vox--2020-06-23--“Years of potential life lost” is the most sobering and sad Covid-19 statistic I’ve seen

More than 120,000 people in the United States have died of Covid-19 .
It ’ s an enormous number and , quite frankly , a failure of our national response , and of our leadership .
But that number does not seem to be enough to inspire more politicians in states to action , to inspire all Americans to wear masks , to inspire self-sacrifice to save lives .
And so we are at a dangerous time in the pandemic .
Cases are rising in many states , along with hospitalizations .
Deaths have not started rising nationally yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It can take , on average , 17.8 days from the start of symptoms to a Covid-19 death .
America needs a wake-up call to this endless disaster , and fast .
The death count is almost certainly an undercount .
It doesn ’ t even begin to tell the whole story .
Recently , Harvard epidemiologists calculated a Covid-19 statistic that lands like a gut punch .
The statistic is “ years of potential life lost.
” And perhaps it can help shake our collective numbness to the pandemic .
Psychology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to grow numb to mass suffering and death .
We need to fight against that instinct when we can .
A life lost isn ’ t just a single number ; it ’ s a trauma with a ripple effect , throughout our communities , and throughout time .
Imagining more than 138,000 years of human life lost Calculating years of potential life lost is somewhat straightforward .
The Harvard team looked at death certificate data from people who died of Covid-19 and set a cutoff age , in this case 65 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ died of documented Covid-19 before reaching this age , and summed up how many years they had left until age 65 .
This analysis made 65 the cutoff age to try to give a sense of the burden of younger people dying of Covid-19 ( though they aren ’ t dying in rates as high as older people , their loss is still immense ) .
“ There ’ s an arbitrariness , ” to the cutoff , Nancy Krieger , a Harvard epidemiologist who co-authored the analysis , says .
“ But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standpoint , in terms of benefits , in terms of Social Security , in terms of Medicare .
It ’ s an age that helps also distinguish between people who are of working age still versus not.
” Black Americans under the age of 65 have lost , collectively , 45,777 years of life , the researchers ’ analysis ( published in a working paper ) found .
Hispanics and Latinos lost 48,204 .
White Americans under age 65 have lost , collectively , 33,446 years of life .
Already you can see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States greatly outnumber Black people and Hispanics — there are also more deaths among white people overall — but the burden of years life lost among this young group is in these minority communities .
( American Indians and Alaska natives lost 1,745 years of life .
Asian and Pacific Islanders lost 8,905 . )
Tallied up , that totals more than 138,000 years of human life lost before age 65 .
That ’ s enormous — and still an undercount .
Many of these people would have lived to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small slice of our national loss is enormous : What is 138,000 years of human life worth ?
“ You think about people being the dynamic beings that we are , living across space and time , ” Krieger says .
“ And then you have lives that are just pulled out of the picture.
” “ Think of all people do in a year , ” Rhea Boyd , a pediatrician and public health expert , tweeted on Twitter , referencing Krieger ’ s study .
“ You work , have babies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black and Latinx populations have lost those opportunities more than 45,000 times from COVID alone.
” America may be growing numb to the pandemic — but it ’ s never been more critical to act There ’ s a growing sense that America is giving up on the pandemic .
Many states have lifted stay-at-home orders without aggressive new mitigation measures in place .
And as cases rise in certain states , it ’ s unclear if governments will take further action to stop the exponential growth .
As a reporter covering the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pandemic doom now than in February .
In February , we didn ’ t know what was going to happen , but we were prepared to do something .
Now we have a better idea of what will happen , and we ’ re largely giving up .
It ’ s partly understandable .
People are tired of stay-at-home orders .
People need to work ( especially if the government is unwilling to provide expanded support ) .
There ’ s also been an absence of a strong , nationalized message on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Control and Prevention has a lot of information for individuals navigating the Covid-19 world , but it gets undermined by the Trump administration , which seems to try to make the issue of mask-wearing into more of a front in the culture wars than a guideline for public health .
But it ’ s also understandable in terms of human psychology .
There ’ s a concept called psychic numbing , and it may , in part , explain the apathy and exhaustion many are feeling about the coronavirus pandemic .
It means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tragedy increases , our empathy , our willingness to help , reliably decreases .
This happens even when the number of victims increases from one to two .
“ Anything that happens on a large scale seems to require that we use numbers to describe it , and yet numbers are precisely the mode of discourse that , in most cases , leaves audiences numb and messages devoid of meaning , ” Paul Slovic , the University of Oregon psychologist who has studied psychic numbing for years , writes .
“ Years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the numbing For me , the “ years of life lost ” metric helps cut through the numbing by making these deaths a little less abstract .
Think about one year of your life : of the depth and richness of it , of what you can accomplish in it , of how many people you can show your love to during it .
Now try to multiply that by 138,000 .
This also runs the risk of becoming another large number .
But perhaps its novelty , and its accessibility in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives ( we can all imagine a year of life ) , can help .
It also underscores how a single death is a trauma that can ripple out .
“ When someone dies , their own death matters enormously , ” Krieger says .
“ But it matters enormously for everyone in that person ’ s family , friends , and networks .
When you strip out someone at a much younger age , there ’ s just a different dimension to what that burden is.
” No death occurs in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the ripple effects , ” Krieger says .
The parents who can no longer provide for their kids .
The people who can no longer contribute to their communities .
“ This gives a different view , and I think it ’ s a very important one about who is being ripped out of society at younger ages.
” A life lost isn ’ t just a single number — it ’ s a trauma with a ripple effect , throughout our communities , and throughout time Even among older people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — are being lost .
In Italy , researchers found that Covid-19 was killing people around 12 to 14 years before they might have died naturally .
Even accounting for age and underlying conditions , the study found , people were dying more than five years sooner than life span estimates would suggest .
Of course , death isn ’ t the only effect Covid-19 has had on our society .
There are plenty of other reasons we need greater action to manage the pandemic .
One is the great health burden — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the lingering effects — on those who fall ill but recover .
Also the unknowns : Even asymptomatic cases of Covid-19 may leave a mark on the lungs .
Another reason is to save our economy .
Another is for our mental health .
Nationally , around a third of Americans have reported symptoms of anxiety and depression since late April .
For comparison , in the first three months of 2019 , just 11 percent of Americans reported these symptoms on a similar survey .
Death “ is really important , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also when somebody gets sick , or they ’ re worried about being sick , there ’ s all the fear that goes with that .
There ’ s the concerns of their loved ones about them .
There ’ s the questions of what the economic implications are for individuals and their households if someone becomes ill. ” There ’ s also the unfair burden Covid-19 is placing on Black and minority communities — in terms of health and mortality , but economically too .
In the paper , Krieger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nine times higher in Black communities compared to white people in the 35- to 44-year-old range .
“ You don ’ t get relative risks for seven- to ninefold for most things in the US for health inequities , ” Krieger says .
This is extreme .
And a lot more damage can still be done .
For the pandemic to simmer down naturally — in a way that will allow life to go back to normal — the population needs to achieve something called herd immunity .
For the coronavirus , herd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the population is immune .
But it could need to be as high as 65 percent .
No area is anywhere near that figure , even New York City , where at least 17,000 people have died of Covid-19 .
In late April , it was estimated that 20 percent of the city had been exposed to the coronavirus .
Elsewhere , the infection rates are much , much lower .
There are so many reasons to not be numb to the coronavirus pandemic .
As we see case counts rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s so much more left to lose .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

More than 120,000 people in the United States have died of Covid-19.
It’s an enormous number and, quite frankly, a failure of our national response, and of our leadership. But that number does not seem to be enough to inspire all Americans to wear masks, to inspire self-sacrifice to save lives, to inspire more politicians in states to action.
Instead, they are doing the opposite: signaling that things are getting better rather than worse. President Trump is holding massive indoor rallies. Rather than suppressing the pandemic, states and cities are easing up on social distancing, shying away from new restrictions even as cases in some states climb.
And so we are at a dangerous time in the pandemic. Cases are rising in many states, along with hospitalizations. Deaths have not started rising nationally yet, but researchers fear they’re coming: It can take, on average, 17.8 days from the start of symptoms to a Covid-19 death. America needs a wake-up call to this endless disaster, and fast.
The death count is almost certainly an undercount. It doesn’t even begin to tell the whole story. Recently, Harvard epidemiologists calculated a Covid-19 statistic that lands like a gut punch. The statistic is “years of potential life lost.” And perhaps it can help shake our collective numbness to the pandemic.
Psychology teaches us it’s too easy to grow numb to mass suffering and death. We need to fight against that instinct when we can. A life lost isn’t just a single number; it’s a trauma with a ripple effect, throughout our communities, and throughout time.
Imagining more than 138,000 years of human life lost
Calculating years of potential life lost is somewhat straightforward. The Harvard team looked at death certificate data from people who died of Covid-19 and set a cutoff age, in this case 65.
They then found all the people who died of documented Covid-19 before reaching this age, and summed up how many years they had left until age 65. This analysis made 65 the cutoff age to try to give a sense of the burden of younger people dying of Covid-19 (though they aren’t dying in rates as high as older people, their loss is still immense). “There’s an arbitrariness,” to the cutoff, Nancy Krieger, a Harvard epidemiologist who co-authored the analysis, says. “But 65 is not arbitrary from a policy standpoint, in terms of benefits, in terms of Social Security, in terms of Medicare. It’s an age that helps also distinguish between people who are of working age still versus not.”
Black Americans under the age of 65 have lost, collectively, 45,777 years of life, the researchers’ analysis (published in a working paper) found. Hispanics and Latinos lost 48,204.
White Americans under age 65 have lost, collectively, 33,446 years of life. Already you can see a clear disparity. White people in the United States greatly outnumber Black people and Hispanics — there are also more deaths among white people overall — but the burden of years life lost among this young group is in these minority communities. (American Indians and Alaska natives lost 1,745 years of life. Asian and Pacific Islanders lost 8,905.)
Tallied up, that totals more than 138,000 years of human life lost before age 65. That’s enormous — and still an undercount. Many of these people would have lived to a much older age. Still, this small slice of our national loss is enormous: What is 138,000 years of human life worth?
“You think about people being the dynamic beings that we are, living across space and time,” Krieger says. “And then you have lives that are just pulled out of the picture.”
That’s a huge loss.
“Think of all people do in a year,” Rhea Boyd, a pediatrician and public health expert, tweeted on Twitter, referencing Krieger’s study. “You work, have babies, get married, make memories. Black and Latinx populations have lost those opportunities more than 45,000 times from COVID alone.”
Think of all people do in a year. You work, have babies, get married, make memories.
Black and Latinx populations have lost those opportunities more than 45,000 times from COVID alone.
This racial health inequity has cost Black and Latinx folks an enormous amount. — Rhea Boyd MD, MPH (@RheaBoydMD) June 16, 2020
America may be growing numb to the pandemic — but it’s never been more critical to act
There’s a growing sense that America is giving up on the pandemic. Many states have lifted stay-at-home orders without aggressive new mitigation measures in place. And as cases rise in certain states, it’s unclear if governments will take further action to stop the exponential growth.
As a reporter covering the pandemic, I feel a greater sense of pandemic doom now than in February. In February, we didn’t know what was going to happen, but we were prepared to do something. Now we have a better idea of what will happen, and we’re largely giving up.
It’s partly understandable. People are tired of stay-at-home orders. People need to work (especially if the government is unwilling to provide expanded support). There’s also been an absence of a strong, nationalized message on the pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a lot of information for individuals navigating the Covid-19 world, but it gets undermined by the Trump administration, which seems to try to make the issue of mask-wearing into more of a front in the culture wars than a guideline for public health.
But it’s also understandable in terms of human psychology. There’s a concept called psychic numbing, and it may, in part, explain the apathy and exhaustion many are feeling about the coronavirus pandemic. It means that as the number of victims in a tragedy increases, our empathy, our willingness to help, reliably decreases. This happens even when the number of victims increases from one to two.
“Anything that happens on a large scale seems to require that we use numbers to describe it, and yet numbers are precisely the mode of discourse that, in most cases, leaves audiences numb and messages devoid of meaning,” Paul Slovic, the University of Oregon psychologist who has studied psychic numbing for years, writes.
“Years of life lost” could help cut through the numbing
For me, the “years of life lost” metric helps cut through the numbing by making these deaths a little less abstract. Think about one year of your life: of the depth and richness of it, of what you can accomplish in it, of how many people you can show your love to during it. Now try to multiply that by 138,000.
This also runs the risk of becoming another large number. But perhaps its novelty, and its accessibility in terms of applying it to our own lives (we can all imagine a year of life), can help. It also underscores how a single death is a trauma that can ripple out.
“When someone dies, their own death matters enormously,” Krieger says. “But it matters enormously for everyone in that person’s family, friends, and networks. When you strip out someone at a much younger age, there’s just a different dimension to what that burden is.”
No death occurs in a vacuum. “It’s also all the ripple effects,” Krieger says. The parents who can no longer provide for their kids. The people who can no longer contribute to their communities. “This gives a different view, and I think it’s a very important one about who is being ripped out of society at younger ages.”
A life lost isn’t just a single number — it’s a trauma with a ripple effect, throughout our communities, and throughout time
Even among older people, years of life — years of potential — are being lost. In Italy, researchers found that Covid-19 was killing people around 12 to 14 years before they might have died naturally. Even accounting for age and underlying conditions, the study found, people were dying more than five years sooner than life span estimates would suggest.
Of course, death isn’t the only effect Covid-19 has had on our society. There are plenty of other reasons we need greater action to manage the pandemic. One is the great health burden — all the hospitalizations, the days sick, the lingering effects — on those who fall ill but recover. Also the unknowns: Even asymptomatic cases of Covid-19 may leave a mark on the lungs.
Another reason is to save our economy. Another is for our mental health. Nationally, around a third of Americans have reported symptoms of anxiety and depression since late April. For comparison, in the first three months of 2019, just 11 percent of Americans reported these symptoms on a similar survey.
Death “is really important,” Krieger says. “But there’s also when somebody gets sick, or they’re worried about being sick, there’s all the fear that goes with that. There’s the concerns of their loved ones about them. There’s the questions of what the economic implications are for individuals and their households if someone becomes ill.”
There’s also the unfair burden Covid-19 is placing on Black and minority communities — in terms of health and mortality, but economically too. In the paper, Krieger and her co-authors find Covid-19 mortality is nine times higher in Black communities compared to white people in the 35- to 44-year-old range. “You don’t get relative risks for seven- to ninefold for most things in the US for health inequities,” Krieger says. This is extreme.
And a lot more damage can still be done. For the pandemic to simmer down naturally — in a way that will allow life to go back to normal — the population needs to achieve something called herd immunity. For the coronavirus, herd immunity could possibly be achieved when 50 percent of the population is immune. But it could need to be as high as 65 percent.
No area is anywhere near that figure, even New York City, where at least 17,000 people have died of Covid-19. In late April, it was estimated that 20 percent of the city had been exposed to the coronavirus. Elsewhere, the infection rates are much, much lower.
There are so many reasons to not be numb to the coronavirus pandemic. As we see case counts rising, we can’t stay complacent. There’s so much more left to lose.


vox--2020-06-23--Live results for the June 23 primaries

Live results for the June 23 primaries

Amid a long list of Tuesday primaries and runoffs in Kentucky , New York , Virginia , North Carolina , and Mississippi , progressives are looking to notch some wins .
A number of progressive primary candidates — most notably state Rep. Charles Booker challenging retired Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath in the Kentucky Senate primary and educator Jamaal Bowman running against House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel in New York — could be a test for how progressive candidates of color fare against more moderate candidates .
In New York City , Bowman may have the best chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s surprise 2018 win against a powerful member of Congress .
Engel has faced criticism for not spending enough time in his district , which has been hard-hit by Covid-19 .
Further south in Kentucky , Booker is still considered the underdog candidate in his Senate primary against McGrath , but massive protests over police brutality in Louisville have propelled the young black state lawmaker forward .
Kentucky voted for Trump by 30 points in 2016 and may not be the most friendly environment for policies like Medicare-for-all and a Green New Deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently was the successful campaign of Gov .
Andy Beshear , who ran on a moderate agenda .
But Booker is projecting confidence he can win the primary and beat Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( arguably the most powerful man in the Senate ) in the general election .
“ People are rising up , ” Booker told Vox in a recent interview .
“ They ’ re looking at structural issues , they ’ re looking at the fact that poverty is generational and we criminalize poverty .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can lean into issues that address poverty , issues that are progressive , and build an incredible coalition of support.
” The other primary to watch in Kentucky is on the GOP side , where libertarian Rep. Thomas Massie is facing a serious Republican challenger in attorney Todd McMurtry .
Massie could be on thin ice this year after Trump called him a “ third-rate grandstander ” and said he should no longer be in the Republican party after Massie held up a massive coronavirus aid bill by calling for a recorded vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , DC , in the midst of a pandemic .
In Virginia , a slate of Republicans is competing to see who will challenge Sen. Mark Warner in the fall ( a seat that ’ s expected to stay Democratic ) .
Republicans are also vying to take on a handful of moderate House Democrats who flipped districts blue in 2018 .
It could take time to know for sure who has won competitive primaries this year .
Due to Covid-19 , there are huge numbers of absentee votes that need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be called on Tuesday night .
Vox is covering the results live , with our partners at Decision Desk HQ .
The primary contest between Democrats Amy McGrath and state Sen. Charles Booker — both vying to compete against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) in the fall — is without a doubt the marquee race in Kentucky this summer .
McGrath is the moderate Marine veteran who has become a fundraising juggernaut , despite narrowly losing a Kentucky House race in 2018 , and she has a serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the Senate contest will be the most closely watched race on Tuesday night , there are other primaries playing out for congressional districts around the state .
Republicans are competing to be the nominee to try to take down longtime Rep. John Yarmuth , the only Democratic member of the Kentucky congressional delegation and the powerful chairman of the House Committee on the Budget .
Democrats and Republicans alike are competing to challenge embattled Rep. Thomas Massie , an outspoken member of the House Freedom Caucus , and there are also primaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ District , currently held by Rep. Andy Barr .
For more detail on all the state ’ s most interesting races , Vox has you covered .
While the Engel-Bowman showdown may be the most closely watched New York primary this year , it certainly isn ’ t the only one that ’ s competitive or interesting .
Reps. Yvette Clarke , Carolyn Maloney , and Jerry Nadler are all facing significant challengers , though of those , Clarke ’ s seat appears to be the only one that might be at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the open seats of Reps. Jose Serrano and Nita Lowey , neither of whom are running for reelection , have uncertain outcomes .
The race in Serrano ’ s district is an interesting test ; it ’ s a chance for progressive candidates to prove they can win open seats in addition to primarying establishment incumbents .
Many of New York ’ s congressional districts encompass diverse communities with significant splits along socioeconomic and racial lines , which will also come into play on Tuesday .
The 16th District , which Engel represents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Westchester County .
And New York ’ s entire delegation is emblematic of the inequalities of New York : both the richest congressional district in the country — Maloney ’ s , District 12 — and the poorest — Serrano ’ s , District 15 — are seeing competitive races right now .
There are also competitive Democratic and Republican House primaries in upstate New York , including both a special election and primary for former Rep. Chris Collins ’ open seat in the 27th Congressional District , outside Buffalo .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most interesting races , read Vox ’ s coverage here .
The 2018 midterms saw a number of Virginia battleground House districts flip from red to blue .
This year , many of those first-time lawmakers will have to fend off attempts to flip those districts back .
One main Republican House primary to watch is in the state ’ s Second Congressional District , which was flipped by Rep. Elaine Luria in 2018 .
Voters will pick Luria ’ s competitor for the battleground district , which is located on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beach and Williamsburg .
Republicans will also vote on which candidate they ’ d like to see take on Sen. Mark Warner , who is running for his third term .
Republicans in the Seventh Congressional District still have to decide who ’ s going up against moderate first-term Rep. Abigail Spanberger who flipped Republican David Brat ’ s seat last cycle , too , but that will happen at a party convention on July 18 , rather than a primary .
Democrats , meanwhile , are weighing in on a contested primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an open seat that ’ s currently held by Rep. Denver Riggleman that has become more competitive because the GOP is running a hardline social conservative this cycle .
For more detail on all the state ’ s most interesting races , read Vox ’ s coverage here .
On Tuesday , Republican voters in North Carolina ’ s 11th Congressional District will go to the polls — again — to pick a replacement for White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows , who represented the district in Congress until this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and congressional primaries on March 3 , a crowded field meant that no Republican in the 11th district broke the 30 percent threshold required to avoid a runoff .
Now , Republicans Lynda Bennett and Madison Cawthorn will go head to head for the seat .
Bennett led the first round of the primary with 22.7 percent of the vote , but Cawthorn came in a close second with 20.4 percent support .
The two candidates represent a generational divide far more than an ideological one — as Roll Call ’ s Chris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiscally conservative , pro-Trump , anti-abortion , and a hard-liner on immigration.
” However , Bennett , whom Meadows has endorsed as his successor , is 62 , whereas Cawthorn , a motivational speaker , is just 24 .
Whoever wins Tuesday will face Democratic nominee Moe Davis for the seat in November , but the true competition is happening today .
While North Carolina ’ s congressional map was redrawn late last year , the Cook Political Report still considers the 11th district to be Solid Republican .
On Tuesday , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to challenge incumbent Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson in November .
In Mississippi ’ s Second district , Brian Flowers led Thomas Carey in the March 17 primary by less than two points , which could point to a close race in Tuesday ’ s runoff .
Flowers is a Navy veteran who currently works a nuclear power plant ; Carey was a GOP Senate candidate in 2014 who made headlines after he won a tiny fraction of the vote — less than 2 percent — but may have played a role in forcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of who wins on Tuesday , all signs point to it not being a close race in November .
Thompson , who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee and has served in Congress since 1993 , won his district with more than 71 percent of the vote in 2018 , and the race isn ’ t considered competitive by the Cook Political Report .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 a contribution to Vox today .

Amid a long list of Tuesday primaries and runoffs in Kentucky, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and Mississippi, progressives are looking to notch some wins.
A number of progressive primary candidates — most notably state Rep. Charles Booker challenging retired Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath in the Kentucky Senate primary and educator Jamaal Bowman running against House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel in New York — could be a test for how progressive candidates of color fare against more moderate candidates.
In New York City, Bowman may have the best chance of replicating progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s surprise 2018 win against a powerful member of Congress. Engel has faced criticism for not spending enough time in his district, which has been hard-hit by Covid-19. Further south in Kentucky, Booker is still considered the underdog candidate in his Senate primary against McGrath, but massive protests over police brutality in Louisville have propelled the young black state lawmaker forward. Kentucky voted for Trump by 30 points in 2016 and may not be the most friendly environment for policies like Medicare-for-all and a Green New Deal. The biggest Democratic win statewide there recently was the successful campaign of Gov. Andy Beshear, who ran on a moderate agenda. But Booker is projecting confidence he can win the primary and beat Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (arguably the most powerful man in the Senate) in the general election.
“People are rising up,” Booker told Vox in a recent interview. “They’re looking at structural issues, they’re looking at the fact that poverty is generational and we criminalize poverty. It’s going to surprise folks to know you can lean into issues that address poverty, issues that are progressive, and build an incredible coalition of support.”
The other primary to watch in Kentucky is on the GOP side, where libertarian Rep. Thomas Massie is facing a serious Republican challenger in attorney Todd McMurtry. Massie could be on thin ice this year after Trump called him a “third-rate grandstander” and said he should no longer be in the Republican party after Massie held up a massive coronavirus aid bill by calling for a recorded vote and forcing lawmakers to return to Washington, DC, in the midst of a pandemic.
In Virginia, a slate of Republicans is competing to see who will challenge Sen. Mark Warner in the fall (a seat that’s expected to stay Democratic). Republicans are also vying to take on a handful of moderate House Democrats who flipped districts blue in 2018.
It could take time to know for sure who has won competitive primaries this year. Due to Covid-19, there are huge numbers of absentee votes that need to be counted, meaning some races likely won’t be called on Tuesday night.
Vox is covering the results live, with our partners at Decision Desk HQ.
Kentucky
The primary contest between Democrats Amy McGrath and state Sen. Charles Booker — both vying to compete against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in the fall — is without a doubt the marquee race in Kentucky this summer. McGrath is the moderate Marine veteran who has become a fundraising juggernaut, despite narrowly losing a Kentucky House race in 2018, and she has a serious challenge from the more progressive Booker.
While the Senate contest will be the most closely watched race on Tuesday night, there are other primaries playing out for congressional districts around the state. Republicans are competing to be the nominee to try to take down longtime Rep. John Yarmuth, the only Democratic member of the Kentucky congressional delegation and the powerful chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. Democrats and Republicans alike are competing to challenge embattled Rep. Thomas Massie, an outspoken member of the House Freedom Caucus, and there are also primaries in both parties for the Sixth Congressional District, currently held by Rep. Andy Barr.
For more detail on all the state’s most interesting races, Vox has you covered.
Kentucky Democratic Senate and House primaries
Kentucky Republican Senate and House primaries
New York
While the Engel-Bowman showdown may be the most closely watched New York primary this year, it certainly isn’t the only one that’s competitive or interesting. Reps. Yvette Clarke, Carolyn Maloney, and Jerry Nadler are all facing significant challengers, though of those, Clarke’s seat appears to be the only one that might be at risk. And the crowded primaries to fill the open seats of Reps. Jose Serrano and Nita Lowey, neither of whom are running for reelection, have uncertain outcomes. The race in Serrano’s district is an interesting test; it’s a chance for progressive candidates to prove they can win open seats in addition to primarying establishment incumbents.
Many of New York’s congressional districts encompass diverse communities with significant splits along socioeconomic and racial lines, which will also come into play on Tuesday. The 16th District, which Engel represents, contains parts of both the Bronx and Westchester County. And New York’s entire delegation is emblematic of the inequalities of New York: both the richest congressional district in the country — Maloney’s, District 12 — and the poorest — Serrano’s, District 15 — are seeing competitive races right now.
There are also competitive Democratic and Republican House primaries in upstate New York, including both a special election and primary for former Rep. Chris Collins’ open seat in the 27th Congressional District, outside Buffalo.
For more detail on all the state’s most interesting races, read Vox’s coverage here.
New York Democratic primaries
New York Republican primaries
Virginia
The 2018 midterms saw a number of Virginia battleground House districts flip from red to blue. This year, many of those first-time lawmakers will have to fend off attempts to flip those districts back.
One main Republican House primary to watch is in the state’s Second Congressional District, which was flipped by Rep. Elaine Luria in 2018. Voters will pick Luria’s competitor for the battleground district, which is located on the state’s eastern border encompassing Virginia Beach and Williamsburg. Republicans will also vote on which candidate they’d like to see take on Sen. Mark Warner, who is running for his third term. Republicans in the Seventh Congressional District still have to decide who’s going up against moderate first-term Rep. Abigail Spanberger who flipped Republican David Brat’s seat last cycle, too, but that will happen at a party convention on July 18, rather than a primary.
Democrats, meanwhile, are weighing in on a contested primary in Virginia’s Fifth Congressional District, an open seat that’s currently held by Rep. Denver Riggleman that has become more competitive because the GOP is running a hardline social conservative this cycle.
For more detail on all the state’s most interesting races, read Vox’s coverage here.
Virginia’s Republican Senate and House primaries
Virginia’s Democratic House primaries
North Carolina 11th Congressional District runoff
On Tuesday, Republican voters in North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District will go to the polls — again — to pick a replacement for White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who represented the district in Congress until this year. Though the state held its presidential and congressional primaries on March 3, a crowded field meant that no Republican in the 11th district broke the 30 percent threshold required to avoid a runoff. Now, Republicans Lynda Bennett and Madison Cawthorn will go head to head for the seat.
Bennett led the first round of the primary with 22.7 percent of the vote, but Cawthorn came in a close second with 20.4 percent support. The two candidates represent a generational divide far more than an ideological one — as Roll Call’s Chris Cioffi points out, both are “fiscally conservative, pro-Trump, anti-abortion, and a hard-liner on immigration.” However, Bennett, whom Meadows has endorsed as his successor, is 62, whereas Cawthorn, a motivational speaker, is just 24.
Whoever wins Tuesday will face Democratic nominee Moe Davis for the seat in November, but the true competition is happening today. While North Carolina’s congressional map was redrawn late last year, the Cook Political Report still considers the 11th district to be Solid Republican.
Mississippi Second Congressional District runoff
On Tuesday, two Mississippi Republicans will vie for the chance to challenge incumbent Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson in November. In Mississippi’s Second district, Brian Flowers led Thomas Carey in the March 17 primary by less than two points, which could point to a close race in Tuesday’s runoff.
Flowers is a Navy veteran who currently works a nuclear power plant; Carey was a GOP Senate candidate in 2014 who made headlines after he won a tiny fraction of the vote — less than 2 percent — but may have played a role in forcing the race into a runoff.
Regardless of who wins on Tuesday, all signs point to it not being a close race in November. Thompson, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee and has served in Congress since 1993, won his district with more than 71 percent of the vote in 2018, and the race isn’t considered competitive by the Cook Political Report.


vox--2020-06-23--Do Americans support defunding police? It depends how you ask the question.

It ’ s undeniable that the protests that have swept the country in the month since George Floyd ’ s killing at the hands of police have changed Americans ’ attitudes .
We know that 76 percent of Americans say racism is a big problem now , up from just 51 percent in 2015 .
We know that white Americans , in particular , are talking and reading about racism at an unprecedented level .
But there ’ s been a debate as to how much Americans really support systemic change , especially when it comes to the police .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ police departments have gotten more public attention .
Specifics of those calls vary , but in general , defunding police means shifting money from policing toward other priorities like mental health care and housing assistance .
The goal , for advocates , is to replace an institution with a long history of violence against Black Americans and other people of color with an array of solutions designed to meet all people ’ s needs and actually keep them safe .
“ We need to scrutinize our state and local budgets , educate ourselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be and feel safe , and realign the budget and our social programs to better serve our public safety needs , ” Georgetown University law professor Christy Lopez told Vox ’ s Sean Illing .
While calls to defund police forces have gotten a lot of coverage in recent weeks , they ’ ve also been met with skepticism and even confusion , with some wondering whether the American public — especially white Americans — will ever get on board with the idea .
And polling up until now has shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of defunding the police .
However , a new poll conducted by the research firm PerryUndem shows that when it comes to public opinion , the way people talk about police funding may matter .
The poll , conducted among 1,115 adults from June 15 to 17 , didn ’ t ask if people supported or opposed defunding police departments .
But it did ask how they felt about redirecting some taxpayer funds to other agencies , so that they , instead of police , could respond to some emergencies .
And respondents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of respondents said they supported reallocating some police funding to help mental health experts , rather than armed officers , respond to mental health emergencies .
Some of the change may simply have to do with time — among white Americans in particular , there ’ s been a steep learning curve in recent weeks when it comes to police violence and proposals to eliminate it .
Americans have watched as Minneapolis , Minnesota , where George Floyd was killed , announced plans to dismantle its police department , and other cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police .
The concept of defunding , as well as the language around it , has been debated in the New York Times , the Washington Post , and elsewhere .
“ People ’ s understanding is evolving literally every day , ” Tresa Undem , a partner at PerryUndem , told Vox .
But she said , “ when there ’ s very little knowledge ” about a concept , “ that ’ s when question wording really has an effect on responses.
” Defunding the police isn ’ t a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been advocating for it for decades .
But it is new to millions of Americans who have been inspired by the recent protests to pay more attention to systemic racism and police brutality .
And the PerryUndem polling suggests that , although the idea of defunding the police has been seen as unpopular , some of its component ideas actually attract widespread support .
When it comes to support for police funding cuts , how you frame the issue matters Attitudes toward the police have shifted considerably in recent months , especially among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , just 25 percent of white Americans said that the police were more likely to use excessive force on Black suspects .
After this year ’ s protests began , that figure jumped to 49 percent .
But there have been a lot of questions about how far those attitude changes go .
Majorities of Americans support reforms like banning chokeholds , for example , but many activists say those reforms don ’ t go far enough , since many departments have already adopted them and violence continues .
Instead , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some elected officials — are calling for defunding the police , dismantling police departments , and exploring other ways to keep communities safe .
The idea of defunding the police hasn ’ t gotten as much support in recent polls as other changes ; for example , just 27 percent of Americans supported it in a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted June 8-10 .
Even when pollsters have asked about cutting funding to police and redirecting it to social services , many Americans balk .
In an ABC/Ipsos poll conducted June 10-11 , 60 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ departments to mental health , housing , and education programs , while just 39 percent supported such a plan .
But the PerryUndem researchers asked the question a little differently : “ Right now , ” their survey read , “ taxpayer dollars for police departments go to all kinds of things police officers are responsible for — from writing up traffic accident reports for insurance companies to resolving disputes between neighbors to investigating murders.
” Respondents were then asked if they supported having some of those taxpayer dollars — and the responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere instead .
Most said yes .
In addition to the 72 percent who said they supported redirecting money from police departments to pay for mental health experts , 70 percent said they would support having taxpayer dollars reallocated to “ pay for a health care professional to go to a medical emergency , instead of an armed police officer.
” And 66 percent said they supported reallocating funds to “ pay for a social worker to respond to a call about a homeless person who is loitering , instead of an armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans if they would support an option short of full defunding , in which “ police could focus on crimes like burglary and murder , and other service providers could focus on emergency calls about addiction , mental illness , and homelessness.
” A full 61 percent of respondents supported this option , and just 16 percent opposed it ( 22 percent said they were unsure ) .
The differences between the PerryUndem results and previous polling are especially striking among white respondents .
Black Americans tend to support police defunding at higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ABC poll , for example , 57 percent of Black respondents supported defunding , compared with just 26 percent of white respondents .
But in the PerryUndem poll , a full 67 percent of white respondents supported redirecting funds to send a mental health professional to a mental health emergency , and 64 percent supported reallocating money to send a social worker to a call involving a homeless person ( 87 percent and 71 percent of Black respondents , respectively , supported these changes ) .
Some of the differences between the PerryUndem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with language .
The phrase “ defunding the police ” has been unpopular in many polls , and the concept of reallocating funding , while more popular , still hasn ’ t always gotten the support that PerryUndem saw .
But when ABC/Ipsos asked about reallocation , the question was framed more generally , in terms of programs , and emphasized the loss to police : “ Do you support or oppose reducing the budget of the police department in your community , even if that means fewer police officers , if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health , housing , and education ?
” PerryUndem , by contrast , framed the question specifically around who would respond to certain emergencies .
Undem believes this matters .
“ When something is brand new , ” like public understanding of police defunding , she said , “ the more descriptive the better.
” The PerryUndem poll isn ’ t the only one in recent weeks to find support for shifting at least some police funding .
A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted June 9-10 found that among people who were familiar with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer training , anti-homelessness programs , mental health services , and other initiatives , 76 percent supported them .
And in general , the debate around how to reform , change , or replace police departments in America is still being defined .
In the Reuters/Ipsos poll , 51 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with proposals to shift police funding — a majority , but a slim one , with lots of room for learning .
Perhaps this is what is most telling about these polls : Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be open to learning and changing their beliefs .
In the PerryUndem poll , for example , 52 percent of white respondents said they want to learn about how laws and systems in America may be racist .
And 64 percent said they want to learn which police reforms have worked or not worked .
And in the past month , they seem to have taken their quest for education seriously , at least by some measures .
Books about anti-racism dominate bestseller lists ( though some have pointed out the limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizers are reporting a large number of white people getting involved in demonstrations , many for the first time .
All this suggests that while the phrase “ defund the police ” may poll poorly now , the PerryUndem data is a reminder that none of this is fixed .
In fact , the country may be entering a rare period of open-mindedness on issues of racism and policing , in which people ’ s opinions and allegiances could be evolving — and they may be willing to think seriously about big changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks ago .
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 not constitute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

It’s undeniable that the protests that have swept the country in the month since George Floyd’s killing at the hands of police have changed Americans’ attitudes.
We know that 76 percent of Americans say racism is a big problem now, up from just 51 percent in 2015. We know that white Americans, in particular, are talking and reading about racism at an unprecedented level.
But there’s been a debate as to how much Americans really support systemic change, especially when it comes to the police. In recent weeks, calls for defunding police departments have gotten more public attention. Specifics of those calls vary, but in general, defunding police means shifting money from policing toward other priorities like mental health care and housing assistance.
The goal, for advocates, is to replace an institution with a long history of violence against Black Americans and other people of color with an array of solutions designed to meet all people’s needs and actually keep them safe. “We need to scrutinize our state and local budgets, educate ourselves about what police do versus what we need to be and feel safe, and realign the budget and our social programs to better serve our public safety needs,” Georgetown University law professor Christy Lopez told Vox’s Sean Illing.
While calls to defund police forces have gotten a lot of coverage in recent weeks, they’ve also been met with skepticism and even confusion, with some wondering whether the American public — especially white Americans — will ever get on board with the idea. And polling up until now has shown that majorities of Americans oppose the idea of defunding the police.
However, a new poll conducted by the research firm PerryUndem shows that when it comes to public opinion, the way people talk about police funding may matter. The poll, conducted among 1,115 adults from June 15 to 17, didn’t ask if people supported or opposed defunding police departments. But it did ask how they felt about redirecting some taxpayer funds to other agencies, so that they, instead of police, could respond to some emergencies. And respondents were receptive: For example, 72 percent of respondents said they supported reallocating some police funding to help mental health experts, rather than armed officers, respond to mental health emergencies.
Some of the change may simply have to do with time — among white Americans in particular, there’s been a steep learning curve in recent weeks when it comes to police violence and proposals to eliminate it. Americans have watched as Minneapolis, Minnesota, where George Floyd was killed, announced plans to dismantle its police department, and other cities like Los Angeles announced funding cuts to police. The concept of defunding, as well as the language around it, has been debated in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and elsewhere.
“People’s understanding is evolving literally every day,” Tresa Undem, a partner at PerryUndem, told Vox. But she said, “when there’s very little knowledge” about a concept, “that’s when question wording really has an effect on responses.”
Defunding the police isn’t a new concept to the many activists who have been advocating for it for decades. But it is new to millions of Americans who have been inspired by the recent protests to pay more attention to systemic racism and police brutality. And the PerryUndem polling suggests that, although the idea of defunding the police has been seen as unpopular, some of its component ideas actually attract widespread support.
When it comes to support for police funding cuts, how you frame the issue matters
Attitudes toward the police have shifted considerably in recent months, especially among white Americans. For example, in 2016, just 25 percent of white Americans said that the police were more likely to use excessive force on Black suspects. After this year’s protests began, that figure jumped to 49 percent.
But there have been a lot of questions about how far those attitude changes go. Majorities of Americans support reforms like banning chokeholds, for example, but many activists say those reforms don’t go far enough, since many departments have already adopted them and violence continues.
Instead, many organizers around the country — along with some elected officials — are calling for defunding the police, dismantling police departments, and exploring other ways to keep communities safe. The idea of defunding the police hasn’t gotten as much support in recent polls as other changes; for example, just 27 percent of Americans supported it in a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted June 8-10.
Even when pollsters have asked about cutting funding to police and redirecting it to social services, many Americans balk. In an ABC/Ipsos poll conducted June 10-11, 60 percent of Americans opposed shifting funding from police departments to mental health, housing, and education programs, while just 39 percent supported such a plan.
But the PerryUndem researchers asked the question a little differently: “Right now,” their survey read, “taxpayer dollars for police departments go to all kinds of things police officers are responsible for — from writing up traffic accident reports for insurance companies to resolving disputes between neighbors to investigating murders.”
Respondents were then asked if they supported having some of those taxpayer dollars — and the responsibility that goes along with them — directed elsewhere instead. Most said yes.
In addition to the 72 percent who said they supported redirecting money from police departments to pay for mental health experts, 70 percent said they would support having taxpayer dollars reallocated to “pay for a health care professional to go to a medical emergency, instead of an armed police officer.” And 66 percent said they supported reallocating funds to “pay for a social worker to respond to a call about a homeless person who is loitering, instead of an armed police officer.”
The poll also asked Americans if they would support an option short of full defunding, in which “police could focus on crimes like burglary and murder, and other service providers could focus on emergency calls about addiction, mental illness, and homelessness.” A full 61 percent of respondents supported this option, and just 16 percent opposed it (22 percent said they were unsure).
The differences between the PerryUndem results and previous polling are especially striking among white respondents. Black Americans tend to support police defunding at higher rates than other groups — in the ABC poll, for example, 57 percent of Black respondents supported defunding, compared with just 26 percent of white respondents. But in the PerryUndem poll, a full 67 percent of white respondents supported redirecting funds to send a mental health professional to a mental health emergency, and 64 percent supported reallocating money to send a social worker to a call involving a homeless person (87 percent and 71 percent of Black respondents, respectively, supported these changes).
Some of the differences between the PerryUndem poll and others likely have to do with language. The phrase “defunding the police” has been unpopular in many polls, and the concept of reallocating funding, while more popular, still hasn’t always gotten the support that PerryUndem saw. But when ABC/Ipsos asked about reallocation, the question was framed more generally, in terms of programs, and emphasized the loss to police: “Do you support or oppose reducing the budget of the police department in your community, even if that means fewer police officers, if the money is shifted to programs related to mental health, housing, and education?”
PerryUndem, by contrast, framed the question specifically around who would respond to certain emergencies. Undem believes this matters. “When something is brand new,” like public understanding of police defunding, she said, “the more descriptive the better.”
The PerryUndem poll isn’t the only one in recent weeks to find support for shifting at least some police funding. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted June 9-10 found that among people who were familiar with proposals to move police funding into better officer training, anti-homelessness programs, mental health services, and other initiatives, 76 percent supported them.
And in general, the debate around how to reform, change, or replace police departments in America is still being defined. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 51 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with proposals to shift police funding — a majority, but a slim one, with lots of room for learning.
Perhaps this is what is most telling about these polls: Many Americans, especially white people, seem to be open to learning and changing their beliefs. In the PerryUndem poll, for example, 52 percent of white respondents said they want to learn about how laws and systems in America may be racist. And 64 percent said they want to learn which police reforms have worked or not worked.
And in the past month, they seem to have taken their quest for education seriously, at least by some measures. Books about anti-racism dominate bestseller lists (though some have pointed out the limits of reading alone), and protest organizers are reporting a large number of white people getting involved in demonstrations, many for the first time.
All this suggests that while the phrase “defund the police” may poll poorly now, the PerryUndem data is a reminder that none of this is fixed. In fact, the country may be entering a rare period of open-mindedness on issues of racism and policing, in which people’s opinions and allegiances could be evolving — and they may be willing to think seriously about big changes they would have dismissed just a few weeks ago.


vox--2020-06-23--Senate Democrats say the Republican police reform bill is “not salvageable”

Senate Democrats , in a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , have unequivocally rejected further consideration of Republicans ’ police reform bill — legislation they think falls far short of the policy changes they ’ d like to see .
“ We will not meet this moment by holding a floor vote on the JUSTICE Act , nor can we simply amend this bill , which is so threadbare and lacking in substance that it does not even provide a proper baseline for negotiations , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sens .
Kamala Harris and Cory Book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill is not salvageable and we need bipartisan talks to get to a constructive starting point.
” Both congressional Democrats and Republicans have introduced police reforms as hundreds of thousands of protesters around the country continue to condemn police brutality toward Black Americans , though they ’ ve differed noticeably in scope .
While Democrats ’ wide-ranging bill , the Justice in Policing Act , addresses a national use of force standard and a raft of legal protections police currently have , Republicans ’ legislation focuses much more heavily on data collection and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noting , too , that both are much narrower than what protesters have demanded .
Democrats , thus far , have shied away from backing efforts to “ defund the police , ” which focus on shifting funds from law enforcement toward other social services like education and food aid that could address the root causes of inequities .
McConnell had previously announced that the Senate would hold a floor vote to open debate on the Republican bill , led by Sen. Tim Scott ( R-SC ) , this Wednesday .
That would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning seven Democrats would have to join the 53 Republicans in the upper chamber and vote in favor of it for the legislation to advance .
As Politico ’ s Burgess Everett reported , the nature of the vote appeared to put some Democrats in a tough position : Since the vote would open debate on the measure , some lawmakers wondered whether supporting it could help kick off discussion about amendments and worried that opposing it would look obstructionist as voters across the country demanded change .
As Tuesday ’ s letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the bill — which does not curb “ qualified immunity ” protections police have that shield them from legal accountability for misconduct , nor establish a federal ban on chokeholds — didn ’ t warrant floor debate .
Instead , lawmakers are urging Republicans to negotiate the text of the bill before holding any further votes on the legislation .
“ The bill that is being put forth by Leader McConnell is wholly unacceptable to bringing accountability , transparency , consequences , when our common values as a country are violated , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Tuesday .
Democrats are calling out key differences between the two bills Although there is some overlap between the police reform bills recently introduced by Democrats and Republicans , there are also massive differences , which Democrats called out point by point in their letter .
Chief among these is the lack of legal accountability demanded of police in the Republican bill .
“ In a moment calling for police accountability , the JUSTICE Act , your proposed answer to this crisis , does not contain any mechanisms to hold law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Harris , Booker , and Schumer write .
Democrats ’ legislation would limit “ qualified immunity , ” a legal doctrine that makes it difficult to sue police for misconduct : In order to even go to trial with an allegation of police misconduct , an individual needs to show not only that the alleged misconduct was a violation of their civil rights , but also that there ’ s precedent for that same action being considered unlawful in prior cases .
Republicans ’ bill , meanwhile , does not restrict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the provision a “ poison pill ” and noted that including it would prevent Republicans from supporting the bill .
Additionally , Democrats ’ bill would further empower prosecutors to scrutinize police for misconduct and grant the Justice Department subpoena power in “ pattern or practice ” investigations examining whether police departments have engaged in racial discrimination , two areas the Republican version fails to address .
Beyond its focus on legal accountability , Democrats ’ bill would also impose federal bans on chokeholds and the use of “ no knock ” warrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation would use funding to incentivize state and local police departments to ban chokeholds and study data on the use of no-knock warrants .
Areas where the bills overlap include a focus on ramping up the usage of police body cameras and a measure that would make lynching a federal crime .
Senate Democrats ’ decision now shifts the focus on to Republicans , who ’ ve been determined to hold a vote on the bill on Wednesday — one that ’ s now widely expected to fail .
McConnell , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote was intended to demonstrate the party ’ s interest in making progress on reforms .
“ Discussion .
Debate .
Votes on amendments .
Tomorrow , we ’ ll find out whether even these modest steps are a bridge too far for our colleagues on the Democratic side , ” he said .
Democrats , however , are eager to include more of their input before any bill comes to the floor .
Rather than mark up the JUSTICE Act in committee , for example , Senate Republicans immediately brought it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By expressing their intentions to sink the floor vote on Wednesday , Democrats are forcing Republicans to consider possible concessions on their legislation .
Meanwhile , the House is on a parallel track : After the Judiciary Committee approved Democrats ’ police reform bill along party lines last week , the entire chamber is poised to vote on its legislation this Thursday , and it will likely pass .
At that point , the Senate is able to either take up the House bill or commit to developing a compromise bill that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the upper chamber .
Since Republicans have already dismissed Democrats ’ legislation as a nonstarter , it ’ s likely lawmakers will need to put together another offering entirely .
“ It is within our grasp , ” said Harris in a floor speech on Tuesday .
“ People from every state , all 50 states , every walk of life , are demanding we take the problem of police brutality seriously .
We have this opportunity , and we should see it as such.
” Every day at Vox , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 to continue to offer free articles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Senate Democrats, in a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have unequivocally rejected further consideration of Republicans’ police reform bill — legislation they think falls far short of the policy changes they’d like to see.
“We will not meet this moment by holding a floor vote on the JUSTICE Act, nor can we simply amend this bill, which is so threadbare and lacking in substance that it does not even provide a proper baseline for negotiations,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker write in the letter. “This bill is not salvageable and we need bipartisan talks to get to a constructive starting point.”
Both congressional Democrats and Republicans have introduced police reforms as hundreds of thousands of protesters around the country continue to condemn police brutality toward Black Americans, though they’ve differed noticeably in scope. While Democrats’ wide-ranging bill, the Justice in Policing Act, addresses a national use of force standard and a raft of legal protections police currently have, Republicans’ legislation focuses much more heavily on data collection and training protocols.
It’s worth noting, too, that both are much narrower than what protesters have demanded. Democrats, thus far, have shied away from backing efforts to “defund the police,” which focus on shifting funds from law enforcement toward other social services like education and food aid that could address the root causes of inequities.
McConnell had previously announced that the Senate would hold a floor vote to open debate on the Republican bill, led by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), this Wednesday. That would need 60 votes to move forward, meaning seven Democrats would have to join the 53 Republicans in the upper chamber and vote in favor of it for the legislation to advance.
As Politico’s Burgess Everett reported, the nature of the vote appeared to put some Democrats in a tough position: Since the vote would open debate on the measure, some lawmakers wondered whether supporting it could help kick off discussion about amendments and worried that opposing it would look obstructionist as voters across the country demanded change.
As Tuesday’s letter indicates, however, Democrats ultimately determined that the bill — which does not curb “qualified immunity” protections police have that shield them from legal accountability for misconduct, nor establish a federal ban on chokeholds — didn’t warrant floor debate.
Instead, lawmakers are urging Republicans to negotiate the text of the bill before holding any further votes on the legislation.
“The bill that is being put forth by Leader McConnell is wholly unacceptable to bringing accountability, transparency, consequences, when our common values as a country are violated,” Booker said during a floor speech on Tuesday.
Democrats are calling out key differences between the two bills
Although there is some overlap between the police reform bills recently introduced by Democrats and Republicans, there are also massive differences, which Democrats called out point by point in their letter.
Chief among these is the lack of legal accountability demanded of police in the Republican bill.
“In a moment calling for police accountability, the JUSTICE Act, your proposed answer to this crisis, does not contain any mechanisms to hold law enforcement officers accountable in court for their misconduct,” Harris, Booker, and Schumer write.
Democrats’ legislation would limit “qualified immunity,” a legal doctrine that makes it difficult to sue police for misconduct: In order to even go to trial with an allegation of police misconduct, an individual needs to show not only that the alleged misconduct was a violation of their civil rights, but also that there’s precedent for that same action being considered unlawful in prior cases. Republicans’ bill, meanwhile, does not restrict qualified immunity. Scott has previously dubbed the provision a “poison pill” and noted that including it would prevent Republicans from supporting the bill.
Additionally, Democrats’ bill would further empower prosecutors to scrutinize police for misconduct and grant the Justice Department subpoena power in “pattern or practice” investigations examining whether police departments have engaged in racial discrimination, two areas the Republican version fails to address.
Beyond its focus on legal accountability, Democrats’ bill would also impose federal bans on chokeholds and the use of “no knock” warrants in drug cases, while the Republican legislation would use funding to incentivize state and local police departments to ban chokeholds and study data on the use of no-knock warrants.
Areas where the bills overlap include a focus on ramping up the usage of police body cameras and a measure that would make lynching a federal crime.
Democrats’ move puts pressure on Republicans
Senate Democrats’ decision now shifts the focus on to Republicans, who’ve been determined to hold a vote on the bill on Wednesday — one that’s now widely expected to fail.
McConnell, in a floor speech on Tuesday, noted that the vote was intended to demonstrate the party’s interest in making progress on reforms. “Discussion. Debate. Votes on amendments. Tomorrow, we’ll find out whether even these modest steps are a bridge too far for our colleagues on the Democratic side,” he said.
Democrats, however, are eager to include more of their input before any bill comes to the floor. Rather than mark up the JUSTICE Act in committee, for example, Senate Republicans immediately brought it to the floor for a vote. By expressing their intentions to sink the floor vote on Wednesday, Democrats are forcing Republicans to consider possible concessions on their legislation.
Meanwhile, the House is on a parallel track: After the Judiciary Committee approved Democrats’ police reform bill along party lines last week, the entire chamber is poised to vote on its legislation this Thursday, and it will likely pass.
At that point, the Senate is able to either take up the House bill or commit to developing a compromise bill that can receive the 60 votes needed to advance in the upper chamber. Since Republicans have already dismissed Democrats’ legislation as a nonstarter, it’s likely lawmakers will need to put together another offering entirely.
“It is within our grasp,” said Harris in a floor speech on Tuesday. “People from every state, all 50 states, every walk of life, are demanding we take the problem of police brutality seriously. We have this opportunity, and we should see it as such.”


vox--2020-06-23--Fauci: Coronavirus vaccine could be available by end of 2020

Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert , told Congress Tuesday that he ’ s “ cautiously optimistic ” about the development of a coronavirus vaccine , saying that he believes one could be available as soon as the end of this year , or the beginning of 2021 .
Fauci ’ s update came during a House Energy and Commerce Committee on the Trump administration ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic .
Fauci testified along with other top officials leading the nation ’ s efforts against the coronavirus , specifically Centers for Disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Steven Hahn , and Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir .
“ We feel cautiously optimistic , based on the concerted effort and the fact we are taking financial risks — not risks to safety , not risks to the integrity of the science , but financial risk to be able to be ahead of the game — so that when , and I believe it will be when and not if , we get favorable candidates with good results , we will be able to make them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci testified Tuesday .
“ It would put us at the end of this calendar year and the beginning of 2021.
” Fauci referred to at least one vaccine trial , led by the biotech firm Moderna , that is expected to enter Phase 3 study by July , where a small dose of vaccine will be given to about 30,000 people to test its efficacy .
Fauci said other promising vaccine candidates are just a few months behind .
The Moderna trials have gotten a lot of attention for the “ positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Phase 1 trial , results of which were reported in May .
But even as the vaccine accelerates to Phase 3 , the company is still compiling data from previous trials .
In the race to discover a vaccine , the FDA has loosened to rules and allowed trials to merge or run concurrently .
Fauci and his colleagues emphasized that they won ’ t release a vaccine until it ’ s safe and effective .
“ Acceleration is not cutting corners with respect to the assessment of safety and effectiveness , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testified .
“ The American people can rely on the fact FDA has many experts in the vaccine area.
” As Vox ’ s Umair Irfan has written , without available treatments for Covid-19 , the entire world is racing to discover a vaccine .
But there ’ s still a lot that ’ s unclear , including whether a vaccine will grant lifetime immunity or last just a couple of years .
And such a rapid timeline — a vaccine by the end of the year — is unprecedented .
The previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years .
Some experts are still skeptical of this ambitious timeline , just 12 to 18 months after the novel coronavirus began spreading : “ It ’ s conceivable we could have something in that timeline — if everything goes right , ” Kendall Hoyt , a vaccine and biosecurity expert at Dartmouth , told Vox ’ s German Lopez in May .
And a newly optimistic timeline for a vaccine doesn ’ t diminish the current coronavirus emergency in the United States , where many states are seeing spikes in cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Tuesday ’ s hearing , the United States ’ response to the pandemic is a “ mixed bag.
” Places hit hard and early by the coronavirus , such as New York City , have mitigated the spread , brought infection rates way down , and are following a phased reopening plan .
“ However , in other areas we are seeing a disturbing surge of infections , ” Fauci told the House panel .
He said this required testing to identify and isolate cases to stop the spread , and contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so states and localities can intervene .
“ Right now the next couple of weeks are going to be critical in our ability to address those surges we are seeing in Florida , Texas , Arizona , and other states , ” Fauci said .
“ They are not the only ones having difficulty .
Bottom line , it is a mixed bag.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 a contribution to Vox today @

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, told Congress Tuesday that he’s “cautiously optimistic” about the development of a coronavirus vaccine, saying that he believes one could be available as soon as the end of this year, or the beginning of 2021.
Fauci’s update came during a House Energy and Commerce Committee on the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Fauci testified along with other top officials leading the nation’s efforts against the coronavirus, specifically Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Steven Hahn, and Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir.
“We feel cautiously optimistic, based on the concerted effort and the fact we are taking financial risks — not risks to safety, not risks to the integrity of the science, but financial risk to be able to be ahead of the game — so that when, and I believe it will be when and not if, we get favorable candidates with good results, we will be able to make them available to the American public,” Fauci testified Tuesday. “It would put us at the end of this calendar year and the beginning of 2021.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci says one potential coronavirus vaccine that has shown "some very favorable responses" in animal models will enter a Phase 3 study in July: "We feel cautiously optimistic" https://t.co/ucYEPfMiNt pic.twitter.com/aXM9ixJOKG — CBS News (@CBSNews) June 23, 2020
Fauci referred to at least one vaccine trial, led by the biotech firm Moderna, that is expected to enter Phase 3 study by July, where a small dose of vaccine will be given to about 30,000 people to test its efficacy. Fauci said other promising vaccine candidates are just a few months behind.
The Moderna trials have gotten a lot of attention for the “positive interim” data from the firm’s Phase 1 trial, results of which were reported in May. But even as the vaccine accelerates to Phase 3, the company is still compiling data from previous trials. In the race to discover a vaccine, the FDA has loosened to rules and allowed trials to merge or run concurrently.
Fauci and his colleagues emphasized that they won’t release a vaccine until it’s safe and effective. “Acceleration is not cutting corners with respect to the assessment of safety and effectiveness,” Hahn, the FDA commissioner, testified. “The American people can rely on the fact FDA has many experts in the vaccine area.”
As Vox’s Umair Irfan has written, without available treatments for Covid-19, the entire world is racing to discover a vaccine. But there’s still a lot that’s unclear, including whether a vaccine will grant lifetime immunity or last just a couple of years. And such a rapid timeline — a vaccine by the end of the year — is unprecedented. The previous record, for mumps, stands at four years.
Some experts are still skeptical of this ambitious timeline, just 12 to 18 months after the novel coronavirus began spreading: “It’s conceivable we could have something in that timeline — if everything goes right,” Kendall Hoyt, a vaccine and biosecurity expert at Dartmouth, told Vox’s German Lopez in May.
And a newly optimistic timeline for a vaccine doesn’t diminish the current coronavirus emergency in the United States, where many states are seeing spikes in cases and positivity rates.
As Fauci testified at Tuesday’s hearing, the United States’ response to the pandemic is a “mixed bag.” Places hit hard and early by the coronavirus, such as New York City, have mitigated the spread, brought infection rates way down, and are following a phased reopening plan.
“However, in other areas we are seeing a disturbing surge of infections,” Fauci told the House panel. He said this required testing to identify and isolate cases to stop the spread, and contact tracing to understand where infections are originating, so states and localities can intervene. “Right now the next couple of weeks are going to be critical in our ability to address those surges we are seeing in Florida, Texas, Arizona, and other states,” Fauci said. “They are not the only ones having difficulty. Bottom line, it is a mixed bag.”


vox--2020-06-23--Trump’s catastrophic failure on testing is no joke

Rallying the faithful in Tulsa , Oklahoma , on Saturday night , President Trump opined that “ testing is a double-edged sword , ” explaining that “ when you do testing to that extent , you ’ re going to find more people ; you ’ re going to find more cases .
So I said to my people , ‘ Slow the testing down please.
’ ” The president confessing to a deliberate effort to sabotage Covid-19 testing would , of course , be a huge scandal , so his senior staff immediately began explaining that he was just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impromptu interview , Trump said , “ I don ’ t kid , ” and in a tweet that morning he reiterated what appears to be his real view , which is that whether or not he has actually been sabotaging testing , he kind of wishes he was because all case growth , in his opinion , is an artifact of testing .
This is not accurate .
Not only has the raw count of positive tests started to rise again , the share of tests that are positive has also begun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , hard numbers like hospitalizations are also on the way up .
But Trump ’ s clinging to this talking point and his ambivalent feelings about tests are anything but a joke — they ’ ve been a characteristic element of his catastrophic leadership failure from the early days of the crisis .
In the earliest days of the outbreak in the United States , Trump quipped that he didn ’ t really want to see sick passengers onboard the Grand Princess cruise ship come ashore for treatment because “ I like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his most recent line , that was , on some level , a joke .
And his administration bowed to medical expertise and brought the US citizens on the ship to shore .
But a person makes a joke over and over and over again to express something real — in Trump ’ s case , he doesn ’ t like to make policy changes that generate statistics that reflect poorly on him .
In early March , when America ’ s testing capacity was plainly inadequate , Trump spent a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than focusing on improving testing to get a handle on the situation .
Indeed , the very same day as he made the Grand Princess quip , he infamously insisted that “ anybody that wants a test can get a test ” when this was obviously untrue .
The testing failures to that point were more widespread and more complicated than simply Trump doing a bad job .
But as the extent of the problem became clear , Trump did not signal any real desire to fix it — claiming things were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rosy numbers over accurate numbers , which experts have warned is an approach that could backfire .
While testing has improved since then due to grassroots demand , congressional insistence , and state policy action , it ’ s still not where it needs to be , and the president keeps expressing ambivalence .
Trump wields testing as an excuse rather than as a tool Case levels in the United States are now back up to where they were in late March .
Nevertheless , it is misleading to say that the outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in late March because test volumes have increased substantially .
Back then , because of supply constraints in testing , we were clearly missing a lot of cases .
Today that is a much less common problem , so the official case count reflects a larger share of the true case count , and today ’ s true case count is consequently lower than where it was at the previous official peak .
That ’ s the ray of truth in things like Trump ’ s May 15 quip that “ if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have very few cases , ” as well as his more recent remarks .
There is , in other words , a true perverse element in the politics of disaster response .
To be maximally effective , you need accurate information .
But the media likes simple objective indicators like “ this is the number of positive test results , ” so to an extent , you get punished for doing the right thing .
But as a political leader , you ’ re supposed to do the right thing , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s little ironies .
Trump , having essentially devolved responsibility for testing to the states , now just likes to wield his observation about test volumes being a “ double-edged sword ” as a way to spin away bad news .
In reality , however , a glance at the high and rising positivity rates in Texas , Florida , and Arizona makes it clear that the Sunbelt outbreak currently worrying people is not an artifact of elevated testing .
And even as the aggregate national testing numbers have improved , many states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his general philosophy of abdication , Trump isn ’ t doing anything to rush extra test capacity to places that need it .
This is all because Trump seems to see testing as a political football rather than as a useful tool for controlling the spread of the coronavirus .
There are basically two ways to get an outbreak under control .
One is by restricting activities so that silent spreaders don ’ t accidentally infect others .
The other is to test people , isolate positive results , then track their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolate the positives or isolate them all until they test as infection-free .
Trump doesn ’ t like the activity restrictions idea .
He ’ s encouraged protests against governors who try to impose restrictions and is blocking the kind of aid to state and local governments that would make restrictions sustainable .
But we also still don ’ t have a real national strategy for tests .
They ’ re not available in sufficient quantity when it counts , the turnaround time on most of the publicly available tests is too slow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tools , and there are no initiatives underway to routinely test likely spreaders , randomly test population samples , or otherwise use them for non-diagnostic purposes .
This has left the country without much hope of achieving the kind of success Korea or Germany has had in containing and reversing outbreaks , leaving the US essentially to just hope for the best in terms of breakthroughs in treatment and vaccination .
It ’ s an extremely scary situation , and there ’ s nothing funny about it .
Every day at Vox , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 to continue to offer free articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Rallying the faithful in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Saturday night, President Trump opined that “testing is a double-edged sword,” explaining that “when you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people; you’re going to find more cases. So I said to my people, ‘Slow the testing down please.’”
The president confessing to a deliberate effort to sabotage Covid-19 testing would, of course, be a huge scandal, so his senior staff immediately began explaining that he was just joking. But on Tuesday in an impromptu interview, Trump said, “I don’t kid,” and in a tweet that morning he reiterated what appears to be his real view, which is that whether or not he has actually been sabotaging testing, he kind of wishes he was because all case growth, in his opinion, is an artifact of testing.
Cases are going up in the U.S. because we are testing far more than any other country, and ever expanding. With smaller testing we would show fewer cases! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 23, 2020
This is not accurate. Not only has the raw count of positive tests started to rise again, the share of tests that are positive has also begun to rise. And in certain key states, hard numbers like hospitalizations are also on the way up. But Trump’s clinging to this talking point and his ambivalent feelings about tests are anything but a joke — they’ve been a characteristic element of his catastrophic leadership failure from the early days of the crisis.
Trump has prioritized good numbers over good results
In the earliest days of the outbreak in the United States, Trump quipped that he didn’t really want to see sick passengers onboard the Grand Princess cruise ship come ashore for treatment because “I like the numbers where they are.”
Like his most recent line, that was, on some level, a joke. And his administration bowed to medical expertise and brought the US citizens on the ship to shore. But a person makes a joke over and over and over again to express something real — in Trump’s case, he doesn’t like to make policy changes that generate statistics that reflect poorly on him.
In early March, when America’s testing capacity was plainly inadequate, Trump spent a lot of time touting the allegedly low case numbers rather than focusing on improving testing to get a handle on the situation. Indeed, the very same day as he made the Grand Princess quip, he infamously insisted that “anybody that wants a test can get a test” when this was obviously untrue. The testing failures to that point were more widespread and more complicated than simply Trump doing a bad job. But as the extent of the problem became clear, Trump did not signal any real desire to fix it — claiming things were fine and demonstrating a clear preference for rosy numbers over accurate numbers, which experts have warned is an approach that could backfire.
While testing has improved since then due to grassroots demand, congressional insistence, and state policy action, it’s still not where it needs to be, and the president keeps expressing ambivalence.
Trump wields testing as an excuse rather than as a tool
Case levels in the United States are now back up to where they were in late March.
Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that the outbreak is as widespread today as it was in late March because test volumes have increased substantially. Back then, because of supply constraints in testing, we were clearly missing a lot of cases. Today that is a much less common problem, so the official case count reflects a larger share of the true case count, and today’s true case count is consequently lower than where it was at the previous official peak.
That’s the ray of truth in things like Trump’s May 15 quip that “if we didn’t do any testing we would have very few cases,” as well as his more recent remarks.
There is, in other words, a true perverse element in the politics of disaster response. To be maximally effective, you need accurate information. But the media likes simple objective indicators like “this is the number of positive test results,” so to an extent, you get punished for doing the right thing. But as a political leader, you’re supposed to do the right thing, not just make wry observations about life’s little ironies. Trump, having essentially devolved responsibility for testing to the states, now just likes to wield his observation about test volumes being a “double-edged sword” as a way to spin away bad news.
In reality, however, a glance at the high and rising positivity rates in Texas, Florida, and Arizona makes it clear that the Sunbelt outbreak currently worrying people is not an artifact of elevated testing. And even as the aggregate national testing numbers have improved, many states continue to lag, and in keeping with his general philosophy of abdication, Trump isn’t doing anything to rush extra test capacity to places that need it.
This is all because Trump seems to see testing as a political football rather than as a useful tool for controlling the spread of the coronavirus. There are basically two ways to get an outbreak under control. One is by restricting activities so that silent spreaders don’t accidentally infect others. The other is to test people, isolate positive results, then track their contacts and either test them all and isolate the positives or isolate them all until they test as infection-free.
Trump doesn’t like the activity restrictions idea. He’s encouraged protests against governors who try to impose restrictions and is blocking the kind of aid to state and local governments that would make restrictions sustainable. But we also still don’t have a real national strategy for tests. They’re not available in sufficient quantity when it counts, the turnaround time on most of the publicly available tests is too slow to make them fully useful as screening tools, and there are no initiatives underway to routinely test likely spreaders, randomly test population samples, or otherwise use them for non-diagnostic purposes.
This has left the country without much hope of achieving the kind of success Korea or Germany has had in containing and reversing outbreaks, leaving the US essentially to just hope for the best in terms of breakthroughs in treatment and vaccination. It’s an extremely scary situation, and there’s nothing funny about it.