vox--2020-03-25--Your legal rights in a quarantine, explained

Much of the country is currently subject to “ shelter in place ” orders , encouraging residents to remain at home and closing down businesses deemed nonessential .
In San Francisco , you can be charged with a misdemeanor by visiting a friend .
All of which raises important legal questions .
What power does the government have to restrict people ’ s activity during a pandemic ?
Can the government quarantine someone against their will ?
The short answer to the later question is probably “ yes.
” As the National Conference of State Legislatures ( NCSL ) explains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Columbia and most territories have laws authorizing quarantine and isolation , usually through the state ’ s health authority.
” The federal government also has some power to apprehend individuals who may be infected with a communicable disease that could trigger a public health emergency , but this power is largely restricted to those entering the country or crossing a state border .
How much can be done varies by state based on their particular public health laws ( NCSL has a helpful rundown of each state ’ s law here ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the federal government ’ s power to quarantine individuals within a single state — though these limits do not apply to state officials .
And the Constitution prohibits both federal and state governments from denying anyone “ life , liberty , or property , without due process of law.
” But the contours of this right to “ due process ” is not particularly well defined , at least in the context of quarantines .
For the moment , at least , mandatory quarantines remain a hypothetical in the United States — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other countries .
Realistically , if a US government resorts to quarantines to control the spread of coronavirus , there is likely to be a brief period of legal chaos where judges across the country try to make sense of existing precedents — often reaching contradictory results in the process — until the Supreme Court steps in to hand down a nationwide rule .
And when that rule is handed down , it ’ s likely that the Court will be very deferential to public health officials .
The federal government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though the federal government has some ability to prevent the spread of a communicable disease , as a practical matter , there can not really be a comprehensive federal response to coronavirus .
That ’ s because the day-to-day decisions about whether to shut down schools , close down major events , or implement a mass quarantine are likely to be made by state and local officials who may have wildly different views about how they should act .
Not only is New York ’ s response to coronavirus likely to differ from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s response could be quite different than Orlando ’ s .
As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) explains on its website , “ the federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
” That clause permits Congress to “ regulate commerce with foreign nations , and among the several states.
” The full scope of Congress ’ s powers under this clause is one of the most hotly contested questions in American constitutional history .
Alexander Hamilton and Thomas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clause during President George Washington ’ s first term .
The Supreme Court spent four decades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries reading the Commerce Clause narrowly to thwart progressive change ; the Court ’ s decision to abandon this narrow reading of the Commerce Clause , and permit much of the New Deal to take full effect , was one of the most consequential events of the 20th century .
Even in the pre-New Deal years when the Court routinely struck down federal laws as beyond Congress ’ s power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Congress has a broad power to regulate travel across state lines .
Hence the Court ’ s decision in Hoke v. United States ( 1913 ) , which upheld a law making it a crime to transport a woman across state lines “ for immoral purposes ” ( a euphemism for prostitution ) .
But under the Court ’ s current understanding of the Commerce Clause , Congress ’ power to protect the physical safety of people who are not engaged in interstate or international travel is very limited .
And accordingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantines of individuals who remain within a single state .
Federal officials could potentially quarantine someone seeking to enter the country or seeking to cross from one state into another .
The federal government is also allowed to provide voluntary assistance to the states , so if a state government asks for federal help in enforcing or maintaining an intrastate quarantine , federal officials could potentially provide that assistance .
Ultimately , however , the power decide how individual states respond to coronavirus largely rests with the leadership of those states , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response is necessary .
An outbreak could potentially spread out of control in one state — and cross over into others — if state and local officials take a lax response to the disease .
At the same time , many Americans could potentially have their civil liberties needlessly restricted if state or local officials in another state take a reactionary approach .
If I am quarantined , what are my rights ?
The Constitution divides power between the states and the federal government , but it also protects certain individual rights .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be denied “ liberty ” without “ due process.
” It should be noted that there ’ s a big difference between a procedural right and a substantive right ( although the Supreme Court has , at times , blurred this line ) .
There is no freestanding constitutional right to go about your normal life while an epidemic endangers many people ’ s lives .
At the same time , the government can not simply confine people for arbitrary reasons , or without providing an adequate explanation .
If you are quarantined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to be released from that quarantine , but you do have a right to demand some sort of adjudicative process to determine whether the quarantine is justified .
It is well established that the government may confine people against their will if those individuals present a danger to themselves or others , even if the person being confined has not committed a crime .
In Addington v. Texas ( 1979 ) , for example , the Supreme Court held that individuals with such severe mental illnesses that they present a threat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety of others , may be involuntarily confined to a mental hospital .
Addington , however , also held that the government must prove by “ clear and convincing ” evidence that such confinement is justified — a much higher burden of proof than courts typically apply in civil cases .
An “ individual ’ s interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity ” the Court explained , “ that due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s not entirely clear that this heightened standard of proof would apply to coronavirus quarantines .
Though Addington held that “ civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection , ” much of the Court ’ s analysis was restricted the the specific circumstances of a person believed to have a severe mental illness .
“ At one time or another , every person exhibits some abnormal behavior which might be perceived by some as symptomatic of a mental or emotional disorder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , within a range of conduct that is generally acceptable , ” Chief Justice Warren Burger explained for the Court .
That creates a risk that “ a factfinder might decide to commit an individual based solely on a few isolated instances of unusual conduct.
” A higher burden of proof would help prevent such an occurrence .
A coronavirus diagnosis , by contrast , is less likely to prove so elusive — at least assuming that health care providers have adequate access to diagnostic tests .
And the stakes are also lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were in Addington .
The Texas law at issue in that case permitted individuals to be confined “ for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital ” — potentially for years or even decades if the individual does not respond well to treatment .
Someone confined due to coronavirus , by contrast , is likely to recover much more quickly .
And even if there is uncertainty about whether their symptoms are due to coronavirus or some other disease , this uncertainty could be resolved by diagnostic testing .
For these reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts may permit the government to quarantine individuals based on less than clear and convincing evidence .
There ’ s also one more reason why courts may be reluctant to intervene in such cases .
In national security cases , judges often defer to the executive branch when it claims that a particular incursion on civil liberties is necessary to protect the country .
As the Supreme Court explained in Boumediene v. Bush ( 2008 ) , “ neither the Members of this Court nor most federal judges begin the day with briefings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our Nation and its people.
” And no judge wants to hand down a decision that prevents the government from stopping a terrorist attack .
A similar psychology is likely to set in if states begin large quarantines of people with coronavirus symptoms .
Fears of coronavirus are already making stock markets volatile .
Worse , while the data is unclear about how many people infected by this virus will die , there ’ s at least some evidence indicating that older adults are especially at risk .
Thus , just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on matters of national security , those same judges are likely to defer to public health officials regarding a potential pandemic .

Much of the country is currently subject to “shelter in place” orders, encouraging residents to remain at home and closing down businesses deemed nonessential — although some states have begun to lift such orders.
All of which raises important legal questions. What power does the government have to restrict people’s activity during a pandemic? Can the government quarantine someone against their will?
The short answer to the latter question is probably “yes.” As the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) explains, “every state, the District of Columbia and most territories have laws authorizing quarantine and isolation, usually through the state’s health authority.” The federal government also has some power to apprehend individuals who may be infected with a communicable disease that could trigger a public health emergency, but this power is largely restricted to those entering the country or crossing a state border.
How much can be done varies by state based on their particular public health laws (NCSL has a helpful rundown of each state’s law here). The Constitution places fairly strict limits on the federal government’s power to quarantine individuals within a single state — though these limits do not apply to state officials. And the Constitution prohibits both federal and state governments from denying anyone “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
But the contours of this right to “due process” are not particularly well defined, at least in the context of quarantines.
For the moment, at least, mandatory quarantines remain a hypothetical in the United States — although some such quarantines are being implemented in other countries. Realistically, if a US government resorts to quarantines to control the spread of coronavirus, there is likely to be a brief period of legal chaos where judges across the country try to make sense of existing precedents — often reaching contradictory results in the process — until the Supreme Court steps in to hand down a nationwide rule.
And when that rule is handed down, it’s likely that the Court will be very deferential to public health officials.
The federal government’s power to quarantine is quite limited
Though the federal government has some ability to prevent the spread of a communicable disease, as a practical matter, there cannot really be a comprehensive federal response to coronavirus.
That’s because the day-to-day decisions about whether to shut down schools, close down major events, or implement a mass quarantine are likely to be made by state and local officials who may have wildly different views about how they should act. Not only is New York’s response to coronavirus likely to differ from Florida’s, but Miami’s response could be quite different than Orlando’s.
As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explains on its website, “the federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” That clause permits Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.”
The full scope of Congress’s powers under this clause is one of the most hotly contested questions in American constitutional history. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson fought over how to read this clause during President George Washington’s first term. The Supreme Court spent four decades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries reading the Commerce Clause narrowly to thwart progressive change; the Court’s decision to abandon this narrow reading of the Commerce Clause, and permit much of the New Deal to take full effect, was one of the most consequential events of the 20th century.
Even in the pre-New Deal years when the Court routinely struck down federal laws as beyond Congress’s power to regulate commerce, the Court recognized that Congress has a broad power to regulate travel across state lines. Hence the Court’s decision in Hoke v. United States (1913), which upheld a law making it a crime to transport a woman across state lines “for immoral purposes” (a euphemism for prostitution).
But under the Court’s current understanding of the Commerce Clause, Congress’s power to protect the physical safety of people who are not engaged in interstate or international travel is very limited. And accordingly, federal law does not provide for quarantines of individuals who remain within a single state.
Federal officials could potentially quarantine someone seeking to enter the country or seeking to cross from one state into another. The federal government is also allowed to provide voluntary assistance to the states, so if a state government asks for federal help in enforcing or maintaining an intrastate quarantine, federal officials could potentially provide that assistance.
Ultimately, however, the power to decide how individual states respond to the coronavirus largely rests with the leadership of those states, and that has troubling implications if a coordinated response is necessary. An outbreak could potentially spread out of control in one state — and cross over into others — if state and local officials take a lax approach to the disease. At the same time, many Americans could potentially have their civil liberties needlessly restricted if state or local officials in another state take a reactionary approach.
If I am quarantined, what are my rights?
The Constitution divides power between the states and the federal government, but it also protects certain individual rights. Among them is the right to not be denied “liberty” without “due process.”
It should be noted that there’s a big difference between a procedural right and a substantive right (although the Supreme Court has, at times, blurred this line). There is no freestanding constitutional right to go about your normal life while an epidemic endangers many people’s lives. At the same time, the government cannot simply confine people for arbitrary reasons, or without providing an adequate explanation.
If you are quarantined, you do not necessarily have a right to be released from that quarantine, but you do have a right to demand some sort of adjudicative process to determine whether the quarantine is justified.
It is well established that the government may confine people against their will if those individuals present a danger to themselves or others, even if the person being confined has not committed a crime. In Addington v. Texas (1979), for example, the Supreme Court held that individuals with such severe mental illnesses that they present a threat to their own safety, or to the safety of others, may be involuntarily confined to a mental hospital.
The CDC and the WHO recommend several basic measures to help prevent the spread of Covid-19: Wash your hands often for at least 20 seconds.
Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects.
Practice social distancing, and stay home when you are sick.
Contact a health worker if you have symptoms; fever and a dry cough are most common. Guidance may change. Stay informed, and stay safe, with Vox’s coronavirus coverage hub.
Addington, however, also held that the government must prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that such confinement is justified — a much higher burden of proof than courts typically apply in civil cases. An “individual’s interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity,” the Court explained, “that due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence.”
That said, it’s not entirely clear that this heightened standard of proof would apply to coronavirus quarantines. Though Addington held that “civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection,” much of the Court’s analysis was restricted to the specific circumstances of a person believed to have a severe mental illness.
“At one time or another, every person exhibits some abnormal behavior which might be perceived by some as symptomatic of a mental or emotional disorder, but which is, in fact, within a range of conduct that is generally acceptable,” Chief Justice Warren Burger explained for the Court. That creates a risk that “a factfinder might decide to commit an individual based solely on a few isolated instances of unusual conduct.” A higher burden of proof would help prevent such an occurrence.
A coronavirus diagnosis, by contrast, is less likely to prove so elusive — at least assuming that health care providers have adequate access to diagnostic tests. And the stakes are also lower for people who are quarantined than they were in Addington. The Texas law at issue in that case permitted individuals to be confined “for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital” — potentially for years or even decades if the individual does not respond well to treatment.
Someone confined due to coronavirus, by contrast, is likely to recover much more quickly. And even if there is uncertainty about whether their symptoms are due to coronavirus or some other disease, this uncertainty could be resolved by diagnostic testing.
For these reasons, it’s possible that the courts may permit the government to quarantine individuals based on less than clear and convincing evidence.
There’s also one more reason why courts may be reluctant to intervene in such cases. In national security cases, judges often defer to the executive branch when it claims that a particular incursion on civil liberties is necessary to protect the country. As the Supreme Court explained in Boumediene v. Bush (2008), “neither the Members of this Court nor most federal judges begin the day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our Nation and its people.” And no judge wants to hand down a decision that prevents the government from stopping a terrorist attack.
A similar psychology is likely to set in if states begin large quarantines of people with coronavirus symptoms. Fears of coronavirus are already making stock markets volatile. Worse, while the data is unclear about how many people infected by this virus will die, there’s at least some evidence indicating that older adults are especially at risk.
Thus, just as judges tend to defer to the executive on matters of national security, those same judges are likely to defer to public health officials regarding a potential pandemic.


vox--2020-04-16--Trump just declared victory over the coronavirus. Here’s why that’s premature.

President Donald Trump more or less declared victory over the coronavirus during the daily White House briefing on Thursday — ignoring signs that the battle with a disease he likes to call “ the invisible enemy ” is actually far from over .
Trump began by saying that “ thanks to our all-out military operation and the extraordinary devotion of our people , we believe we will experience far fewer deaths than even the optimistic projection.
” ( In fact , as recently as late February Trump was saying the virus would go away on its own without any Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outline the “ Opening Up America Again ” criteria that will guide states with sufficient testing capacity and declining numbers of new cases through the process of getting their schools and economies back up and running in a step-by-step manner , with the approval of governors .
“ Now that we have passed the peak in new cases , we are starting our life again , ” Trump said .
“ We are starting rejuvenation of our economy again.
” But Trump ’ s claim that American is on the downside of new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still doesn ’ t have enough testing capacity to accommodate everyone who has symptoms or has come into contact with those who do , it ’ s possible the plateau in new cases that ’ s happened over the past week just reflects the reality that many cases are going undetected .
A new piece from Robinson Meyer and Alexis C. Madrigal for The Atlantic explains : The growth in the number of new tests completed per day has also plateaued .
Since April 1 , the country has tested roughly 145,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The growth in the number of new cases per day , and the growth in the number of new tests per day , are very tightly correlated .
This tight correlation suggests that if the United States were testing more people , we would probably still be seeing an increase in the number of COVID-19 cases .
And combined with the high test-positivity rate , it suggests that the reservoir of unknown , uncounted cases of COVID-19 across the country is still very large .
Furthermore , Meyer and Madrigal report that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases in America is about 20 percent — much higher than countries like South Korea and Germany who have had more success bringing their coronavirus outbreaks under control .
Since test-positivity rates generally fall along with the prevalence of a disease in a society , the US ’ s relatively high rate is another sign that it ’ s too early to declare victory over the coronavirus .
Trump might not want to acknowledge these issues , but his own administration has .
As my colleague German Lopez explained on Wednesday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early version of the administration ’ s plan assumes the country will dramatically ramp up its testing capacity to make sure any outbreaks that occur before a vaccine is available are contained .
What the country needs to properly do testing , according to experts , is at least 500,000 tests a day .
Some experts call for much more than that — millions or even tens of millions a day — but 500,000 a day is generally considered the minimum to test everyone with symptoms and their close contacts .
Right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good day , doing about 150,000 tests a day , or fewer than a third of that minimum .
The US ’ s poor pandemic preparedness , as well as Trump ’ s slow reaction to the coronavirus outbreak , has meant America is still massively undertesting .
To be clear , there are some states — such as Wyoming or Alaska — that still have under 500 cases .
For those places , it ’ s not crazy to think that some semblance of normal life could resume soon .
But they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either — the lack of widespread testing means that if there ’ s an outbreak , it could spiral out of control before it ’ s even detected .
Ultimately , public health experts are in broad agreement that the US needs to significantly beef up its coronavirus testing infrastructure before it makes sense to talk broadly about reopening schools , restaurants , and offices in major population centers .
But the US hasn ’ t made significant progress in that regard .
And until it does , Trump ’ s declarations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercises .
The American public seems to broadly understand this .
New polling from the Pew Research Central shows that 66 percent of people are concerned their state governments will relax social distancing restrictions too soon , compared to just 32 percent who are worried they won ’ t move quickly enough .
Characteristically , to advance his case that it ’ s appropriate to talk about reopening the American economy even while roughly 2,000 people in the country per day are dying from the coronavirus , Trump on Thursday tried to turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America wants to be open .
And Americans want to be open , ” he said .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

President Donald Trump more or less declared victory over the coronavirus during the daily White House briefing on Thursday — ignoring signs that the fight against a disease he likes to call “the invisible enemy” is actually far from over.
Trump began by saying that “thanks to our all-out military operation and the extraordinary devotion of our people, we believe we will experience far fewer deaths than even the optimistic projection.” (In fact, as recently as late February, Trump was saying the virus would go away on its own without any Americans dying.) He went on to outline the “Opening Up America Again” criteria that will guide states with sufficient testing capacity and declining numbers of new cases through the process of getting their schools and economies back up and running in a step-by-step manner, with the approval of governors.
“Now that we have passed the peak in new cases, we are starting our life again,” Trump said. “We are starting rejuvenation of our economy again.”
TRUMP: "Thanks to our all-out military operation and the extraordinary devotion of our people, we believe we will experience far fewer deaths than even the optimistic projection." (As recently as late February Trump was projecting no Americans would die from coronavirus.) pic.twitter.com/ZMebnX2tYq — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 16, 2020
But Trump’s claim that America is on the downside of new cases is dubious. Because the country still doesn’t have enough testing capacity to accommodate everyone who has symptoms or has come into contact with those who do, it’s possible the plateau in new cases that’s happened over the past week just reflects the reality that many cases are going undetected.
A new piece from Robinson Meyer and Alexis C. Madrigal for the Atlantic explains:
The growth in the number of new tests completed per day has also plateaued. Since April 1, the country has tested roughly 145,000 people every day with no steady upward trajectory. The growth in the number of new cases per day, and the growth in the number of new tests per day, are very tightly correlated. This tight correlation suggests that if the United States were testing more people, we would probably still be seeing an increase in the number of COVID-19 cases. And combined with the high test-positivity rate, it suggests that the reservoir of unknown, uncounted cases of COVID-19 across the country is still very large.
Furthermore, Meyer and Madrigal report that the “test-positivity rate” for coronavirus cases in America is about 20 percent — much higher than countries like South Korea and Germany which have had more success bringing their coronavirus outbreaks under control. Since test-positivity rates generally fall along with the prevalence of a disease in a society, the US’s relatively high rate is another sign that it’s too early to declare victory over the coronavirus.
Trump might not want to acknowledge these issues, but his own administration has. As my colleague German Lopez explained on Wednesday, the testing and surveillance system outlined in an early version of the administration’s plan assumes the country will dramatically ramp up its testing capacity to make sure any outbreaks that occur before a vaccine is available are contained.
What the country needs to properly do testing, according to experts, is at least 500,000 tests a day. Some experts call for much more than that — millions or even tens of millions a day — but 500,000 a day is generally considered the minimum to test everyone with symptoms and their close contacts. Right now, the US is, on a good day, doing about 150,000 tests a day, or fewer than a third of that minimum. The US’s poor pandemic preparedness, as well as Trump’s slow reaction to the coronavirus outbreak, has meant America is still massively undertesting.
To be clear, there are some states — such as Wyoming or Alaska — that still have fewer than 500 cases. For those places, it’s not crazy to think that some semblance of normal life could resume soon. But they aren’t out of the woods either — the lack of widespread testing means that if there’s an outbreak, it could spiral out of control before it’s even detected.
Ultimately, public health experts are in broad agreement that the US needs to significantly beef up its coronavirus testing infrastructure before it makes sense to talk broadly about reopening schools, restaurants, and offices in major population centers. But the US hasn’t made significant progress in that regard. And until it does, Trump’s declarations of victory amount to little more than rhetorical exercises.
The American public seems to generally understand this. New polling from the Pew Research Central shows that 66 percent of people are concerned their state governments will relax social distancing restrictions too soon, compared to just 32 percent who are worried they won’t move quickly enough.
To advance his case that it’s appropriate to talk about reopening the American economy even while roughly 2,000 people in the country per day are dying from the coronavirus, Trump, characteristically, tried to turn that reality on its head on Thursday.
“America wants to be open. And Americans want to be open,” he said.


vox--2020-04-16--Facebook will start nudging users who have “liked” coronavirus hoaxes

Facebook just announced another step in trying to set the record straight about misleading information about the novel coronavirus on its platform .
In the coming weeks , the company will start directing people who have previously “ liked , ” reacted , or commented on “ harmful misinformation ” about Covid-19 to information from more authoritative sources , such as a myth-busters website by the World Health Organization ( WHO ) .
This represents one of the first times Facebook will warn a specific set of users who have interacted in the past with false information .
Experts have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is rife with misleading information that taints public discourse and asked Facebook to take the retroactive approach .
“ We want to connect people who may have interacted with harmful misinformation about the virus with the truth from authoritative sources in case they see or hear these claims again off of Facebook , ” wrote Guy Rosen , Facebook ’ s vice president of integrity , in a company blog post released on Thursday .
The notifications will apply only to Facebook and not its other platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media users have been posting popular and dangerous hoaxes about the virus , including false cures and myths about the origins of the outbreak .
In response , companies like Facebook , YouTube , and Twitter have been stepping up their measures to flag and sometimes delete this type of content .
In March alone , Facebook says it labeled 40 million posts as “ false ” on its network , relying on its team of independent third-party fact-checkers .
Still , plenty of bad information that fact-checkers don ’ t catch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is caught only after tens of thousands of users have already seen the posts in question .
Facebook included a screenshot of a new News Feed message that will show users who have interacted false coronavirus information , pointing them to WHO resources .
The design Facebook provided looks more like a gentle nudge than a specific warning , and some have called for stronger notifications that specifically correct the record on individual false claims .
When Recode asked about what the notifications will look like , a spokesperson for Facebook said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ early version ” and that it ’ s also testing “ more explicit ” variations .
“ We ’ ll continue to iterate on these designs with a goal of ensuring people who ’ ve been exposed to harmful misinformation about Covid-19 are connected with the facts , ” said the spokesperson .
For Facebook ’ s critics , the move toward retroactively notifying users about misleading Covid-19 content , even if incremental , is a welcome development .
Many academics and policy experts have scolded Facebook for lax moderation not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around issues like immigration and politics .
Historically , Facebook and other social media companies have been reluctant to flag politically contentious information as false , arguing that over-policing content on their platforms could limit free speech .
But with the coronavirus , the company has adopted a more aggressive approach .
“ [ T ] he company has taken a key first step in cleaning up the dangerous infodemic surrounding the coronavirus , but it has the power to do so much more to fully protect people from misinformation , ” wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist group Avaaz , in a statement to Recode .
Avaaz is one of several groups that has been pushing for stronger fact-checking and for corrections to be issued more broadly on the platform , not just on content about Covid-19 .
New research commissioned by the organization shows that Facebook corrections have a major impact in shaping users ’ views and can effectively reduce people ’ s belief in misinformation by 50 percent .
Facebook declined to answer a question from Recode about whether it will apply its warnings to other types @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies like Facebook , it ’ s a lot easier to draw a line in the sand on misinformation about coronavirus topics than around more politically contentious ones , like gun rights , abortion , immigration , or even the 2020 US elections .
While there ’ s still plenty of uncertainty about Covid-19 — even alleged biases of authoritative sources like the WHO have come under question — it ’ s still much easier to prove why a hoax about Covid-19 is wrong than it is to confirm the veracity of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next few weeks , we ’ ll learn more about what these new retroactive notifications to Facebook users that have been exposed to coronavirus misinformation will look like , not to mention how widely they ’ re being sent out .
But it may take much longer before we see if Facebook ’ s new moderation strategy will be a lasting mechanism to fight misinformation online more broadly .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making @ @ @ @ @ @

Facebook just announced another step in trying to set the record straight about misleading information about the novel coronavirus on its platform. In the coming weeks, the company will start directing people who have previously “liked,” reacted, or commented on “harmful misinformation” about Covid-19 to information from more authoritative sources, such as a myth-busters website by the World Health Organization (WHO).
This represents one of the first times Facebook will warn a specific set of users who have interacted in the past with false information. Experts have argued for years that the social network is rife with misleading information that taints public discourse and asked Facebook to take the retroactive approach.
“We want to connect people who may have interacted with harmful misinformation about the virus with the truth from authoritative sources in case they see or hear these claims again off of Facebook,” wrote Guy Rosen, Facebook’s vice president of integrity, in a company blog post released on Thursday. The notifications will apply only to Facebook and not its other platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp.
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis, social media users have been posting popular and dangerous hoaxes about the virus, including false cures and myths about the origins of the outbreak. In response, companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have been stepping up their measures to flag and sometimes delete this type of content. In March alone, Facebook says it labeled 40 million posts as “false” on its network, relying on its team of independent third-party fact-checkers. Still, plenty of bad information that fact-checkers don’t catch regularly slips through the cracks — or is caught only after tens of thousands of users have already seen the posts in question.
Facebook included a screenshot of a new News Feed message that will show users who have interacted false coronavirus information, pointing them to WHO resources.
The design Facebook provided looks more like a gentle nudge than a specific warning, and some have called for stronger notifications that specifically correct the record on individual false claims. When Recode asked about what the notifications will look like, a spokesperson for Facebook said the design in the blog post is an “early version” and that it’s also testing “more explicit” variations.
“We’ll continue to iterate on these designs with a goal of ensuring people who’ve been exposed to harmful misinformation about Covid-19 are connected with the facts,” said the spokesperson.
For Facebook’s critics, the move toward retroactively notifying users about misleading Covid-19 content, even if incremental, is a welcome development. Many academics and policy experts have scolded Facebook for lax moderation not only on Covid-related topics but also on misinformation around issues like immigration and politics. Historically, Facebook and other social media companies have been reluctant to flag politically contentious information as false, arguing that over-policing content on their platforms could limit free speech. But with the coronavirus, the company has adopted a more aggressive approach.
“[T]he company has taken a key first step in cleaning up the dangerous infodemic surrounding the coronavirus, but it has the power to do so much more to fully protect people from misinformation,” wrote Fadi Quran, campaign director at nonprofit activist group Avaaz, in a statement to Recode. Avaaz is one of several groups that has been pushing for stronger fact-checking and for corrections to be issued more broadly on the platform, not just on content about Covid-19. New research commissioned by the organization shows that Facebook corrections have a major impact in shaping users’ views and can effectively reduce people’s belief in misinformation by 50 percent.
Facebook declined to answer a question from Recode about whether it will apply its warnings to other types of misinformation in the future.
For companies like Facebook, it’s a lot easier to draw a line in the sand on misinformation about coronavirus topics than around more politically contentious ones, like gun rights, abortion, immigration, or even the 2020 US elections. While there’s still plenty of uncertainty about Covid-19 — even alleged biases of authoritative sources like the WHO have come under question — it’s still much easier to prove why a hoax about Covid-19 is wrong than it is to confirm the veracity of a personal attack on a politician.
In the next few weeks, we’ll learn more about what these new retroactive notifications to Facebook users that have been exposed to coronavirus misinformation will look like, not to mention how widely they’re being sent out. But it may take much longer before we see if Facebook’s new moderation strategy will be a lasting mechanism to fight misinformation online more broadly.


vox--2020-04-16--How Fox News is playing fast and loose with American lives, illustrated by one Dr. Oz clip

As President Donald Trump pushes for the relaxation of social distancing guidelines and the resumption of something resembling pre-coronavirus social and economic activity , his supporters on Fox News are reaching for talking points to justify this course of action .
A recent appearance on Hannity by Dr. Mehmet Oz illustrated how this search has run into significant moral roadblocks .
Dr. Oz — who got his start years ago on Oprah and has lately become a ubiquitous presence on Fox News , making daily appearances in which he regularly promotes unproven , dangerous drugs — made a case on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very appetizing opportunity , ” citing a study that he claimed showed doing so would only increase coronavirus deaths by 2 to 3 percent .
“ Well , first , we need our mojo back .
Let ’ s start with things that are really critical to the nation where we think we might be able to open without getting into a lot of trouble , ” Dr. Oz said .
“ I tell you , schools are a very appetizing opportunity .
I just saw a nice piece in The Lancet arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost us 2 to 3 percent , in terms of total mortality .
And , you know , any life is a life lost , but to get every child back into a school where they ’ re safely educated , being fed and making the most out of their lives , with a theoretical risk on the backside , it might be a trade-off some folks would consider.
” It should be noted that Dr. Oz misinterpreted The Lancet study he mentioned .
What it actually details is a finding made by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other mitigation measures ( such as social distancing ) would reduce baseline Covid-19 deaths there by somewhere between 2 percent and 4 percent .
The study does not speak to what impact the reopening of US schools would have on the coronavirus mortality rate here , so Oz ’ s analysis was confused .
( Ironically , The Lancet ’ s underlying source is the very same WHO/Imperial College model that Fox News hosts have been trashing . )
That aside , Oz ’ s remarks come as the most-cited models now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60,000 Covid-19-related deaths .
( The total stands at over 33,000 as of today . )
A 4 percent increase of that total represents an additional 2,400 lives .
So what Dr. Oz was trying to say is that the prospect of that many additional deaths in exchange for the reopening of schools “ might be a trade-off some folks would consider.
” While there ’ s no study backing up the numbers Dr. Oz threw around , the fact he was so callous about more than 62,000 lives is instructive in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chorus of right-wing voices seem willing to sacrifice in the hope of restoring a sense of normalcy .
“ Many are willing to take the risk of contracting the virus ” With a tough reelection campaign on the horizon and the economy he spent so much time boasting about during his first three years in office in ruins , Trump has self-interested reasons for wanting to get kids back to school and parents back to work .
But the data indicates that from a public health standpoint , doing so at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First of all , a quick look at the data shows that the US coronavirus curve hasn ’ t really flattened yet .
Unlike countries like South Korea or Taiwan , the number of cases here continues to increase in something approximating an exponential manner .
Second , other countries that have had far less of a problem with the coronavirus , such as Germany , have just started to consider reopening schools — and schools that have reopened in Denmark , which recently became the first European country to take that step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strict social distancing rules .
The idea that schools in a country where the coronavirus is currently killing 2,000 people a day ( or more ) are ready to reopen is out of step with reality .
Trump is looking for evidence — any evidence — to back his reopening position As callous as they may be , Oz ’ s comments do reflect a talking point that ’ s gaining steam on the right as frustration has mounted with the social distancing measures ( including school closures ) that most Americans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday , for instance , host Laura Ingraham pointed out that everything we do in life comes with some degree with risk , and used that observation to suggest continued social distancing measures represent government overreach .
“ Many are willing to take the risk of contracting the virus , ” she said , in an observation similar to the one made by Dr. Oz .
Meanwhile , Tucker Carlson ’ s show featured him confronting Gov .
Phil Murphy ( D-NJ ) about the constitutionality of stay-at-home orders and an interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Kennedy said , “ we got ta reopen , and when we do the coronavirus is gon na spread faster.
” “ You know what kills more people every year than coronavirus — a lot more ?
Poverty , ” Carlson replied , using a false equivalency Trump has also given voice to .
While it ’ s true that we ’ re all going to die someday , most people would rather it not happen in the short- to medium-term future because of a communicable disease whose spread we could slow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the foreseeable future .
In fact , new surveys from Gallup and Pew show that more people are afraid of lifting restrictions too quickly rather than keeping them around too long .
Nor do we want our neighbors or their children ’ s teachers to meet their demise in that way .
One person ’ s statistic is another person ’ s mother or grandmother .
Sacrificing thousands of lives in a misbegotten attempt to get back to normalcy is only an “ appetizing opportunity ” when you assume the lives lost aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people you love .
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 financial contribution will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

As President Donald Trump pushes for the relaxation of social distancing guidelines and the resumption of something resembling pre-coronavirus social and economic activity, his supporters on Fox News are reaching for talking points to justify this course of action. A recent appearance on Hannity by Dr. Mehmet Oz illustrated how this search has run into significant moral roadblocks.
Dr. Oz — who got his start years ago on Oprah and has lately become a ubiquitous presence on Fox News, making daily appearances in which he regularly promotes unproven, dangerous drugs — made a case on Tuesday that reopening schools is “a very appetizing opportunity,” citing a study that he claimed showed doing so would only increase coronavirus deaths by 2 to 3 percent.
“Well, first, we need our mojo back. Let’s start with things that are really critical to the nation where we think we might be able to open without getting into a lot of trouble,” Dr. Oz said. “I tell you, schools are a very appetizing opportunity. I just saw a nice piece in The Lancet arguing that the opening of schools may only cost us 2 to 3 percent, in terms of total mortality. And, you know, any life is a life lost, but to get every child back into a school where they’re safely educated, being fed and making the most out of their lives, with a theoretical risk on the backside, it might be a trade-off some folks would consider.”
DR OZ: "Schools are a very appetizing opportunity. I just saw a nice piece in The Lancet arguing the opening of schools may only cost us 2 to 3%, in terms of total mortality. Any, you know, any life is a life lost, but ... that might be a tradeoff some folks would consider." pic.twitter.com/aifMeKTsIv — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 16, 2020
(On Thursday evening, Dr. Oz posted a video on Twitter saying that “I’ve realized my comments on risks around opening schools have confused and upset people, which was never my intention. I misspoke.)
It should be noted that Dr. Oz misinterpreted The Lancet study he mentioned. What it actually details is a finding made by UK researchers that closing schools there without any other mitigation measures (such as social distancing) would reduce baseline Covid-19 deaths there by somewhere between 2 percent and 4 percent. The study does not speak to what impact the reopening of US schools would have on the coronavirus mortality rate here, so Oz’s analysis was confused. (Ironically, The Lancet’s underlying source is the very same WHO/Imperial College model that Fox News hosts have been trashing.)
That aside, Oz’s remarks come as the most-cited models now forecast the US will experience somewhere around 60,000 Covid-19-related deaths. (The total stands at over 33,000 as of today.) A 4 percent increase of that total represents an additional 2,400 lives. So what Dr. Oz was trying to say is that the prospect of that many additional deaths in exchange for the reopening of schools “might be a trade-off some folks would consider.”
While there’s no study backing up the numbers Dr. Oz threw around, the fact he was so callous about more than 62,000 lives is instructive in its own right. It points toward what a chorus of right-wing voices seem willing to sacrifice in the hope of restoring a sense of normalcy.
“Many are willing to take the risk of contracting the virus”
With a tough reelection campaign on the horizon and the economy he spent so much time boasting about during his first three years in office in ruins, Trump has self-interested reasons for wanting to get kids back to school and parents back to work. But the data indicates that from a public health standpoint, doing so at this point in time would be premature.
First of all, a quick look at the data shows that the US coronavirus curve hasn’t really flattened yet. Unlike countries like South Korea or Taiwan, the number of cases here continues to increase in something approximating an exponential manner.
Second, other countries that have had far less of a problem with the coronavirus, such as Germany, have just started to consider reopening schools — and schools that have reopened in Denmark, which recently became the first European country to take that step, have done so with new, strict social distancing rules. The idea that schools in a country where the coronavirus is currently killing 2,000 people a day (or more) are ready to reopen is out of step with reality.
Trump is looking for evidence — any evidence — to back his reopening position
As callous as they may be, Oz’s comments do reflect a talking point that’s gaining steam on the right as frustration has mounted with the social distancing measures (including school closures) that most Americans have endured for the past month.
On Wednesday, for instance, host Laura Ingraham pointed out that everything we do in life comes with some degree with risk, and used that observation to suggest continued social distancing measures represent government overreach.
“Many are willing to take the risk of contracting the virus,” she said, in an observation similar to the one made by Dr. Oz.
Laura Ingraham: "Many are willing to take the risk of contracting the virus" pic.twitter.com/woc5NLGfS3 — Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) April 16, 2020
Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson’s show featured him confronting Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ) about the constitutionality of stay-at-home orders and an interview with Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) in which Kennedy said, “we gotta reopen, and when we do the coronavirus is gonna spread faster.”
“You know what kills more people every year than coronavirus — a lot more? Poverty,” Carlson replied, using a false equivalency Trump has also given voice to.
Sen Kennedy: "We've gotta reopen, and when we do the coronavirus is gonna spread faster" pic.twitter.com/v3KsK0XPEw — Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) April 16, 2020
While it’s true that we’re all going to die someday, most people would rather it not happen in the short- to medium-term future because of a communicable disease whose spread we could slow if people would just stay home for the foreseeable future. In fact, new surveys from Gallup and Pew show that more people are afraid of lifting restrictions too quickly rather than keeping them around too long. Nor do we want our neighbors or their children’s teachers to meet their demise in that way.
One person’s statistic is another person’s mother or grandmother. Sacrificing thousands of lives in a misbegotten attempt to get back to normalcy is only an “appetizing opportunity” when you assume the lives lost aren’t your own or those of the people you love.


vox--2020-04-16--New unemployment filings are so high only the Great Depression compares

The US Department of Labor registered 5.2 million initial unemployment insurance claims for the week ending April 11 , bringing the total filings to 22 million since social distancing measures took effect in March — a pace of economic collapse so staggering that the Great Depression is the only comparison .
Last week ’ s claims slightly improved upon the 6.6 million initial claims the previous week , and the 6.9 million claims the week before that .
But even if the peak of the joblessness wave seems to be behind us , the US is in uncharted waters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ initial claims number was about 700,000 job losses back in 1982 .
Economists offer two caveats to this data .
One is that the recently enacted CARES Act to cushion the economic blow of the pandemic expands the scope of unemployment insurance eligibility to cover more independent contractors and gig economy workers .
So claims are surging , at least in part , because more people are eligible , making comparisons to past data slightly invalid .
At the same time , state UI systems — which are often built on obsolete code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not designed to handle this volume of claims — have become overwhelmed , with people unable to get through on the phone or online .
Consequently , the actual number of people trying to apply for assistance likely exceeds the numbers the country is seeing .
The official unemployment rate leapt from historic lows to 4.4 percent in March , according to official government data , but the numbers were based on a reference week that ended March 15 , before the worst of the unemployment claims surge began .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly much worse than that — experts believe somewhere in the range of 12-15 percent , the worst on record since the Great Depression when unemployment reached 24 percent .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

The US Department of Labor registered 5.2 million initial unemployment insurance claims for the week ending April 11, bringing the total filings to 22 million since social distancing measures took effect in March — a pace of economic collapse so staggering that the Great Depression is the only comparison.
Last week’s claims slightly improved upon the 6.6 million initial claims the previous week, and the 6.9 million claims the week before that. But even if the peak of the joblessness wave seems to be behind us, the US is in uncharted waters. Before the coronavirus outbreak, the worst-ever initial claims number was about 700,000 job losses back in 1982.
Economists offer two caveats to this data. One is that the recently enacted CARES Act to cushion the economic blow of the pandemic expands the scope of unemployment insurance eligibility to cover more independent contractors and gig economy workers. So claims are surging, at least in part, because more people are eligible, making comparisons to past data slightly invalid.
At the same time, state UI systems — which are often built on obsolete code, starved of resources by state governments, and not designed to handle this volume of claims — have become overwhelmed, with people unable to get through on the phone or online. Consequently, the actual number of people trying to apply for assistance likely exceeds the numbers the country is seeing.
The official unemployment rate leapt from historic lows to 4.4 percent in March, according to official government data, but the numbers were based on a reference week that ended March 15, before the worst of the unemployment claims surge began.
That means the current jobless rate is almost certainly much worse than that — experts believe somewhere in the range of 12-15 percent, the worst on record since the Great Depression when unemployment reached 24 percent.


vox--2020-04-16--Poll: Americans are afraid of ending the coronavirus lockdowns too soon

Evidence-based explanations of the coronavirus crisis , from how it started to how it might end to how to protect yourself and others .
Part of the coronavirus conversation in the US is turning to the question of when to start reopening the country .
President Donald Trump certainly wants to do it as soon as possible , based on the theory that the public is demanding to be let back out into restaurants and retail stores so they can resume a normal life .
But as of right now , that doesn ’ t appear to be true at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onboard with social distancing and much more fearful about the health risks of opening up the country too soon than the economic risk of a continued shutdown .
The costs of both have been awful — 31,000 dead and counting , 22 million jobs lost — but the public is first and foremost preoccupied with the public health crisis .
The Pew Research Center asked the question directly in a nearly 5,000-person survey conducted from April 7 to 12 : Are you more worried about your state government lifting its restrictions on public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
By a 2-to-1 margin , Americans said that they were more worried about rapidly ramping down social distancing .
One likely explanation as to why there is such reluctance : Pew found 73 percent of Americans thought the worst was still to come in the coronavirus outbreak , while just 26 percent thought the worst had already happened .
Another piece of the puzzle may come from Gallup , which released its own polling on Thursday with a related finding : More Americans said they were worried about getting sick from Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the economic slowdown .
Gallup found that women , people who live in cities , and younger adults were most worried about the health risks .
Lower-income people saw the worst of both worlds : They were more concerned about getting sick than the people in higher income brackets and they were more fearful about economic hardships as well .
As Vox ’ s Anna North recently reported , the ongoing pandemic has affected marginalized Americans the most , revealing the inequalities in US society in new and painful ways .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing , both to diagnose people currently infected and to identify people who ’ ve had the virus and recovered .
We also need a better understanding of how immune people are after they fight off the virus .
New applications to enable contact tracing will also help .
And no matter what , it will be a slow journey back to normalcy ; nobody should expect things to snap back to the way they were in the next few months .
Normal life may not be able to fully resume until there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could , of course , change .
Millions of people are now unemployed , and while Covid-19 is very infectious and can be dangerous to people of any age , it ’ s by far the most threatening to older people and people with preexisting conditions .
The public ’ s calculus on health vs. economic risks might shift as lockdowns drag on , especially if officials can find ways to protect the most vulnerable .
But for the time being , this new polling indicates Americans are content with using social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their neighbors , even if it comes at an economic price .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Part of the coronavirus conversation in the US is turning to the question of when to start reopening the country. President Donald Trump certainly wants to do it as soon as possible, based on the theory that the public is demanding to be let back out into restaurants and retail stores so they can resume a normal life.
But as of right now, that doesn’t appear to be true at all. Instead, Americans still seem onboard with social distancing and much more fearful about the health risks of opening up the country too soon than the economic risk of a continued shutdown. The costs of both have been awful — 31,000 dead and counting, 22 million jobs lost — but the public is first and foremost preoccupied with the public health crisis.
The Pew Research Center asked the question directly in a nearly 5,000-person survey conducted from April 7 to 12: Are you more worried about your state government lifting its restrictions on public activities too quickly or not quickly enough? By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans said that they were more worried about rapidly ramping down social distancing.
One likely explanation as to why there is such reluctance: Pew found 73 percent of Americans thought the worst was still to come in the coronavirus outbreak, while just 26 percent thought the worst had already happened.
Another piece of the puzzle may come from Gallup, which released its own polling on Thursday with a related finding: More Americans said they were worried about getting sick from Covid-19 than were worried about severe financial hardship because of the economic slowdown.
Gallup found that women, people who live in cities, and younger adults were most worried about the health risks.
Lower-income people saw the worst of both worlds: They were more concerned about getting sick than the people in higher income brackets and they were more fearful about economic hardships as well. As Vox’s Anna North recently reported, the ongoing pandemic has affected marginalized Americans the most, revealing the inequalities in US society in new and painful ways.
Starting to reopen society will require more testing, both to diagnose people currently infected and to identify people who’ve had the virus and recovered. We also need a better understanding of how immune people are after they fight off the virus. New applications to enable contact tracing will also help. And no matter what, it will be a slow journey back to normalcy; nobody should expect things to snap back to the way they were in the next few months. Normal life may not be able to fully resume until there is a vaccine widely available.
Opinions could, of course, change. Millions of people are now unemployed, and while Covid-19 is very infectious and can be dangerous to people of any age, it’s by far the most threatening to older people and people with preexisting conditions. The public’s calculus on health vs. economic risks might shift as lockdowns drag on, especially if officials can find ways to protect the most vulnerable.
But for the time being, this new polling indicates Americans are content with using social distancing to mitigate the health risks to themselves and their neighbors, even if it comes at an economic price.


vox--2020-04-16--The Innocence Files explores wrongful convictions. It’s the best kind of true crime.

Wrongful convictions are so persistent in the US justice system — by some counts , over 2,600 innocent criminal defendants have been exonerated since 1989 — that at times they seem more like a feature than a bug .
The Innocence Project , founded in 1992 by law professors Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld , is one organization devoted to not only overturning wrongful convictions through DNA testing but also advocating for reform in the criminal justice system .
All of those numbers can feel pretty abstract , however .
The new Netflix series The Innocence Files aims to translate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real humans , people who went to jail for years or even decades based on evidence that fell apart when it was put under a microscope .
In nine documentary episodes — some as long as a feature film — The Innocence Files draws on the same intriguing stories that often become the subjects of true crime series , while aiming to make a bigger point .
The nine episodes are grouped into three sections , each of which focuses on a broad aspect of America ’ s due process laws that might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses , and prosecution .
Each section uses real stories to illustrate the breakdown of supposedly just systems and the unreliability of allegedly unimpeachable evidence .
For instance , the first three episodes , directed by Oscar-winning documentarian Roger Ross Williams , focus on two men who were wrongfully convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering young girls based on the largely disproven science of “ bite-mark evidence.
” The men , their families , jurors , members of law enforcement , and one particularly salty forensic odontologist who served as an expert witness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the whole , The Innocence Files is among the strongest documentary series about criminal justice I ’ ve ever seen — both for its depth of research and the almost unbelievable nature of what it reveals about the American justice system ’ s intransigence in reversing wrongful convictions , even when it ’ s plainly obvious that something went awry .
The series is executive produced by Scheck and Neufeld and harnesses the talents of a number of filmmakers , including three powerhouses in the documentary world : Williams , Oscar winner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garbus .
I recently spoke to all three by phone about their involvement in the project , the strangely optimistic nature of the series , and what they hope audiences will take away from The Innocence Files .
Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity .
Was there something in particular that drew each of you to this project ?
Netflix approached me , and I had known about the work of the Innocence Project , obviously .
I was a huge admirer of their work .
I said yes right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come from a community that is devastated by the mass incarceration crisis .
I ’ m an African American man and I have family and friends behind bars , or who have been behind bars .
This is very personal for me .
The characters in my story come from a community that is poor , and a community that lives in fear that they ’ re going to end up in prison .
And since one in every three black men at some point in their life end up incarcerated , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very personal for me .
Netflix had done this overall agreement with the Innocence Project to open up their case files to filmmakers , and Netflix assembled us .
I think all of us were immediately in because we ’ ve all , in different ways , been circling around themes around the criminal justice system for years in our careers .
The first film I made was in a prison — The Farm .
I went in there knowing that I didn ’ t actually want to make a film about people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to tell the stories of those who were not innocent , and grapple with the questions about incarceration : How much is too much , even if you have done the crime ?
That seemed to me a harder question in some ways , because , you know , you had people serving life and death sentences with no chance of ever stepping foot on free ground again , and dying in the prison hospital and being buried 10 feet from there and never leaving .
Inevitably , it turned out in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somebody who said they were innocent .
But there was no DNA .
I was intellectually very satisfied with that approach to The Farm .
But during my time filming in prison , I did get to meet several inmates who claimed they were railroaded , and that they were sitting there behind bars for 20 or 30 years and more for something that they didn ’ t do .
The pain of that is so enormous .
I made that film some two decades ago , and the questions are still hanging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes such a big swing .
It ’ s able to address the systemic failures of a system that can rob people of their freedom and their lives .
We don ’ t just look at it as if it ’ s one case that ’ s a miscarriage of justice .
We look at it in a larger context .
That felt really exciting to me , like an opportunity that I had not had before in any of the other films I had done on criminal justice , which were really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here , we get to know the people and all of their stories .
But working together , we get to talk about a whole system and its failures .
That ’ s a really great opportunity .
I knew Peter [ Neufeld ] and Barry [ Scheck ] both , and was a huge admirer of them .
So of course , they had me at “ Innocence Project.
” I ’ ve done a lot of films about power and abuses of power , and the idea of tackling prosecutorial misconduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , having done a lot of films about pretty dark subject matter , I was interested in the injustice of it all , but also the whole idea of the Innocence Project working to get people released — I was looking for , even in a grim place , a kind of a happy ending .
I latched onto a story where the ending was uncertain .
[ Editor ’ s note : The focus of Gibney ’ s episode , Chester Hollman , was wrongfully convicted of second-degree murder based on faulty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a challenge .
But at the same time , I wanted to follow along that path in a pale reflection of the man himself , who was hoping for some release .
A kind of a happy ending that was important for me .
The idea that these guys are really doing the job of getting people wrongly convicted released .
That was a big boon for me .
The episodes seem like they ’ d obviously appeal to people who are into true crime stories .
But they ’ re also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We learn a lot about how hard the work of reversing wrongful convictions can be .
Where did you find yourself inspired , or unexpectedly encouraged ?
I ’ m inspired by watching the lawyers work .
They are dedicated to trying to battle the legal system against all odds , because the legal system is rigged , in a way , against admitting mistakes .
It ’ s a Sisyphean task for these lawyers to go up against the system that wants so desperately to attain some kind of certainty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was inspired by them and their dogged determination .
In a number of the cases I dealt with , not only did you have the people in the Innocence Project , not only did you have defense attorneys , but you had volunteers who were giving tremendous amounts of their time to try to get this done over a period of sometimes five or 10 years .
That was hugely inspiring .
It ’ s so important for people to understand what Alex was just saying .
Once you spend time in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a public defender who slept through the trial , or didn ’ t show up .
You say , “ Couldn ’ t you get a new trial , or couldn ’ t you bring that up on appeal ?
” You hear these stories over and over .
But once there ’ s that original conviction , that decision on the record , it is so hard .
Your presumption of innocence is gone .
It is so hard to turn over .
The system just clamps down and sucks you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and race play into that .
Who has decent representation to start with ?
Overcoming that original sin , that original error , is nearly impossible , and [ the Innocence Project lawyers ] know it .
They ’ re really , truly heroic .
They ’ re looking for that needle in the haystack — some judge , somewhere , who will grant some mercy — because it really is walking into a tsunami of energy directed toward keeping that conviction on the books .
What ’ s also amazing about someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ Neufeld ] and Vanessa [ Potkin ] : They actually went to Mississippi , spent an incredible amount of time investigating this crime on the ground , and have an incredible bond with the exonerated individuals .
I went back there to Mississippi with Peter to interview [ exonerated former inmate ] Levon Brooks .
And their connection , their personal connection , was just so beautiful to see .
Peter and Vanessa were not only in the courtroom ; they were in the swamp .
They performed a test on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was used in Levon ’ s case , to see if crawfish actually made the bite marks .
They went to the window where the crime happened .
They were active and engaged with these communities in a very deep and powerful and profound way .
It seems like there ’ s a special challenge in telling these stories via documentaries .
You have to help the audience first understand why the juries were convinced by the case brought by prosecutors , and then you have to help them get past their biases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As storytellers , how do you construct narratives so they ’ ll grab viewers ’ attention and keep it ?
To some extent , I approached it as a crime story — except it ’ s a crime in reverse .
We actually discover who was responsible , who committed the crime , or likely committed the crime , even as we begin to find Chester Hollman innocent .
But we also started the film with images of a prison and a disembodied voice of a man who ’ s talking on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team from the outside , slowly but surely telling his story .
In that sense , he ’ s anonymous .
He ’ s a number .
He ’ s a disembodied voice at the end of the line .
The structure of the film is really discovering his humanity .
At the very end , you see him released , in the flesh , for the first time .
That , I felt , was a powerful emotional structure for a film like this , that discovery of humanity in the course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the fact that he ’ s actually free .
You want to set up a feeling of stakes and suspense , and have the story unfold with some of the mystery that viewers have come to know and love through true crime .
But what I love watching is something that helps me understand the underbelly of the system .
How does it work ?
How do you get five teenagers to point the finger at this one guy who they didn ’ t really ever see at the scene of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which that happens ?
The forensics of interactions between the psychology and police and potential witnesses .
The manipulation and how that works .
Yes , there ’ s the mystery : Did this guy do it ?
And if not , who did it , and what will happen to him ?
But there ’ s also just the forensics of these interactions and relationships .
You see them like a slow-motion car wreck , a slow-motion accident , going off the rails , and you want to just scream and make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the drama of this as well .
While we interviewed all the lawyers and the experts , for me it was about placing the viewer in this community .
The storytellers are only the characters who lived that moment .
[ My episodes ] take you to a southern town in Mississippi , the birthplace of the Klan and the racial divide , and bring that to life and let the people of that community take you through what happened in real time .
You ’ re totally immersed in a world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see — this world of poor , black , southern , rural America — and because our crew was all black , we allowed the subjects to be really honest and open about the struggle they were facing , and the reality of racism in their communities .
The Innocence Files is streaming on Netflix .
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 .

Wrongful convictions are so persistent in the US justice system — by some counts, over 2,600 innocent criminal defendants have been exonerated since 1989 — that at times they seem more like a feature than a bug. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by law professors Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, and organizations within the Innocence Network are devoted to not only overturning wrongful convictions through DNA testing but also advocating for reform in the criminal justice system.
All of those numbers can feel pretty abstract, however. The new Netflix series The Innocence Files aims to translate the abstractions by showcasing the stories of real humans, people who went to jail for years or even decades based on evidence that fell apart when it was put under a microscope. In nine documentary episodes — some as long as a feature film — The Innocence Files draws on the same intriguing stories that often become the subjects of true crime series, while aiming to make a bigger point.
The nine episodes are grouped into three sections, each of which focuses on a broad aspect of America’s due process laws that might lead to wrongful convictions: evidence, witnesses, and prosecution. Each section uses real stories to illustrate the breakdown of supposedly just systems and the unreliability of allegedly unimpeachable evidence. For instance, the first three episodes, directed by Oscar-winning documentarian Roger Ross Williams, focus on two men who were wrongfully convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering young girls based on the largely disproven science of “bite-mark evidence.” The men, their families, jurors, members of law enforcement, and one particularly salty forensic odontologist who served as an expert witness all appear in the gripping story.
On the whole, The Innocence Files is among the strongest documentary series about criminal justice I’ve ever seen — both for its depth of research and the almost unbelievable nature of what it reveals about the American justice system’s intransigence in reversing wrongful convictions, even when it’s plainly obvious that something went awry.
The series harnesses the talents of a number of filmmakers, including three powerhouses in the documentary world: Williams, Oscar winner Alex Gibney, and Oscar nominee Liz Garbus. I recently spoke to all three by phone about their involvement in the project, the strangely optimistic nature of the series, and what they hope audiences will take away from The Innocence Files. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Alissa Wilkinson
Was there something in particular that drew each of you to this project?
Roger Ross Williams
Netflix approached me, and I had known about the work of the Innocence Project, obviously. I was a huge admirer of their work. I said yes right away. The reason is that I come from a community that is devastated by the mass incarceration crisis. I’m an African American man and I have family and friends behind bars, or who have been behind bars. This is very personal for me. The characters in my story come from a community that is poor, and a community that lives in fear that they’re going to end up in prison. And since one in every three black men at some point in their life end up incarcerated, that’s understandable. So this is very personal for me.
Liz Garbus
Netflix had done this overall agreement with the Innocence Project to open up their case files to filmmakers, and Netflix assembled us. I think all of us were immediately in because we’ve all, in different ways, been circling around themes around the criminal justice system for years in our careers.
The first film I made was in a prison — The Farm. I went in there knowing that I didn’t actually want to make a film about people who might be innocent there. I wanted to tell the stories of those who were not innocent, and grapple with the questions about incarceration: How much is too much, even if you have done the crime? That seemed to me a harder question in some ways, because, you know, you had people serving life and death sentences with no chance of ever stepping foot on free ground again, and dying in the prison hospital and being buried 10 feet from there and never leaving.
Inevitably, it turned out in The Farm there was a story of somebody who said they were innocent. But there was no DNA.
I was intellectually very satisfied with that approach to The Farm. But during my time filming in prison, I did get to meet several inmates who claimed they were railroaded, and that they were sitting there behind bars for 20 or 30 years and more for something that they didn’t do. The pain of that is so enormous. I made that film some two decades ago, and the questions are still hanging over all of us.
This project takes such a big swing. It’s able to address the systemic failures of a system that can rob people of their freedom and their lives. We don’t just look at it as if it’s one case that’s a miscarriage of justice. We look at it in a larger context. That felt really exciting to me, like an opportunity that I had not had before in any of the other films I had done on criminal justice, which were really always kind of story- and person-oriented. Here, we get to know the people and all of their stories. But working together, we get to talk about a whole system and its failures. That’s a really great opportunity.
Alex Gibney
I knew Peter [Neufeld] and Barry [Scheck] both, and was a huge admirer of them. So of course, they had me at “Innocence Project.” I’ve done a lot of films about power and abuses of power, and the idea of tackling prosecutorial misconduct seemed right.
But also, weirdly, having done a lot of films about pretty dark subject matter, I was interested in the injustice of it all, but also the whole idea of the Innocence Project working to get people released — I was looking for, even in a grim place, a kind of a happy ending.
I latched onto a story where the ending was uncertain. [Editor’s note: The focus of Gibney’s episode, Chester Hollman, was wrongfully convicted of second-degree murder based on faulty eyewitness testimony.] That was kind of a challenge. But at the same time, I wanted to follow along that path in a pale reflection of the man himself, who was hoping for some release. A kind of a happy ending that was important for me. The idea that these guys are really doing the job of getting people wrongly convicted released. That was a big boon for me.
Alissa Wilkinson
The episodes seem like they’d obviously appeal to people who are into true crime stories. But they’re also inspiring — not cheaply, but deservedly. We learn a lot about how hard the work of reversing wrongful convictions can be. Where did you find yourself inspired, or unexpectedly encouraged?
Alex Gibney
I’m inspired by watching the lawyers work. They are dedicated to trying to battle the legal system against all odds, because the legal system is rigged, in a way, against admitting mistakes. It’s a Sisyphean task for these lawyers to go up against the system that wants so desperately to attain some kind of certainty, even if that’s wrong. I was inspired by them and their dogged determination. In a number of the cases I dealt with, not only did you have the people in the Innocence Project, not only did you have defense attorneys, but you had volunteers who were giving tremendous amounts of their time to try to get this done over a period of sometimes five or 10 years. That was hugely inspiring.
Liz Garbus
It’s so important for people to understand what Alex was just saying. Once you spend time in a prison, you hear these stories about a public defender who slept through the trial, or didn’t show up. You say, “Couldn’t you get a new trial, or couldn’t you bring that up on appeal?” You hear these stories over and over.
But once there’s that original conviction, that decision on the record, it is so hard. Your presumption of innocence is gone. It is so hard to turn over. The system just clamps down and sucks you in. Think about the way poverty and race play into that. Who has decent representation to start with? Overcoming that original sin, that original error, is nearly impossible, and [the Innocence Project lawyers] know it. They’re really, truly heroic. They’re looking for that needle in the haystack — some judge, somewhere, who will grant some mercy — because it really is walking into a tsunami of energy directed toward keeping that conviction on the books.
Roger Ross Williams
What’s also amazing about someone like [Innocence Project attorneys] Peter [Neufeld] and Vanessa [Potkin]: They actually went to Mississippi, spent an incredible amount of time investigating this crime on the ground, and have an incredible bond with the exonerated individuals. I went back there to Mississippi with Peter to interview [exonerated former inmate] Levon Brooks. And their connection, their personal connection, was just so beautiful to see. Peter and Vanessa were not only in the courtroom; they were in the swamp. They performed a test on a pig to test the bite-mark evidence that was used in Levon’s case, to see if crawfish actually made the bite marks. They went to the window where the crime happened. They were active and engaged with these communities in a very deep and powerful and profound way.
Related False Positive
Alissa Wilkinson
It seems like there’s a special challenge in telling these stories via documentaries. You have to help the audience first understand why the juries were convinced by the case brought by prosecutors, and then you have to help them get past their biases to see why the wrongful conviction occurred. As storytellers, how do you construct narratives so they’ll grab viewers’ attention and keep it?
Alex Gibney
To some extent, I approached it as a crime story — except it’s a crime in reverse. We actually discover who was responsible, who committed the crime, or likely committed the crime, even as we begin to find Chester Hollman innocent.
But we also started the film with images of a prison and a disembodied voice of a man who’s talking on a prison phone to people on my team from the outside, slowly but surely telling his story. In that sense, he’s anonymous. He’s a number. He’s a disembodied voice at the end of the line. The structure of the film is really discovering his humanity. At the very end, you see him released, in the flesh, for the first time. That, I felt, was a powerful emotional structure for a film like this, that discovery of humanity in the course of understanding and revealing his story, and the fact that he’s actually free.
Liz Garbus
You want to set up a feeling of stakes and suspense, and have the story unfold with some of the mystery that viewers have come to know and love through true crime.
But what I love watching is something that helps me understand the underbelly of the system. How does it work? How do you get five teenagers to point the finger at this one guy who they didn’t really ever see at the scene of the crime? What is the process by which that happens?
The forensics of interactions between the psychology and police and potential witnesses. The manipulation and how that works. Yes, there’s the mystery: Did this guy do it? And if not, who did it, and what will happen to him? But there’s also just the forensics of these interactions and relationships. You see them like a slow-motion car wreck, a slow-motion accident, going off the rails, and you want to just scream and make it stop. I think that’s the drama of this as well.
Roger Ross Williams
While we interviewed all the lawyers and the experts, for me it was about placing the viewer in this community. The storytellers are only the characters who lived that moment. [My episodes] take you to a southern town in Mississippi, the birthplace of the Klan and the racial divide, and bring that to life and let the people of that community take you through what happened in real time. You’re totally immersed in a world that many viewers would never get to see — this world of poor, black, southern, rural America — and because our crew was all black, we allowed the subjects to be really honest and open about the struggle they were facing, and the reality of racism in their communities.
The Innocence Files is streaming on Netflix.