially devastating for them and their families .
“ When your employer gives you low wages , ” Kinder said , “ those low wages make you less resilient to the disease.
” Democrats in Congress have proposed a plan to give essential workers a pay raise higher than the small amounts companies have been offering , and to extend it through the end of the coronavirus crisis .
Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) has put forth a plan to give workers a similar raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neither is likely to move forward without the support of more Republicans in Congress .
Meanwhile , workers like McHonie continue to put themselves at risk while their CEOs make millions .
“ For him to line his pockets while we ’ re suffering on the front lines is not okay , ” she said of McMullen .
“ It ’ s selfish and it ’ s evil.
” Hazard pay used to be associated with the military .
The pandemic changed that .
Before the pandemic , hazard pay was often something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took on dangerous assignments , Kinder said .
But now , people who never thought they were taking a dangerous job , such as grocery store workers , are facing daily exposure to a deadly virus .
And overwhelmingly , they ’ re asking for a raise .
In her interviews with dozens of essential workers in recent weeks , Kinder said , “ Everyone brought up the issue of hazard pay.
” Several large companies did institute some form of additional pay for essential workers .
Like Kroger and Starbucks , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a $ 2-per-hour raise .
Walmart paid bonuses of $ 300 to full-time workers and $ 150 to part-timers in April , and plans to do so again in June .
“ When your employer gives you low wages , those low wages make you less resilient to the disease ” Some workers , however , say such amounts are a drop in the bucket when it comes to compensating them for what they ’ re facing .
Kevin Smith , a meat department manager at a King Soopers store in Longmont , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following social distancing guidelines in his store .
“ The other day I had a customer that kept stepping toward me , ” he said .
“ I would take a step back , trying to keep some distance between us , and I accidentally bumped into a customer behind me.
” Smith has been sleeping in a separate bedroom from his wife , who has a congenital heart defect , to avoid exposing her to the virus .
“ I worry about being exposed to all these people and bringing it home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think I ’ d ever get over it if something happened to her.
” For him , an extra $ 2 an hour “ is not going to make a difference , ” he said , adding that for many part-time workers , that works out to only about $ 40 a week .
And now , even that small increase is in jeopardy , with Kroger ’ s “ hero bonus ” raises slated to end on May 16 .
After pressure from workers unions , the company said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 8 that it was evaluating compensation .
“ Our temporary ‘ hero bonus ’ is scheduled to end in mid-May .
In the coming months , we know that our associates ’ needs will continue to evolve and change as our country recovers , ” the statement read .
“ Our commitment is that we will continue to listen and be responsive , empowering us to make decisions that advance the needs of our associates , customers , communities and business .
We continuously evaluate employee compensation and benefits packages.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ hero bonus ” will be extended , and Smith isn ’ t optimistic .
“ I really don ’ t count on this company to always do the right thing , ” he said .
With the pay bump set to expire , Smith said , “ A lot of the workers feel so disrespected .
We ’ re beginning to call it ‘ zero pay.
’ ” There are proposals in Congress to extend hazard pay , but their future is uncertain Outside of Kroger , many other workers are set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At Target , Amazon , and Starbucks , extra compensation is scheduled to expire at the end of May .
Dollar Tree and Chipotle also instituted hazard pay for workers but similarly plan to roll it back this month , according to the business watchdog group Just Capital .
Of all the companies Just is tracking , only the cable operator Charter Communications has made its hazard pay permanent .
Meanwhile , coronavirus cases continue to multiply .
And with states beginning to reopen , and Americans moving around more , essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
“ There ’ s nothing to suggest that these jobs are safer now than they were even two weeks ago , ” Kinder said .
“ In fact , as coronavirus is further spread throughout the population , it ’ s likely that these workers are even more at risk.
” “ There ’ s nothing to suggest that these jobs are safer now than they were even two weeks ago ” Many never got hazard pay in the first place .
The raises were concentrated at large corporations , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spike in demand during the pandemic and needed to hire new employees , Kinder said .
Many workers in the health care industry — including those who make low wages , such as cooks in nursing homes and home health aides have seen no jump in wages even though they face very high risk , Kinder explained .
The HEROES Act , House Democrats ’ proposal for the next pandemic stimulus package , includes a Heroes Fund that would provide many essential workers — including health care workers and grocery store employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an hour , far more than what most chains have offered .
And the raises would last through the end of coronavirus crisis , rather than expiring this month .
Senate Democrats have introduced a similar proposal .
Romney , meanwhile , on May 1 put forth a proposal he calls Patriot Pay to give essential workers up to an additional $ 12 an hour .
His plan would last only through July and , unlike Democrats ’ proposals , calls for cost-sharing between the federal government and employers .
But so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to express interest in hazard pay , Kinder said .
And Democrats will need the support of Senate Republicans if they hope to secure additional pay for essential workers .
These workers are in dire need of more money .
Even before the crisis hit , many were struggling to make ends meet .
One in three essential workers lives in a household making less than $ 40,000 a year , as Annie Lowrey reports at the Atlantic .
One in seven has no health insurance , and millions rely on food stamps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in poverty more dangerous than ever .
Many low-wage workers have to get to work on crowded public transit , Kinder said — she recently spoke to one worker who makes five transfers as part of his commute .
Many are also living in multigenerational households , where they risk spreading coronavirus to children or older relatives .
One worker , a housekeeper at a nursing facility , told Kinder that if her wages were increased , she could afford to live apart from her son , a cancer survivor who has asthma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Every single worker that I ’ ve talked to is so much more worried about what this means for their loved ones than themselves , ” Kinder said .
Meanwhile , even in the midst of an economic crisis , some of the companies that are planning to roll back hazard pay are watching sales soar .
Around Mother ’ s Day , McHonie ’ s King Soopers store “ crushed our sales goals , ” she said .
In the floral department , “ I sold out of product for two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pay raise , ” she said .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

At Megan McHonie’s job, social distancing is all but impossible.
A floral clerk at a King Soopers grocery store in Colorado Springs, Colorado, she comes into close contact with shoppers every day. “When I’m outside watering the plants, the customers don’t keep within six feet of me at all,” she told Vox. “They’re actually within touching distance.”
McHonie has been anxious about coming to work during the pandemic, but one thing she appreciated was the $2-an-hour “hero bonus” that King Soopers’ parent company, Kroger, gave essential workers like her starting at the end of March.
But Kroger’s “hero bonus” raises ended on May 16, even as coronavirus cases continued to rise across the country. The grocer isn’t alone — other companies that instituted some form of additional pay for workers earlier this year in recognition of their position on the front lines are now rolling back those increases, even though the danger is far from gone. Starbucks, for example, is planning to end a $3-per-hour raise for workers at the end of May, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Meanwhile, some companies that employ essential workers right now have seen increased sales and boosted executive pay in recent months. Kroger, for example, saw same-store sales increase 30 percent in March as customers stocked up on groceries, according to Winsight Grocery Business. And Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen received a 21 percent increase in compensation last year, boosting his income to more than $14 million. The company has not responded to Vox’s requests for comment.
Many essential workers, by contrast, are making less than a living wage even with the increase in pay. And they urgently need more money both to pay their bills and to stay safe during the pandemic, says Molly Kinder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies hazard pay. For example, many low-wage workers can’t afford cars, meaning they risk exposure to the virus on public transit during their commutes to work. Millions of essential workers also lack health insurance, jeopardizing their ability to seek treatment and making any illness potentially financially devastating for them and their families. “When your employer gives you low wages,” Kinder said, “those low wages make you less resilient to the disease.”
Democrats in Congress have proposed a plan to give essential workers a pay raise higher than the small amounts companies have been offering, and to extend it through the end of the coronavirus crisis. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) has put forth a plan to give workers a similar raise, though for a shorter period. Neither is likely to move forward without the support of more Republicans in Congress.
Meanwhile, workers like McHonie continue to put themselves at risk while their CEOs make millions. “For him to line his pockets while we’re suffering on the front lines is not okay,” she said of McMullen. “It’s selfish and it’s evil.”
Hazard pay used to be associated with the military. The pandemic changed that.
Before the pandemic, hazard pay was often something military or government employees got when they took on dangerous assignments, Kinder said. But now, people who never thought they were taking a dangerous job, such as grocery store workers, are facing daily exposure to a deadly virus. And overwhelmingly, they’re asking for a raise.
In her interviews with dozens of essential workers in recent weeks, Kinder said, “Everyone brought up the issue of hazard pay.”
Several large companies did institute some form of additional pay for essential workers. Like Kroger and Starbucks, for example, Amazon and Target gave workers a $2-per-hour raise. Walmart paid bonuses of $300 to full-time workers and $150 to part-timers in April, and plans to do so again in June.
“When your employer gives you low wages, those low wages make you less resilient to the disease”
Some workers, however, say such amounts are a drop in the bucket when it comes to compensating them for what they’re facing. Kevin Smith, a meat department manager at a King Soopers store in Longmont, Colorado, says customers aren’t following social distancing guidelines in his store.
“The other day I had a customer that kept stepping toward me,” he said. “I would take a step back, trying to keep some distance between us, and I accidentally bumped into a customer behind me.”
Smith has been sleeping in a separate bedroom from his wife, who has a congenital heart defect, to avoid exposing her to the virus. “I worry about being exposed to all these people and bringing it home,” he said. “I don’t think I’d ever get over it if something happened to her.”
For him, an extra $2 an hour “is not going to make a difference,” he said, adding that for many part-time workers, that works out to only about $40 a week.
And now, even that small increase is in jeopardy, with Kroger ending its “hero bonus” raises on May 16. After pressure from workers’ unions, the company said in a statement to Supermarket News on May 8 that it was evaluating compensation.
“Our temporary ‘hero bonus’ is scheduled to end in mid-May. In the coming months, we know that our associates’ needs will continue to evolve and change as our country recovers,” the statement read. “Our commitment is that we will continue to listen and be responsive, empowering us to make decisions that advance the needs of our associates, customers, communities and business. We continuously evaluate employee compensation and benefits packages.”
Then, on May 15, the company announced that instead of continuing the hourly raises, it would give workers a lump-sum bonus it calls “Thank You Pay.” The bonus — $400 for full-time workers and $200 for part-time employees — will be paid in two installments, on May 30 and June 18. But it’s not clear what happens after that.
The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) International Union, which represents Kroger workers, decried the decision to replace salary increases with a bonus.
“The reality is that Kroger is choosing to ignore this pandemic,” UFCW International president Marc Perrone said in a May 16 statement. “This is not how we treat heroes in America.”
And with their hourly pay bump set to expire in mid-May, Smith said, “a lot of the workers feel so disrespected. We’re beginning to call it ‘zero pay.’”
There are proposals in Congress to extend hazard pay, but their future is uncertain
Outside of Kroger, many other workers are set to lose their pay increases as well. At Amazon and Starbucks, extra compensation is scheduled to expire at the end of May. Dollar Tree and Chipotle also instituted hazard pay for workers but similarly plan to roll it back this month, according to the business watchdog group Just Capital.
Hazard pay at Target was scheduled to expire at the end of May, but the company announced on May 18 that it would extend the increase through July 4. But of all the companies Just is tracking, only the cable operator Charter Communications has made its hazard pay permanent.
Meanwhile, coronavirus cases continue to multiply. And with states beginning to reopen, and Americans moving around more, essential workers could face more exposure to the virus. “There’s nothing to suggest that these jobs are safer now than they were even two weeks ago,” Kinder said. “In fact, as coronavirus is further spread throughout the population, it’s likely that these workers are even more at risk.”
“There’s nothing to suggest that these jobs are safer now than they were even two weeks ago”
Many never got hazard pay in the first place. The raises were concentrated at large corporations, such as grocery store chains, that saw a spike in demand during the pandemic and needed to hire new employees, Kinder said. Many workers in the health care industry — including those who make low wages, such as cooks in nursing homes and home health aides have seen no jump in wages even though they face very high risk, Kinder explained.
The HEROES Act, House Democrats’ proposal for the next pandemic stimulus package, includes a Heroes Fund that would provide many essential workers — including health care workers and grocery store employees — with a raise of $13 an hour, far more than what most chains have offered. And the raises would last through the end of the coronavirus crisis, rather than expiring this month. Senate Democrats have introduced a similar proposal.
Romney, meanwhile, on May 1 put forth a proposal he calls Patriot Pay to give essential workers up to an additional $12 an hour. His plan would last only through July and, unlike Democrats’ proposals, calls for cost-sharing between the federal government and employers.
But so far, he is the only congressional Republican to express interest in hazard pay, Kinder said. And Democrats will need the support of Senate Republicans if they hope to secure additional pay for essential workers.
These workers are in dire need of more money. Even before the crisis hit, many were struggling to make ends meet. One in three essential workers lives in a household making less than $40,000 a year, as Annie Lowrey reports at the Atlantic. One in seven has no health insurance, and millions rely on food stamps.
And the pandemic has made living in poverty more dangerous than ever. Many low-wage workers have to get to work on crowded public transit, Kinder said — she recently spoke to one worker who makes five transfers as part of his commute. Many are also living in multigenerational households, where they risk spreading the coronavirus to children or older relatives. One worker, a housekeeper at a nursing facility, told Kinder that if her wages were increased, she could afford to live apart from her son, a cancer survivor who has asthma and is at especially high risk.
“Every single worker that I’ve talked to is so much more worried about what this means for their loved ones than themselves,” Kinder said.
Meanwhile, even in the midst of an economic crisis, some of the companies planning to roll back hazard pay are watching sales soar.
Around Mother’s Day, McHonie’s King Soopers store “crushed our sales goals,” she said. In the floral department, “I sold out of product for two days.”
“I think I deserve a pay raise,” she said.
Update, May 18: This story has been updated with new developments in hazard pay by Kroger and Target, as well as a statement from the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) International Union.


vox--2020-05-16--Obama’s HBCU commencement speech doubles as an indictment of the Trump era

In his first major national address since the coronavirus pandemic began , former President Barack Obama delivered a commencement speech to graduates at historically black colleges and universities ( HBCUs ) Saturday .
And much of his advice encouraging students to become leaders doubled as an indictment of the Trump administration ’ s management of the pandemic .
“ More than anything , this pandemic has fully finally torn back the curtain on the idea that so many of the folks in charge know what they ’ re doing , ” Obama said in a video streamed online as part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ H.B.C.U .
Edition ” virtual commencement .
“ A lot of them aren ’ t even pretending to be in charge.
” On the whole , Obama struck his signature tone of calm and measured optimism , and used the country ’ s current economic and public health crises as springboards for discussing his usual political themes , including the importance of community organizing and finding common ground outside of comfort zones .
And he also emphasized the unique injustices faced by young black people like Ahmaud Arbery at a time when some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an equalizer of sorts .
“ Let ’ s be honest , a disease like this just spotlights the underlying inequalities and extra burdens that black communities have historically had to deal with in this country , ” he said .
“ We see it in the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on our communities , just as we see it when a black man goes for a jog and some folks feel like they can stop and question and shoot him if he doesn ’ t submit to their questioning.
” Obama went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of challenges such as these that they are needed as active citizens who can engage deeply with the world in a time of crisis .
“ No generation has been better positioned to be warriors for justice and remake the world , ” he said .
And in encouraging his audience to foment change , the former president offered a thinly veiled criticism of Trump ’ s divisive political style .
“ So rather than say , ‘ What ’ s in it for me ?
’ or ‘ What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heck with everyone else , ’ stand up for and join up with everyone who ’ s struggling — whether immigrants , refugees , the rural poor , the LGBTQ community , low-income workers of every background , women who so often are subject to their own discrimination and burdens and not getting equal pay for equal work , ” Obama said .
“ Look out for folks whether they are white or black or Asian or Latino or Native American .
As Fannie Lou Hamer once said , ‘ Nobody ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In some ways , the remarks were a more polished version of comments Obama made recently during a private call with members of the Obama Alumni Association , when he expressed sharp criticism of Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic .
“ It has been an absolute chaotic disaster , ” Obama said during the call , which included thousands of people he ’ d worked with in the past .
“ What we ’ re fighting against is these long-term trends in which being selfish , being tribal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an enemy — that has become a stronger impulse in American life.
” But while Obama ’ s remarks on Saturday were less pointed than the criticisms made during his call , they were a call to action nonetheless .
“ And on the big unfinished goals in this country , like economic and environmental justice and health care for everybody , broad majorities agree on the ends .
That ’ s why folks with power will keep trying to divide you over the means , ” Obama said toward the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s how nothing changes .
You get a system that looks out for the rich and powerful and nobody else .
So expand your moral imaginations , build bridges , and grow your allies in the process of bringing about a better world.
” The speech won ’ t be Obama ’ s final commencement address in 2020 — his next graduation speech , to high school seniors , will take place Saturday at 8 pm ET , and he will deliver a third address to 2020 graduates at 3 pm ET @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

In his first major national address since the coronavirus pandemic began, former President Barack Obama delivered a commencement speech to graduates at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) Saturday. And much of his advice encouraging students to become leaders doubled as an indictment of the Trump administration’s management of the pandemic.
“More than anything, this pandemic has fully finally torn back the curtain on the idea that so many of the folks in charge know what they’re doing,” Obama said in a video streamed online as part of the “Show Me Your Walk H.B.C.U. Edition” virtual commencement. “A lot of them aren’t even pretending to be in charge.”
On the whole, Obama struck his signature tone of calm and measured optimism, and used the country’s current economic and public health crises as springboards for discussing his usual political themes, including the importance of community organizing and finding common ground outside of comfort zones. And he also emphasized the unique injustices faced by young black people like Ahmaud Arbery at a time when some political leaders are arguing that coronavirus is an equalizer of sorts.
“Let’s be honest, a disease like this just spotlights the underlying inequalities and extra burdens that black communities have historically had to deal with in this country,” he said. “We see it in the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on our communities, just as we see it when a black man goes for a jog and some folks feel like they can stop and question and shoot him if he doesn’t submit to their questioning.”
Obama went on to tell graduates that it is because of challenges such as these that they are needed as active citizens who can engage deeply with the world in a time of crisis. “No generation has been better positioned to be warriors for justice and remake the world,” he said.
And in encouraging his audience to foment change, the former president offered a thinly veiled criticism of Trump’s divisive political style.
“So rather than say, ‘What’s in it for me?’ or ‘What’s in it for my community and to heck with everyone else,’ stand up for and join up with everyone who’s struggling — whether immigrants, refugees, the rural poor, the LGBTQ community, low-income workers of every background, women who so often are subject to their own discrimination and burdens and not getting equal pay for equal work,” Obama said. “Look out for folks whether they are white or black or Asian or Latino or Native American. As Fannie Lou Hamer once said, ‘Nobody’s free until everybody’s free.’”
In some ways, the remarks were a more polished version of comments Obama made recently during a private call with members of the Obama Alumni Association, when he expressed sharp criticism of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
“It has been an absolute chaotic disaster,” Obama said during the call, which included thousands of people he’d worked with in the past. “What we’re fighting against is these long-term trends in which being selfish, being tribal, being divided, and seeing others as an enemy — that has become a stronger impulse in American life.”
But while Obama’s remarks on Saturday were less pointed than the criticisms made during his call, they were a call to action nonetheless.
“And on the big unfinished goals in this country, like economic and environmental justice and health care for everybody, broad majorities agree on the ends. That’s why folks with power will keep trying to divide you over the means,” Obama said toward the end of the commencement speech. “Because that’s how nothing changes. You get a system that looks out for the rich and powerful and nobody else. So expand your moral imaginations, build bridges, and grow your allies in the process of bringing about a better world.”
The speech won’t be Obama’s final commencement address in 2020 — his next graduation speech, to high school seniors, will take place Saturday at 8 pm ET, and he will deliver a third address to 2020 graduates at 3 pm ET on June 6.