vox--2020-04-02--Calling health care workers “heroes” erases just how terrified and exposed they really are

“ I wish I wasn ’ t a doctor .
I wish I wasn ’ t terrified at what I may be asked to do .
I wish I could self isolate , ” Dr. Rebecca Lawrence , a consultant psychiatrist in addiction in Edinburgh , Scotland , wrote on Twitter last weekend .
As physicians ourselves , we find Lawrence ’ s sentiments understandable , her worries heartbreaking .
All of it is tangible and real in the face of a pandemic that has already cost the lives of many health care workers , and poised to take even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most telling about her tweet is that she prefaced her comments by saying , “ I ’ m going to say something unpopular , ” and then ended it with an apology .
It ’ s as though she felt like she should not , as a physician , express fear about this pandemic .
She had to be a good doctor , stepping up to take care of others , without doubting her role and questioning the risk .
It is as if she believed that physicians can not be both heroes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we deal with daily .
Just like everyone else , we have difficulties processing the new post-pandemic reality .
We want to stand up for our colleagues to make sure those on the frontlines have the equipment they need to protect themselves , but doctors ’ voices are being silenced all over the country .
Hospital workers in New York are being told not to talk to the media , and some are being fired for questioning the safety of the personal protective equipment they are provided .
This relays the message that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really matter .
Meanwhile , we have anger , sadness , fear , and anxiety , immense feelings that seem to come out of nowhere , like a tidal wave , and scare us .
We choke them down to just do our jobs .
Because that is what doctors are supposed to do .
Most physicians are trained to put patients first .
That ethos is drilled into us from the time we start medical school .
Indeed , we have forsaken ourselves so frequently and for so long that the medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than many other professions .
And , while 80 percent of physicians say practicing self-care is “ very important ” to them , barely more than half of them practice it often .
In other words , we do not practice what we preach .
This is especially the case with emotional expression .
While patients have said they would be open to , or even appreciate seeing a physician cry , most physicians do not cry in front of patients and view it as inappropriate , unprofessional , or weak .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a loss of empathy related to the immense distress and burnout trainees experience .
Physicians ’ interest in the lives of our patients and connecting with them emotionally wanes over the course of our training as we are exposed to more trauma and role models that seem to pride themselves on their lack of emotion .
Although there have been more conversations in recent years around how physicians cope with death and dying , expressing emotion is still not commonplace or expected .
Now add the stresses of a pandemic .
Just imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your training taught you to put patients first and to show no emotions .
You did that .
But now you are under even more pressure than you ever thought you would experience .
You are practicing medicine without adequate personal protective equipment to keep you from getting infected .
You may be moving out of your home indefinitely in order to minimize risk of infecting your family .
Your own health and the health of your colleagues are constantly at risk .
And , you very likely will need to choose who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could even end up taking care of an intubated friend .
We have anger , sadness , fear , and anxiety , immense feelings that seem to come out of nowhere , like a tidal wave , and scare us You might also be “ redeployed , ” a word that invokes military service with its very usage .
In this context , however , being redeployed means being asked to practice a different type of medicine than the one you were trained to do .
For example , a psychiatrist could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a surgeon could cover an intensive care unit .
A physician might even be asked to go work in a different state .
Like being a member of the military , being a doctor now means serving others regardless of your own needs .
This duty even supersedes graduations and retirements .
In some states , medical students who have not yet graduated are being asked to start working as medical interns .
Despite evidence suggesting older people are particularly vulnerable to coronavirus , hundreds of retired physicians are also signing up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve others is a noble , beautiful thing about our workforce .
But even for a profession that has historically always placed patient needs first , the degree of sacrifice being demanded of us now is unprecedented .
Then , on top of all of these additional stressors , we still try to hold it in .
So what happens if you finally want to talk about — or , even , question — the demands placed on physicians ?
Early on in medical training , we learned that being a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , never expressing concern or doubt and always being a good “ team player.
” When things go seriously wrong in the care of patients , we analyze what happened .
Just as is the case with every other failure we know about ( for example , Chernobyl ) , when there have been adverse medical outcomes , there was often someone who could have spoken up but didn ’ t .
This is a direct consequence of the strict hierarchy and culture of silence in medicine .
It ’ s no surprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was fired in Seattle after speaking up and asking for more personal protective equipment .
Doctors are supposed to advocate for others but never for ourselves , lest we seem selfish or unappreciative .
If it seems like we are exaggerating , keep in mind that doctors almost never take sick days because we don ’ t want to let down our patients or burden our colleagues .
We also worry about parental leave for the same reason .
If we don ’ t take adequate time for ourselves even when we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can you imagine a doctor saying no to redeployment ?
We can ’ t either .
But that does not mean we should not talk about it and discuss and process the difficulties and emotions associated with all of these challenges .
It does not mean we shouldn ’ t advocate for and support each other and even cry if we need to .
Those of us who do cry or speak up , even publicly , are not worse doctors for it .
All over this country , doctors are putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into hospitals knowing they might become infected .
We know mental health outcomes in frontline providers are real and tangible , and happened at high prevalences in China , and we can only expect that to happen here .
In private online groups and personal conversations , many are frightened and tearful , desperate to gain some control over their environment , trying to combat their inability to protect themselves and their loved ones .
So go ahead , clap and cheer for doctors — we need that right now .
But also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We need to cry , scream , and be able to tell the truth , too .
We don ’ t want to end up crushing these medical professionals who are carrying too much weight as it is .
Arghavan Salles , MD , PhD is a scholar in residence at Stanford University School of Medicine .
She is also a surgeon .
Find her on Twitter here .
Jessica Gold , MD , MS , is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis .
Find @ @ @ @ @

“I wish I wasn’t a doctor. I wish I wasn’t terrified at what I may be asked to do. I wish I could self isolate,” Dr. Rebecca Lawrence, a consultant psychiatrist in addiction in Edinburgh, Scotland, wrote on Twitter last weekend.
As physicians ourselves, we find Lawrence’s sentiments understandable, her worries heartbreaking. All of it is tangible and real in the face of a pandemic that has already cost the lives of many health care workers, and poised to take even more.
But what is perhaps the most telling about her tweet is that she prefaced her comments by saying, “I’m going to say something unpopular,” and then ended it with an apology. It’s as though she felt like she should not, as a physician, express fear about this pandemic. She had to be a good doctor, stepping up to take care of others, without doubting her role and questioning the risk. It is as if she believed that physicians cannot be both heroes and human.
I’m going to say something unpopular
I wish I wasn’t a doctor
I wish I wasn’t terrified at what I may be asked to do
I wish I could self isolate
Sorry — Rebecca Lawrence T (@Rebecca99LT) March 28, 2020
This is a struggle we deal with daily. Just like everyone else, we have difficulties processing the new post-pandemic reality. We want to stand up for our colleagues to make sure those on the frontlines have the equipment they need to protect themselves, but doctors’ voices are being silenced all over the country. Hospital workers in New York are being told not to talk to the media, and some are being fired for questioning the safety of the personal protective equipment they are provided. This relays the message that our fears and concerns don’t really matter.
Meanwhile, we have anger, sadness, fear, and anxiety, immense feelings that seem to come out of nowhere, like a tidal wave, and scare us. We choke them down to just do our jobs. Because that is what doctors are supposed to do.
Most physicians are trained to put patients first. That ethos is drilled into us from the time we start medical school. Indeed, we have forsaken ourselves so frequently and for so long that the medical workforce suffers from burnout at higher rates than many other professions. And, while 80 percent of physicians say practicing self-care is “very important” to them, barely more than half of them practice it often. In other words, we do not practice what we preach.
This is especially the case with emotional expression. While patients have said they would be open to, or even appreciate seeing a physician cry, most physicians do not cry in front of patients and view it as inappropriate, unprofessional, or weak. For many, medical training is associated with a loss of empathy related to the immense distress and burnout trainees experience.
Physicians’ interest in the lives of our patients and connecting with them emotionally wanes over the course of our training as we are exposed to more trauma and role models that seem to pride themselves on their lack of emotion. Although there have been more conversations in recent years around how physicians cope with death and dying, expressing emotion is still not commonplace or expected.
Now add the stresses of a pandemic. Just imagine you are a physician right now. Your training taught you to put patients first and to show no emotions. You did that. But now you are under even more pressure than you ever thought you would experience. You are practicing medicine without adequate personal protective equipment to keep you from getting infected. You may be moving out of your home indefinitely in order to minimize risk of infecting your family. Your own health and the health of your colleagues are constantly at risk. And, you very likely will need to choose who gets a ventilator during rationed care and could even end up taking care of an intubated friend.
We have anger, sadness, fear, and anxiety, immense feelings that seem to come out of nowhere, like a tidal wave, and scare us
You might also be “redeployed,” a word that invokes military service with its very usage. In this context, however, being redeployed means being asked to practice a different type of medicine than the one you were trained to do. For example, a psychiatrist could be asked to cover internal medicine, or a surgeon could cover an intensive care unit. A physician might even be asked to go work in a different state. Like being a member of the military, being a doctor now means serving others regardless of your own needs.
This duty even supersedes graduations and retirements. In some states, medical students who have not yet graduated are being asked to start working as medical interns. Despite evidence suggesting older people are particularly vulnerable to coronavirus, hundreds of retired physicians are also signing up to go back to work.
The willingness to serve others is a noble, beautiful thing about our workforce. But even for a profession that has historically always placed patient needs first, the degree of sacrifice being demanded of us now is unprecedented. Then, on top of all of these additional stressors, we still try to hold it in.
So what happens if you finally want to talk about — or, even, question — the demands placed on physicians? Early on in medical training, we learned that being a “good doctor” meant respecting the hierarchy, never expressing concern or doubt and always being a good “team player.” When things go seriously wrong in the care of patients, we analyze what happened. Just as is the case with every other failure we know about (for example, Chernobyl), when there have been adverse medical outcomes, there was often someone who could have spoken up but didn’t. This is a direct consequence of the strict hierarchy and culture of silence in medicine.
It’s no surprise, then, that Dr. Ming Lin was fired in Seattle after speaking up and asking for more personal protective equipment. Doctors are supposed to advocate for others but never for ourselves, lest we seem selfish or unappreciative. If it seems like we are exaggerating, keep in mind that doctors almost never take sick days because we don’t want to let down our patients or burden our colleagues. We also worry about parental leave for the same reason. If we don’t take adequate time for ourselves even when we have brought a new life into the world, can you imagine a doctor saying no to redeployment?
We can’t either. But that does not mean we should not talk about it and discuss and process the difficulties and emotions associated with all of these challenges. It does not mean we shouldn’t advocate for and support each other and even cry if we need to. Those of us who do cry or speak up, even publicly, are not worse doctors for it.
All over this country, doctors are putting on a brave face as they walk into hospitals knowing they might become infected. We know mental health outcomes in frontline providers are real and tangible, and happened at high prevalences in China, and we can only expect that to happen here. In private online groups and personal conversations, many are frightened and tearful, desperate to gain some control over their environment, trying to combat their inability to protect themselves and their loved ones.
So go ahead, clap and cheer for doctors — we need that right now. But also allow us space to be human. We need to cry, scream, and be able to tell the truth, too. We don’t want to end up crushing these medical professionals who are carrying too much weight as it is.
Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD is a scholar in residence at Stanford University School of Medicine. She is also a surgeon. Find her on Twitter here.
Jessica Gold, MD, MS, is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. Find her on Twitter here.


vox--2020-04-02--The stimulus’s $349 billion program to pay workers at struggling small businesses, explained

Evidence-based explanations of the coronavirus crisis , from how it started to how it might end to how to protect yourself and others .
The $ 2.2 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump on March 27 is probably best known for the $ 1,200 checks it authorizes for most American adults .
Its second-most prominent component might be the $ 600-per-week increase it provides to unemployment insurance .
But bigger than either of those programs in dollar terms is the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) the stimulus package creates .
That program , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loan guarantees for small businesses , offered through the Small Business Administration ( SBA ) and its partner banks .
Specifically , it lets businesses take out loans totaling 250 percent of their average monthly payroll in 2019 .
If they spend at least 75 percent of that money to pay their workers , they ’ ll be eligible to have the loans fully forgiven at federal expense .
The application is a simple two-page form , plus documentation .
That is a big deal , and it ’ s a program that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s approach of simply having the government pay companies ’ payrolls for the duration of the crisis .
But it ’ s important to be clear about the bill ’ s design and its limitations .
First and foremost , not every American works for a small business .
As of 2016 — the most recent year for which data is available — only about 47.3 percent of employees worked for businesses covered by the SBA .
Generally , the SBA covers business locations with 500 or fewer employees .
People working for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ franchise , or a hotel company that has locations with 500 or fewer employees , could be covered .
But many others will not be .
Moreover , each business ’ s loan is capped at $ 10 million , which might not be enough to cover the payroll expenses of some larger small businesses .
Second , the design is rather awkward .
The Danish government is making direct grants to businesses to pay their workers .
Out of a desire to get money distributed quickly through the SBA , the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be forgiven later .
But there are strings attached to the loan forgiveness aspect , leading to the possibility that some businesses will take out large loans that aren ’ t forgiven later , leaving them in debt .
“ I have a PhD in economics , and I think this is a headache , ” Adam Ozimek , chief economist at freelancing platform Upwork and the owner of a bowling alley/restaurant in Lancaster , Pennsylvania , tells me .
Most significantly for businesses looking forward , the loans are supposed to last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) , who helped write this section of the stimulus bill , explains that the budgeted amount for the program is meant to cover eight weeks of payroll and operating expenses for all businesses under the SBA ’ s ambit .
But the bill also allows others , like sole proprietors and contractors , to apply for the loans , and when the budgeted amount runs out , the program ’ s done .
Some states like Virginia have already announced stay-at-home orders that extend beyond that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond that would require additional legislation from Congress authorizing more money for the program .
In the meantime , Rubio ’ s office and others are urging small-business owners to contact their banks as soon as possible to apply for the program .
“ The way most banks are treating this is that they ’ re building a wait list of interested businesses , ” the Rubio aide explains .
If you think this program could help you and your workers , the time to act is now .
While the PPP has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach to coronavirus unemployment , the rationale is the same .
The government has forced many businesses to shut down with little or no warning , and the government should cover the costs of that decision .
The SBA has put out an admirably brief , and clear , explanation of how to apply for the program .
It is run primarily through lenders who are part of SBA ’ s 7 ( a ) loan program , its primary means of providing financial assistance to small businesses ( you can see a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) lenders here ) .
For people who don ’ t get them forgiven , the loans have an extremely low interest rate of 0.5 percent ; interest payments are deferred for the first six months after the loan is taken out .
If not forgiven , the loan must by paid in full within two years .
The window to apply is short : Applications open on Friday , April 3 , and close on June 30 .
For independent contractors and the self-employed , they open slightly later , on April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a surprisingly long list of businesses .
Firms with 500 employees or less , which are SBA ’ s usual clientele , are eligible , as are sole proprietorships , contractors , and the self-employed .
Nonprofits are eligible if sufficiently small , and there are special circumstances in which locations with more than 500 employees can be eligible for SBA loans .
The loans also draw a distinction between firms with 500 or fewer employees and locations .
For certain industries , specifically restaurants and hotels , the stimulus bill specifically allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for loans even if they belong to a large national chain .
Hilton , for instance , is hardly a small business : It has about 173,000 employees worldwide .
But an individual Hilton hotel could have fewer than 500 employees , making it eligible for paycheck protection .
Ozimek tells me he ’ s been trying to navigate the application process for his small business : Decades , a bar/restaurant/bowling alley/arcade in Lancaster , Pennsylvania .
The eligibility requirements are laxer than normal for an SBA loan , but still considerable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of payroll reports from the IRS , including detailed information on gross wages , state/local taxes , vacation pay , and more .
The idea is to ensure employers aren ’ t exaggerating their normal payroll costs to get a larger loan .
When it comes to forgiving the loans , several restrictions apply .
Businesses can not be forgiven for loans covering payroll above $ 100,000 per person ; it ’ s not clear if this is inclusive or exclusive of benefits like health care .
Businesses must have spent 75 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs to qualify for forgiveness , and the forgiveness amount will be reduced if payroll costs are lessened through layoffs or wage cuts .
The loans are generally capped at $ 10 million each , which might limit their usefulness for particularly large locations or firms .
The biggest question mark about the legislation is money .
The loans are designed to cover eight weeks of expenses .
Let ’ s say a business wants to use the loan to cover expenses starting this week .
Eight weeks gets you to the week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s far from clear that the coronavirus crisis will be over then .
In Virginia , most notably , the government is asking businesses to shut down for at least two and half weeks after that point .
That means there will be more payrolls the program has to cover , and for longer .
Columbia economist Glenn Hubbard and American Enterprise Institute economist Michael Strain , who estimated that the demand for this kind of loan could easily exceed $ 1 trillion , have proposed a $ 1.2 trillion relief program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently appropriated could dry up rapidly , especially if there ’ s a mad rush .
Hubbard , who was George W. Bush ’ s chief economist , is hardly some big-spending liberal ; economists across the spectrum are warning that we need more small-business support , now .
Ozimek , the economist and small-business owner , says this kind of uncertainty is making it hard for him and similarly situated business owners to plan .
When the coronavirus hit , he laid off servers and cooks at his restaurant and encouraged them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly generous after Congress added $ 600 a week across the board to checks .
Then it became clear that paycheck protection loans would be available .
Ozimek now faces a choice .
He could hire back all of his staff for eight weeks using the PPP money .
But then he ’ d have to either lay them off again or continue to pay them after the loan money runs out , if stay-at-home orders are still in place .
That might wind up costing the business more , and may also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment they ’ re getting .
What he can ’ t do is just take out a PPP loan to cover his mortgage and basic operating expenses while the restaurant ’ s shut down — he wouldn ’ t be using 75 percent of the loan to cover payroll , which means the amount couldn ’ t be forgiven .
“ First the state shuts down your business and you want to get your workers on UI as much as possible , ” Ozimek recaps .
“ Then the Senate starts discussing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on whether you ’ ve retained your staff .
It sets off an early panic where it seems like it ’ s too late .
Then you hear it includes a rehiring provision : As long as we rehire by June 30 , we ’ re fine .
We can borrow money , use it to cover operating expenses , and then we rehire by the 30th and everything ’ s fine .
“ Then in the last 24 hours , Treasury puts out their guidance and says actually , you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payrolls .
So now our plan to rehire by June 30 and use a lot of this on operator expenses , mortgage rent , and utilities — you can ’ t do that anymore.
” Ozimek and the Economic Innovation Group ’ s John Lettieri have proposed a small-business loan program with less stringent spending requirements and long-term repayment of up to 20 years to give companies a longer period to recover .
But that solves a different problem than paycheck protection does .
PPP is meant to both help small businesses remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payroll .
To the latter end , the restrictions on using the money for things besides payroll limit the program ’ s effectiveness at maintaining small businesses ’ solvency , which might be less relevant for firms whose workers would benefit from emergency $ 600-a-week unemployment .
The bottom line is that the paycheck program does some good , but it ’ s too small and , arguably , too inflexible .
It was already clear that Congress would need to act again .
For its “ phase four ” stimulus , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether to help people who are out of work primarily through their old employers or through unemployment insurance , in addition to whether to bail out small businesses so that they persist into the future , above and beyond bailing them out so they can pay workers .
Trying to do both appears to be creating knotty interactions between programs — and leaving small-business owners in a place of uncertainty .

The $2.2 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump on March 27 is probably best known for the $1,200 checks it authorizes for most American adults. Its second-most prominent component might be the $600-per-week increase it provides to unemployment insurance.
But bigger than either of those programs in dollar terms is the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) the stimulus package creates. That program, costing about $349 billion, offers loan guarantees for small businesses, offered through the Small Business Administration (SBA) and its partner banks.
Specifically, it lets businesses take out loans totaling 250 percent of their average monthly payroll in 2019. If they spend at least 75 percent of that money to pay their workers, they’ll be eligible to have the loans fully forgiven at federal expense. The application is a simple two-page form, plus documentation.
That is a big deal, and it’s a program that’s drawn comparisons with Denmark’s approach of simply having the government pay companies’ payrolls for the duration of the crisis. But it’s important to be clear about the bill’s design and its limitations.
First and foremost, not every American works for a small business. As of 2016 — the most recent year for which data is available — only about 47.3 percent of employees worked for businesses covered by the SBA. Generally, the SBA covers business locations with 500 or fewer employees. People working for, say, a McDonald’s franchise, or a hotel company that has locations with 500 or fewer employees, could be covered. But many others will not be. Moreover, each business’s loan is capped at $10 million, which might not be enough to cover the payroll expenses of some larger small businesses.
Second, the design is rather awkward. The Danish government is making direct grants to businesses to pay their workers. Out of a desire to get money distributed quickly through the SBA, the US program is designed as loans that could be forgiven later. But there are strings attached to the loan forgiveness aspect, leading to the possibility that some businesses will take out large loans that aren’t forgiven later, leaving them in debt.
“I have a PhD in economics, and I think this is a headache,” Adam Ozimek, chief economist at freelancing platform Upwork and the owner of a bowling alley/restaurant in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, tells me.
Most significantly for businesses looking forward, the loans are supposed to last only eight weeks. A senior aide to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who helped write this section of the stimulus bill, explains that the budgeted amount for the program is meant to cover eight weeks of payroll and operating expenses for all businesses under the SBA’s ambit. But the bill also allows others, like sole proprietors and contractors, to apply for the loans, and when the budgeted amount runs out, the program’s done.
Some states like Virginia have already announced stay-at-home orders that extend beyond that eight-week window. To cover operating expenses beyond that would require additional legislation from Congress authorizing more money for the program.
In the meantime, Rubio’s office and others are urging small-business owners to contact their banks as soon as possible to apply for the program. “The way most banks are treating this is that they’re building a wait list of interested businesses,” the Rubio aide explains. If you think this program could help you and your workers, the time to act is now.
How the Paycheck Protection Program works
While the PPP has many relevant differences with the famed Danish approach to coronavirus unemployment, the rationale is the same. The government has forced many businesses to shut down with little or no warning, and the government should cover the costs of that decision.
The SBA has put out an admirably brief, and clear, explanation of how to apply for the program. It is run primarily through lenders who are part of SBA’s 7(a) loan program, its primary means of providing financial assistance to small businesses (you can see a list of the biggest 7(a) lenders here). For people who don’t get them forgiven, the loans have an extremely low interest rate of 0.5 percent; interest payments are deferred for the first six months after the loan is taken out. If not forgiven, the loan must by paid in full within two years.
The window to apply is short: Applications open on Friday, April 3, and close on June 30. For independent contractors and the self-employed, they open slightly later, on April 10.
The loans are available to a surprisingly long list of businesses. Firms with 500 employees or less, which are SBA’s usual clientele, are eligible, as are sole proprietorships, contractors, and the self-employed. Nonprofits are eligible if sufficiently small, and there are special circumstances in which locations with more than 500 employees can be eligible for SBA loans.
The loans also draw a distinction between firms with 500 or fewer employees and locations. For certain industries, specifically restaurants and hotels, the stimulus bill specifically allows locations with under 500 employees to apply for loans even if they belong to a large national chain. Hilton, for instance, is hardly a small business: It has about 173,000 employees worldwide. But an individual Hilton hotel could have fewer than 500 employees, making it eligible for paycheck protection.
Ozimek tells me he’s been trying to navigate the application process for his small business: Decades, a bar/restaurant/bowling alley/arcade in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The eligibility requirements are laxer than normal for an SBA loan, but still considerable. Employers must submit their last 12 months of payroll reports from the IRS, including detailed information on gross wages, state/local taxes, vacation pay, and more. The idea is to ensure employers aren’t exaggerating their normal payroll costs to get a larger loan.
When it comes to forgiving the loans, several restrictions apply. Businesses cannot be forgiven for loans covering payroll above $100,000 per person; it’s not clear if this is inclusive or exclusive of benefits like health care. Businesses must have spent 75 percent or more of the loan on payroll costs to qualify for forgiveness, and the forgiveness amount will be reduced if payroll costs are lessened through layoffs or wage cuts. The loans are generally capped at $10 million each, which might limit their usefulness for particularly large locations or firms.
Difficulties with the program
The biggest question mark about the legislation is money.
The loans are designed to cover eight weeks of expenses. Let’s say a business wants to use the loan to cover expenses starting this week. Eight weeks gets you to the week ending Friday, May 22.
It’s far from clear that the coronavirus crisis will be over then. In Virginia, most notably, the government is asking businesses to shut down for at least two and half weeks after that point. That means there will be more payrolls the program has to cover, and for longer.
Columbia economist Glenn Hubbard and American Enterprise Institute economist Michael Strain, who estimated that the demand for this kind of loan could easily exceed $1 trillion, have proposed a $1.2 trillion relief program. This means the $349 billion currently appropriated could dry up rapidly, especially if there’s a mad rush. Hubbard, who was George W. Bush’s chief economist, is hardly some big-spending liberal; economists across the spectrum are warning that we need more small-business support, now.
Ozimek, the economist and small-business owner, says this kind of uncertainty is making it hard for him and similarly situated business owners to plan. When the coronavirus hit, he laid off servers and cooks at his restaurant and encouraged them to go on unemployment, which is newly generous after Congress added $600 a week across the board to checks.
Then it became clear that paycheck protection loans would be available. Ozimek now faces a choice. He could hire back all of his staff for eight weeks using the PPP money. But then he’d have to either lay them off again or continue to pay them after the loan money runs out, if stay-at-home orders are still in place. That might wind up costing the business more, and may also be worse for workers depending on the unemployment they’re getting.
What he can’t do is just take out a PPP loan to cover his mortgage and basic operating expenses while the restaurant’s shut down — he wouldn’t be using 75 percent of the loan to cover payroll, which means the amount couldn’t be forgiven.
“First the state shuts down your business and you want to get your workers on UI as much as possible,” Ozimek recaps. “Then the Senate starts discussing a bill that seems like it will pay based on whether you’ve retained your staff. It sets off an early panic where it seems like it’s too late. Then you hear it includes a rehiring provision: As long as we rehire by June 30, we’re fine. We can borrow money, use it to cover operating expenses, and then we rehire by the 30th and everything’s fine.
“Then in the last 24 hours, Treasury puts out their guidance and says actually, you have to use 75 percent of this for payrolls. So now our plan to rehire by June 30 and use a lot of this on operator expenses, mortgage rent, and utilities — you can’t do that anymore.”
Ozimek and the Economic Innovation Group’s John Lettieri have proposed a small-business loan program with less stringent spending requirements and long-term repayment of up to 20 years to give companies a longer period to recover.
But that solves a different problem than paycheck protection does. PPP is meant to both help small businesses remain solvent and to pay everyone on their payroll. To the latter end, the restrictions on using the money for things besides payroll limit the program’s effectiveness at maintaining small businesses’ solvency, which might be less relevant for firms whose workers would benefit from emergency $600-a-week unemployment.
The bottom line is that the paycheck program does some good, but it’s too small and, arguably, too inflexible. It was already clear that Congress would need to act again. For its “phase four” stimulus, it should be clear about the goal: whether to help people who are out of work primarily through their old employers or through unemployment insurance, in addition to whether to bail out small businesses so that they persist into the future, above and beyond bailing them out so they can pay workers. Trying to do both appears to be creating knotty interactions between programs — and leaving small-business owners in a place of uncertainty.


vox--2020-04-02--You’re single. You live alone. Are you allowed to have a coronavirus buddy?

The coronavirus pandemic has made one thing painfully clear for many single people and people who live alone : The most precious commodity these days is human contact .
Under social distancing , the “ haves ” are those lucky humans who ’ ve got kids , partners , or roommates .
Yes , they may be loud and exhausting and downright crazy-making at times .
But a warm body is a warm body .
To the “ have-nots ” who are isolated in their homes for days or weeks on end , this can seem like an incredible luxury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the same as in-person company .
So over the past couple weeks , I ’ ve heard some of these have-nots asking : What if I create a “ closed circle ” of friends who are all healthy , and we only hang out with each other ?
Say I decide to see only one friend , and I know that she ’ s only seeing one other friend , who ’ s only seeing her .
Then we have a loop of three people who can still have dinner together sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lonely .
Is that okay ?
It ’ s an important question , because even before the coronavirus came along , loneliness was a silent epidemic , afflicting millions around the world .
A meta-review of 70 studies found that loneliness increases your risk of premature mortality by 26 percent .
Some experts say it ’ s as bad for your longevity as smoking .
We know that it actually hurts our white blood cells .
Isolation can also be very harmful to people ’ s mental health , triggering or exacerbating conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideation .
So while we absolutely need to follow social distancing rules as laid out by public health authorities and local governments , we should also ask what we can do to mitigate the “ social recession ” they ’ re causing .
With this in mind , I called a few epidemiologists to ask : For people who are really struggling with isolation , is forming a “ closed circle ” of friends a safe and acceptable strategy ?
The experts explained why , unfortunately , it ’ s not as good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their answers , edited for length and clarity , are below .
Look , I ’ m single , and I get how hard it is .
I went through a 21-day quarantine back in 2014 when I came back from West Africa after treating Ebola .
It ’ s extremely hard .
But I personally wouldn ’ t feel comfortable doing something like this because I don ’ t know where my friends have been .
You have to think about the other people , what potential risk factors they have , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m an infectious diseases doctor , so by nature I don ’ t think people tell me the truth .
I never fully believe people .
My background was in HIV , and I can ’ t tell you how many times my patients would come in and their test would come back positive and they ’ d say , “ I don ’ t know how it got there , it just got there !
” Or any of my other patients , I ’ d ask them about their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d test them and they have gonorrhea or chlamydia and again they say , “ I don ’ t know how it got there !
” This is a human behavior .
You have to gauge how comfortable you feel with that , because there ’ s going to be a risk .
You might trust your friend , but how much do you know the friend they ’ re seeing ?
Can you trust them ?
You ’ re putting your life in their hands at that point .
And the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be presymptomatic or asymptomatic transmission .
I don ’ t want to be exposed to someone who may not be having symptoms but can get me sick .
I understand it ’ s hard to comply with these measures , but at the same , we ’ re talking about life and death here .
I ’ ve seen what happens when people don ’ t adhere .
I ’ ve seen people die .
So I would say it ’ s not okay .
When someone says , “ Stay at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yeah , just do it .
Myself and my colleagues are busting our butts on the front lines to take care of patients right now .
And all I ’ m asking you to do is stay at home and not go out .
I don ’ t think that ’ s too much to ask .
This is the kind of idea that sounds better in theory than it works out to be in reality .
All of us as human beings are flawed .
We set out with great intentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human beings to actually follow through on those kinds of promises .
Entering into these relationships is complicated and it ’ s opening up the potential for risk of transmission .
So I ’ m not going to make a blanket statement that this is a safe thing to do .
I would prefer that people not socialize outside their household .
I feel like people are looking for the magic loophole that will allow them to live as normal a life as possible .
It ’ s very difficult to grant that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ household unit , even if it ’ s as simple as going to the grocery store once a week , does involve a non-zero risk .
But recognizing that this could go on for a long time , I worry about suicidality and extreme forms of mental illness .
I struggle with this because I know of people who are extremely lonely right now and really suffering .
That ’ s important , too .
We all have to go through this calculus of balancing risks and benefits .
... Our drive is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I ’ m positive that for most people , if they interact with only one other human , that will be a dramatic reduction in their social interactions .
But [ if you ’ re going to interact with one other person ] , be very explicit about what the agreement is , and try to choose someone who ’ s got [ a similar level of risk ] .
If you ’ re a writer and can work from home , ideally your friend would also be somebody who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an emergency medicine physician .
Let me give you an example of something else a student of mine decided to do .
She lives alone in Philadelphia and her best friend also lives alone in Philadelphia .
They each isolated themselves for two weeks and then moved in together for the duration [ of the pandemic ] .
I like that plan so much more than the other plans I ’ ve heard of , because then you ’ re in constant communication with the other person and you ’ re aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protective bond .
It ’ s easier to have an ongoing conversation about preventative strategies when you ’ re living with the person .
If people are living separately , one person might forget to update the other .
If you interact with vulnerable people — elderly , immunocompromised — I would discourage you from doing this .
Just stick to FaceTime and Skype .
That being said , at its crux , social distancing doesn ’ t mean you need to stay home by yourself in a dark room .
Really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , small groups of people .
So if you have dinner with a friend , that makes sense as long as it ’ s just you and them .
For people who are going to have those one-on-one friend hangout sessions , it shouldn ’ t be , “ I ’ m going to have five one-on-one sessions with five different people ” — that defeats the purpose .
Really limit it to just one friend .
Also , really limit that exposure .
That means , try to FaceTime as much as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other in person ] a very special thing for when you ’ re both really needing it .
If you ’ re doing it two or three times a week , you ’ re increasing the risk of exposure for both of you .
If you want to be an awesome coronavirus epidemiology buddy , do it every 14 days , because that ’ s the incubation period .
You ’ d want to do that from the last known date of exposure .
That includes going to the grocery store , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a lot of people , there ’ s more potential for exposure to the disease .
Then you want to ask each other , “ Have you been symptom-free for 14 days ?
Have I ?
Yes ?
Okay.
” Harm reduction is a really big piece of this .
All the infection control measures [ like staying at least six feet apart ] are really important during these interactions .
They should wipe down their surfaces before you come over and also clean after you leave .
Try to be somewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a backyard ] .
Don ’ t share eating utensils .
Don ’ t touch your face .
Wash your hands .
And if you start to get sick within a couple weeks of seeing them , you need to notify them .
That transparency is really big .
So , what ’ s the bottom line here ?
This is not the news anybody wants to hear , but the idea that you can safely form an airtight circle of healthy friends is unsound , for three main reasons .
First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have some baseline risk of exposure from going to get necessary items like groceries , or even from traveling across the city to visit one another .
And it ’ s possible that one of you will get sick but show no symptoms .
So the notion that any of us can proclaim ourselves healthy with certainty is , unfortunately , a fiction .
Second , not everyone in your circle will necessarily have the same fidelity as you , so the risk is probably higher than you think .
Many STD studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a fallacy because human beings sometimes cheat on their social contracts and lie about it , or they forget to make certain key disclosures .
Third , forming these circles would be unsustainable on a population level .
Even if each circle has only a small risk of transmission , that risk increases exponentially if lots of us are forming these circles .
The best way to lower both your individual risk and the population-level risk is to simply stay home .
That said , all the experts I spoke to acknowledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmful effects , and we each need to weigh those harms against the benefits .
If your friend who suffers from depression is having a mental health emergency , it may well make sense to visit them .
But if you simply miss your friend and feel a bit lonely ?
Maybe just play a game like Codenames over Zoom .
Or use an app like Netflix party to arrange a virtual group hangout where you can watch great movies and TV shows with your friends .
Don ’ t convince yourself that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not .
Remember that although a couple of experts cracked the door open to seeing a friend when it ’ s truly needed , it is just that — a crack — and the overwhelming takeaway is that the risk is still too great .
Going for a walk with a friend is fine , all the experts agreed , as long as you stay 6 feet apart .
It ’ s probably better to interact outdoors than indoors , because more air ventilation means less of a chance that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If , after reading this , you ’ re still set on having human interaction that extends beyond a stroll , you ’ d do well to limit yourself to just one coronavirus buddy for the duration of the pandemic and commit to observing all of the precautions outlined above .
And if all this feels too difficult , bleak , and unrewarding , keep reminding yourself that the better we do at social distancing now , the sooner we can get back to normal life — with extra hugs and elaborate dinners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a temporary measure , ” Popescu said , “ and if we can just be super vigilant right now , then we ’ ll be able to move past social distancing.
” Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

The coronavirus pandemic has made one thing painfully clear for many single people and people who live alone: The most precious commodity these days is human contact.
Under social distancing, the “haves” are those lucky humans who’ve got kids, partners, or roommates. Yes, they may be loud and exhausting and downright crazy-making at times. But a warm body is a warm body. To the “have-nots” who are isolated in their homes for days or weeks on end, this can seem like an incredible luxury. A Skype call just isn’t the same as in-person company.
So over the past couple weeks, I’ve heard some of these have-nots asking: What if I create a “closed circle” of friends who are all healthy, and we only hang out with each other? Say I decide to see only one friend, and I know that she’s only seeing one other friend, who’s only seeing her. Then we have a loop of three people who can still have dinner together sometimes, so we’re not maddeningly lonely. Is that okay?
It’s an important question, because even before the coronavirus came along, loneliness was a silent epidemic, afflicting millions around the world. A meta-review of 70 studies found that loneliness increases your risk of premature mortality by 26 percent. Some experts say it’s as bad for your longevity as smoking. We know that it actually hurts our white blood cells.
Isolation can also be very harmful to people’s mental health, triggering or exacerbating conditions like anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. So while we absolutely need to follow social distancing rules as laid out by public health authorities and local governments, we should also ask what we can do to mitigate the “social recession” they’re causing.
With this in mind, I called a few epidemiologists to ask: For people who are really struggling with isolation, is forming a “closed circle” of friends a safe and acceptable strategy? The experts explained why, unfortunately, it’s not as good an idea as you might think. Their answers, edited for length and clarity, are below.
Krutika Kuppalli, biosecurity fellow, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security
Look, I’m single, and I get how hard it is. I went through a 21-day quarantine back in 2014 when I came back from West Africa after treating Ebola. It’s extremely hard.
But I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable doing something like this because I don’t know where my friends have been. You have to think about the other people, what potential risk factors they have, and how much you trust them.
I’m an infectious diseases doctor, so by nature I don’t think people tell me the truth. I never fully believe people. I can’t tell you how many times my patients would come in and their test would come back positive and they’d say, “I don’t know how it got there, it just got there!” I’d ask them about their sexual histories, and then I’d test them and they have gonorrhea or chlamydia and again they say, “I don’t know how it got there!”
This is a human behavior. You have to gauge how comfortable you feel with that, because there’s going to be a risk. You might trust your friend, but how much do you know the friend they’re seeing? Can you trust them? You’re putting your life in their hands at that point.
And the problem is, the data shows that there can be presymptomatic or asymptomatic transmission. I don’t want to be exposed to someone who may not be having symptoms but can get me sick.
I understand it’s hard to comply with these measures, but at the same, we’re talking about life and death here. I’ve seen what happens when people don’t adhere. I’ve seen people die.
So I would say it’s not okay. When someone says, “Stay at home,” I’m like, yeah, just do it. Myself and my colleagues are busting our butts on the front lines to take care of patients right now. And all I’m asking you to do is stay at home and not go out. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Carolyn Cannuscio, social epidemiologist, University of Pennsylvania
This is the kind of idea that sounds better in theory than it works out to be in reality. All of us as human beings are flawed. We set out with great intentions but ... it’s complex for human beings to actually follow through on those kinds of promises.
Entering into these relationships is complicated and it’s opening up the potential for risk of transmission. So I’m not going to make a blanket statement that this is a safe thing to do. I would prefer that people not socialize outside their household.
I feel like people are looking for the magic loophole that will allow them to live as normal a life as possible. It’s very difficult to grant that absolution because any social interaction outside your household unit, even if it’s as simple as going to the grocery store once a week, does involve a non-zero risk.
But recognizing that this could go on for a long time, I worry about suicidality and extreme forms of mental illness. I struggle with this because I know of people who are extremely lonely right now and really suffering. That’s important, too. We all have to go through this calculus of balancing risks and benefits. ... Our drive is to dramatically reduce our social interactions, and I’m positive that for most people, if they interact with only one other human, that will be a dramatic reduction in their social interactions.
But [if you’re going to interact with one other person], be very explicit about what the agreement is, and try to choose someone who’s got [a similar level of risk]. If you’re a writer and can work from home, ideally your friend would also be somebody who’s able to work from home, not an emergency medicine physician.
Let me give you an example of something else a student of mine decided to do. She lives alone in Philadelphia and her best friend also lives alone in Philadelphia. They each isolated themselves for two weeks and then moved in together for the duration [of the pandemic].
I like that plan so much more than the other plans I’ve heard of, because then you’re in constant communication with the other person and you’re aware of anything they need to do to break the protective bond. It’s easier to have an ongoing conversation about preventative strategies when you’re living with the person. If people are living separately, one person might forget to update the other.
Saskia Popescu, senior infection prevention epidemiologist, Honor Health hospital system in Arizona
If you interact with vulnerable people — elderly, immunocompromised — I would discourage you from doing this. Just stick to FaceTime and Skype.
That being said, at its crux, social distancing doesn’t mean you need to stay home by yourself in a dark room. Really it’s about keeping to small, small groups of people. So if you have dinner with a friend, that makes sense as long as it’s just you and them.
For people who are going to have those one-on-one friend hangout sessions, it shouldn’t be, “I’m going to have five one-on-one sessions with five different people” — that defeats the purpose. Really limit it to just one friend.
Also, really limit that exposure. That means, try to FaceTime as much as possible and then make [seeing each other in person] a very special thing for when you’re both really needing it. If you’re doing it two or three times a week, you’re increasing the risk of exposure for both of you.
If you want to be an awesome coronavirus epidemiology buddy, do it every 14 days, because that’s the incubation period. You’d want to do that from the last known date of exposure. That includes going to the grocery store, because theoretically anytime you go into an environment with a lot of people, there’s more potential for exposure to the disease. Then you want to ask each other, “Have you been symptom-free for 14 days? Have I? Yes? Okay.”
Harm reduction is a really big piece of this. All the infection control measures [like staying at least six feet apart] are really important during these interactions. They should wipe down their surfaces before you come over and also clean after you leave. Try to be somewhere open [in the outside air, like a backyard]. Don’t share eating utensils. Don’t touch your face. Wash your hands. And if you start to get sick within a couple weeks of seeing them, you need to notify them. That transparency is really big.
So, what’s the bottom line here?
This is not the news anybody wants to hear, but the idea that you can safely form an airtight circle of healthy friends is unsound, for three main reasons.
First, you and your friends will each have some baseline risk of exposure from going to get necessary items like groceries, or even from traveling across the city to visit one another. And it’s possible that one of you will get sick but show no symptoms. So the notion that any of us can proclaim ourselves healthy with certainty is, unfortunately, a fiction.
Second, not everyone in your circle will necessarily have the same fidelity as you, so the risk is probably higher than you think. Many STD studies show that the idea of safe circles is a fallacy because human beings sometimes cheat on their social contracts and lie about it, or they forget to make certain key disclosures.
Third, forming these circles would be unsustainable on a population level. Even if each circle has only a small risk of transmission, that risk increases exponentially if lots of us are forming these circles. The best way to lower both your individual risk and the population-level risk is to simply stay home.
That said, all the experts I spoke to acknowledged that total self-isolation can also have very harmful effects, and we each need to weigh those harms against the benefits. If your friend who suffers from depression is having a mental health emergency, it may well make sense to visit them. But if you simply miss your friend and feel a bit lonely? Maybe just play a game like Codenames over Zoom. Or use an app like Netflix party to arrange a virtual group hangout where you can watch great movies and TV shows with your friends. Don’t convince yourself that an in-person interaction is necessary when it’s not.
Remember that although a couple of experts cracked the door open to seeing a friend when it’s truly needed, it is just that — a crack — and the overwhelming takeaway is that the risk is still too great.
Going for a walk with a friend is fine, all the experts agreed, as long as you stay 6 feet apart. It’s probably better to interact outdoors than indoors, because more air ventilation means less of a chance that you’ll breathe in virus-carrying droplets.
If, after reading this, you’re still set on having human interaction that extends beyond a stroll, you’d do well to limit yourself to just one coronavirus buddy for the duration of the pandemic and commit to observing all of the precautions outlined above.
And if all this feels too difficult, bleak, and unrewarding, keep reminding yourself that the better we do at social distancing now, the sooner we can get back to normal life — with extra hugs and elaborate dinners and dance parties galore. “This is a temporary measure,” Popescu said, “and if we can just be super vigilant right now, then we’ll be able to move past social distancing.”
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.


vox--2020-04-02--Figuring out ways to read books right now is tough. We’re here to help.

Welcome to the latest installment of Vox ’ s Ask a Book Critic , in which , I , Vox book critic Constance Grady , provide book recommendations to suit your very specific mood : either how you ’ re feeling right now , or how you ’ d like to be feeling instead .
Books are a good thing to think about right now .
Of course , I am biased because it is my job to think about books , but every time I turn my eyes away from one of my screens and the endless , frictionless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a physical book instead , I feel better .
It ’ s as though I ’ m looking through a window into a different world , and it reminds me that together , we can build a reality that is better and stronger than the one in which we find ourselves trapped right now .
Personally , I ’ ve been reading Emma this week .
It feels very comforting to wrap myself up in the concerns of the book ’ s tiny , claustrophobic little village , in which the central points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pianoforte and whether it might be quite the thing to hold a ball in an inn rather than in a private home .
And Jane Austen ’ s sentences are so precisely and carefully polished that there is an extra joy to reading them right now : They are at least one thing that is under perfect control in this world of chaos .
But that is my mood !
You are quite possibly in an entirely different mood .
So let ’ s find you something to read , too .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via email and on Twitter , have been edited for length and clarity .
Mood : utterly spent but still wanting to feel at least a little bit smart .
I ’ m looking for genre fiction that goes down easy without making me feel dumb .
A mood I know well !
Your email says you like mysteries , so give the author Tana French a try if you haven ’ t already — her last book , The Witch Elm , stands totally alone and is super accessible and very absorbing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who lives a charmed life until ( a ) he ’ s mugged and ( b ) he finds a dead body in the tree in his uncle ’ s backyard .
Maybe also throw in a little Lyndsay Faye — I ’ m a fan of Jane Steele , which reimagines Jane Eyre as a serial killer .
For fantasy , try Sunshine by Robin McKinley ( vampires , baking , romance ; the food in that one ! )
and Gideon the Ninth , which is about lesbian necromancers in space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I ’ m interested in learning more about second person .
Recommend me something that best capitalizes on its second person POV ?
Second person is so tricky !
If you don ’ t have it under perfect control , it can come off as gimmicky , but when you use it well , you can make it deliver a gut punch that no other point of view can .
The two books I ’ ve seen do a nice job with second person recently are both memoirs : Jessica Chiccehitto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Carmen Maria Machado ’ s In the Dream House .
Both of them explore past traumas , and both of them place those traumas in the second person .
In certain ways , this approach reads as an act of dissociation by the narrator , as though the narrative voice of the memoir has to distance itself from the trauma by assigning it to you rather than I .
Outside of memoir , the forthcoming Harrow the Ninth has a truly stunning use of second person that allows it to hide quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sight , so look for that one when it comes out in August .
And while I have not read this myself , Ann Leckie ’ s The Raven Tower got lots of good buzz from people who know .
I love Umberto Eco and Jorge Luis Borges .
I ’ m looking for something new in that vein : philosophical and/or historical , learned , big ideas , weird plots .
Give Nell Zink a try !
She ’ s a beautiful weirdo who writes very erudite , very satirical , very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verbatim translation notes for a pastiche of an obscure Hebrew novel .
I ’ m looking for a book about a secret space .
Not really second-life husband hiding from wife , but like a private escape place .
Oh , I love this question .
YA lit tends to do secret spaces better than adult fiction , probably because kids are always running off to set up private forts and such , so I ’ d say maybe try My Side of the Mountain by Jean Craighead George , or The Egypt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mood : You ’ ve spent 20 years working on your baroque overly complex literary detective novel and you had a falling out with your stepdad and you only like books that are really good or are fair or bad but are fascinating because they keep you turning the pages .
Oh , girl , this mood .
Okay .
Let ’ s see .
I think you need something nourishing and beautiful right now to feed your writing , and for that I would go classic and long .
Now could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or even some Dostoevsky .
I also think you could do with something that ’ s just super fun to read , because you are working hard and need a break , and you need something to remind you that books can be just purely pleasurable .
You could try the glitzy con-artist noir Social Creature by my friend Tara Burton , or maybe a book like Thieves of Manhattan if you want to stay in the detective fiction realm .
If you ’ re open to other genres , Jane , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young girl in a gothic house that becomes a multiverse , and Ninth House , about magical secret societies and ghosts at Yale , are very absorbing books that you can read like you ’ re a kid again .
If you ’ d like me to recommend something to you , email me at constance.grady @ vox.com with the subject line “ Ask a Book Critic.
” The more specific your mood , the better !

Welcome to the latest installment of Vox’s Ask a Book Critic, in which, I, Vox book critic Constance Grady, provide book recommendations to suit your very specific mood: either how you’re feeling right now, or how you’d like to be feeling instead.
Books are a good thing to think about right now. Of course, I am biased because it is my job to think about books, but every time I turn my eyes away from one of my screens and the endless, frictionless scroll of despair, and pick up a physical book instead, I feel better. It’s as though I’m looking through a window into a different world, and it reminds me that together, we can build a reality that is better and stronger than the one in which we find ourselves trapped right now.
Personally, I’ve been reading Emma this week. It feels very comforting to wrap myself up in the concerns of the book’s tiny, claustrophobic little village, in which the central points of concern are who bought whom a pianoforte and whether it might be quite the thing to hold a ball in an inn rather than in a private home. And Jane Austen’s sentences are so precisely and carefully polished that there is an extra joy to reading them right now: They are at least one thing that is under perfect control in this world of chaos.
But that is my mood! You are quite possibly in an entirely different mood. So let’s find you something to read, too.
The recommendation requests below, submitted to me via email and on Twitter, have been edited for length and clarity.
Mood: utterly spent but still wanting to feel at least a little bit smart. I’m looking for genre fiction that goes down easy without making me feel dumb.
A mood I know well! Your email says you like mysteries, so give the author Tana French a try if you haven’t already — her last book, The Witch Elm, stands totally alone and is super accessible and very absorbing: it’s about a guy who lives a charmed life until (a) he’s mugged and (b) he finds a dead body in the tree in his uncle’s backyard. Maybe also throw in a little Lyndsay Faye — I’m a fan of Jane Steele, which reimagines Jane Eyre as a serial killer. For fantasy, try Sunshine by Robin McKinley (vampires, baking, romance; the food in that one!) and Gideon the Ninth, which is about lesbian necromancers in space.
I’m a writing student, and I’m interested in learning more about second person. Recommend me something that best capitalizes on its second person POV?
Second person is so tricky! If you don’t have it under perfect control, it can come off as gimmicky, but when you use it well, you can make it deliver a gut punch that no other point of view can.
The two books I’ve seen do a nice job with second person recently are both memoirs: Jessica Chiccehitto Hindman’s Sounds Like Titanic, and Carmen Maria Machado’s In the Dream House. Both of them explore past traumas, and both of them place those traumas in the second person. In certain ways, this approach reads as an act of dissociation by the narrator, as though the narrative voice of the memoir has to distance itself from the trauma by assigning it to you rather than I.
Outside of memoir, the forthcoming Harrow the Ninth has a truly stunning use of second person that allows it to hide quite a number of nifty ideas in plain sight, so look for that one when it comes out in August. And while I have not read this myself, Ann Leckie’s The Raven Tower got lots of good buzz from people who know.
I love Umberto Eco and Jorge Luis Borges. I’m looking for something new in that vein: philosophical and/or historical, learned, big ideas, weird plots.
Give Nell Zink a try! She’s a beautiful weirdo who writes very erudite, very satirical, very twisty books. Private Novelist is her verbatim translation notes for a pastiche of an obscure Hebrew novel.
I’m looking for a book about a secret space. Not really second-life husband hiding from wife, but like a private escape place.
Oh, I love this question. YA lit tends to do secret spaces better than adult fiction, probably because kids are always running off to set up private forts and such, so I’d say maybe try My Side of the Mountain by Jean Craighead George, or The Egypt Game by Zilpha Keatley Snyder.
Current mood: You’ve spent 20 years working on your baroque overly complex literary detective novel and you had a falling out with your stepdad and you only like books that are really good or are fair or bad but are fascinating because they keep you turning the pages.
Oh, girl, this mood. Okay. Let’s see.
I think you need something nourishing and beautiful right now to feed your writing, and for that I would go classic and long. Now could be the time for Middlemarch, or Moby-Dick, or even some Dostoevsky.
I also think you could do with something that’s just super fun to read, because you are working hard and need a break, and you need something to remind you that books can be just purely pleasurable. You could try the glitzy con-artist noir Social Creature by my friend Tara Burton, or maybe a book like Thieves of Manhattan if you want to stay in the detective fiction realm. If you’re open to other genres, Jane, Unlimited, a YA novel about a young girl in a gothic house that becomes a multiverse, and Ninth House, about magical secret societies and ghosts at Yale, are very absorbing books that you can read like you’re a kid again.
If you’d like me to recommend something to you, email me at constance.grady@vox.com with the subject line “Ask a Book Critic.” The more specific your mood, the better!


vox--2020-04-03--Will video dating become the new normal?

Five days into self-quarantining , I found myself propped up in front of my phone , which was in turn propped up on a makeshift tripod of books , a footrest , and a crowning box of Kleenex .
When I ’ d first heard of video speed dating , I didn ’ t imagine it would involve quite so much DIY .
The tripod was a result of my panic-Googling “ video interview techniques ” in the sweaty minutes before the virtual event .
Positioning the webcam at eye level was said to establish kinship , but really I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other than Lurch for the first time during quarantine .
While this earnest attempt at looking alive felt like an interview to me , I figured the 3,000-plus users in my area were probably there for something more enjoyable .
Flirty , even .
Last December , the dating app the League rolled out League Live , a video speed-dating platform .
The feature allows users to have a series of two-minute video chats every Sunday night , right from the phone app .
Due to the number of people self-quarantining , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dating events in 13 more cities , as well as adding Wednesday nights .
Which is how I found myself joining in .
My first match was 29-year-old James .
He ’ d been on League Live for two months , and boy , did it show .
While I sat upright in a fresh turtleneck , James lay motionless and hoodie-clad on his bed — comfortable , confident , and entirely unfazed by this confronting matchmaking format .
Romance wasn ’ t exactly in the pixels for us , but he delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He said the video format felt more personal than “ Swipey McSwipey ” and that it might be the future of dating , given that we ’ ll all be “ inside for a while.
” It was pragmatic but , in a sense , hopeful .
Pandemic or not , at least those who are single and looking have a virtual place to get their fix of first-time jitters .
I ’ m no stranger to dating apps , but I found video speed dating slightly awkward .
It ’ s ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s ample time to tailor responses and run an entry-level background check through reverse image search .
That ’ s not to say I didn ’ t find it refreshing .
Chemistry can be difficult to recognize over text , but during a virtual face-to-face it ’ s easier to detect .
Nothing beats meeting in real life , but in the beginning , wouldn ’ t you rather spend two minutes on a video chat than risk an entire hour on drinks and discomfort ?
This modern format might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past decade , skeptical attitudes toward online dating have relaxed .
Plus we now have a more practical push to do our romantic bidding online : a pandemic .
As coronavirus sweeps the globe , dating apps and daters are adjusting to the new normal .
Major dating apps have been responding to coronavirus in their own ways .
Tinder issued an in-app card encouraging social distancing and made Tinder Passport — a feature that allows people to match in any location — free for all users .
Bumble released an epidemiologist-led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have led to daters canceling in-person dates , it hasn ’ t deterred online matchmaking .
Over the past week , users have observed an increase in matches .
Mike , a 37-year-old who uses Hinge , has referred to this surge in online dating as a new “ cuffing season.
” “ I ’ ve been getting a lot more matches .
People want to stay in on dates , rather than go out .
Like in the fall when you ’ re moving into winter .
It ’ s cuffing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” says the Toronto-based sales director .
Given the rapid spread of the virus , and the disarray that comes with it , it might surprise you that people have the bandwidth to contemplate dating .
But in times of crisis , people need distraction .
Big cat Netflix documentaries and viral TikTok dances might entertain us and keep us occupied , but will these keep the loneliness epidemic at bay ?
During a time when many singles are separated from friends and family , dating apps provide another layer of human connection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tinder and Bumble issued practical warnings about coronavirus , some apps are stepping up to facilitate this kind of positive distraction in a more personalized way .
Coffee Meets Bagel , a dating app with 166,900 monthly downloads , recently shared tips on virtual dating .
This guide included a remote version of “ Netflix and Chill ” whereby a half-watched episode of Altered Carbon and couch canoodling isn ’ t the only goal .
“ This is an opportunity for us to all break the same old dating app pattern .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ texting , doing the same old thing .
What if we used this time to be a bit more creative about how we get to know someone ?
” says Dawoon Kang , the founder of Coffee Meets Bagel .
In an app-led survey , shared with me by Coffee Meets Bagel , 17 percent of US users have had voice calls with their matches and 9 percent have had video calls over the past few weeks .
Dawoon sees this willingness to interact beyond text as vital during times where people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection is so important when it comes to us being able to navigate troubled times .
People think that because they can ’ t physically meet other people that they should totally isolate .
So , we thought it was important to stay connected and be creative about how to do that , ” she says .
While Coffee Meets Bagel doesn ’ t offer a video or voice call feature , there ’ s a new niche dating app that does .
Launched in October 2019 , Blindlee allows strangers to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chemistry with a potential match ” .
While some might be fearful of this Chatroulette-style set-up — think back to 2009 when an unsolicited dong shot was but an Internet Explorer window away — there ’ s a catch .
Calls on Blindlee are , wait for it , “ blind.
” This means video chats are blurred to strip away the “ sometimes fake and superficial aspect of the online dating world.
” Consider it an appified version of reality series Love Is Blind , the quarantine-like dating show that somehow mirrors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This dystopian setup seems to have struck a chord with daters , with activity on Blindlee almost doubling in recent weeks .
A survey shared with me by Blindlee found that 22 percent of users were also using it for moral support during the outbreak .
Lucy , a 22-year-old financial services worker , is one dater who ’ s found that while her pile of matches is growing , concern about the virus isn ’ t .
“ Since coronavirus broke out , guys are trying to match with me a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my Hinge are increasing threefold ever since it happened .
People are bored self-isolating and have to keep themselves busy , ” she says .
“ In the conversations I ’ m having on Hinge , coronavirus comes up every single time .
It is dealt with in such a comical way .
There are lines like : ‘ We can Netflix and quarantine together.
’ ” This “ comical ” take on the pandemic is echoed across dating apps .
In data shared with me by the friend-led matchmaking app Wingman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in registrations since coronavirus spread internationally and found that the words “ isolation , ” “ corona , ” and “ soap ” featured in more than 200 profiles within a 24-hour period .
On Coffee Meets Bagel , 7 percent of US users mention “ coronavirus ” every day .
Then there are those who aren ’ t exactly joking about the virus but are still rejecting the gravity of it .
Even in the face of contagion , the urge for physical contact is stronger than self-preservation .
“ The messages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , ‘ We need to self-isolate ’ ; people still want to meet up .
I ’ d say the gay community is quite horny , so it doesn ’ t surprise me , ” says 22-year-old Ben of his recent experiences on Tinder .
“ I had a guy message me and say : ‘ I need you right now now ’ and I said , ‘ This is nonessential social contact , and going with government guidelines , I ’ m not going to see you.
’ ” Ben is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the hookup app , he ’ s noticed that sex is more readily available than usual due to the number of people working from home .
“ People are putting ‘ working from home ’ in their profile so you ’ ll go around for a hookup , but it ’ s not my vibe .
There ’ s a lot of activity on there as people are so bored now .
In conversation , the virus hasn ’ t come up that much .
I haven ’ t had anyone mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up because they ’ re self-isolating , ” he says .
While some users are piling on the self-quarantine quips and using work-from-home situations to get laid , some are genuinely concerned about contracting the virus and are factoring this into conversation .
Zoe May , 33 , recently started speaking to a Hinge match who seemed more nervous about the virus than her other matches did .
“ He ’ s been on edge .
I joked that we should have a Skype date and he said yes .
I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so I guess I ’ ll put on my makeup and not bother with perfume , ” says Zoe .
Zoe and her flame from afar ended up video chatting over Skype .
It went so well that the two have continued to talk , and hope to meet up once it ’ s finally safe to do so .
Ah , modern , pandemic-stricken love .
“ I guess I ’ ll put on my makeup and not bother with perfume ” “ Coronavirus has made people realize that they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or work events and they can do more things online , so maybe it will make us realize that this could apply to dating , ” says Zoe .
“ We could have the first date online , coronavirus or not .
I think early on in a date , you know whether it ’ s going to go anywhere , so with Skype dates you could do that without having to go to as much effort.
” Perhaps Zoe is onto something .
As coronavirus spreads , so too have government-issued advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like # CancelEverything .
For those whose line of work actually allows for this arrangement , working remotely has become less about employer-employee preference and more a matter of public health .
The debate for flexible working arrangements has moved to the fore via think pieces and a chorus of professionals smugly declaring that most work meetings could have , in fact , been emails .
So perhaps the pandemic is an impetus for dating to become similarly streamlined .
If there ’ s another positive outcome to emerge from dating apps during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in-app conversations have taken a more meaningful turn .
“ This crisis ushering in a new period of modern courtship .
Longer , richer conversations taking place , taking the time to get to know people before meeting face to face , ” says Dominic Gallello , chief marketing officer at the dating app and social network Badoo .
“ The data is showing an increase in meaningful conversations .
What we mean by this is longer chats and dwell time , with more interactions and longer messages.
” Lucy , for one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , I felt like a lot of guys I matched with instantly wanted to go for a drink , clearly just going off my photos .
I didn ’ t like that , ” she says .
“ I always like having a bit more of a conversation .
Coronavirus is sparking a lot more conversation because no one can actually meet.
” In a few months ’ time , once people have completed Netflix and developed solid vitamin D deficiencies , hopefully the doors will fling back open to whatever life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time , there will be a whole lot of cyber sweeties finally able to meet .
For those in this situation , may the conversation flow IRL as it did on the video chat , and may your lover be as tall as they said they were .
Sign up for The Goods ’ newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Five days into self-quarantining, I found myself propped up in front of my phone, which was in turn propped up on a makeshift tripod of books, a footrest, and a crowning box of Kleenex. When I’d first heard of video speed dating, I didn’t imagine it would involve quite so much DIY.
The tripod was a result of my panic-Googling “video interview techniques” in the sweaty minutes before the virtual event. Positioning the webcam at eye level was said to establish kinship, but really I wanted to avoid shadows and resemble someone other than Lurch for the first time during quarantine. While this earnest attempt at looking alive felt like an interview to me, I figured the 3,000-plus users in my area were probably there for something more enjoyable. Flirty, even.
Last December, the dating app the League rolled out League Live, a video speed-dating platform. The feature allows users to have a series of two-minute video chats every Sunday night, right from the phone app. Due to the number of people self-quarantining, the San Francisco-based company has rolled out live dating events in 13 more cities, as well as adding Wednesday nights. Which is how I found myself joining in.
My first match was 29-year-old James. He’d been on League Live for two months, and boy, did it show. While I sat upright in a fresh turtleneck, James lay motionless and hoodie-clad on his bed — comfortable, confident, and entirely unfazed by this confronting matchmaking format.
Romance wasn’t exactly in the pixels for us, but he delivered some hot takes on the platform. He said the video format felt more personal than “Swipey McSwipey” and that it might be the future of dating, given that we’ll all be “inside for a while.” It was pragmatic but, in a sense, hopeful. Pandemic or not, at least those who are single and looking have a virtual place to get their fix of first-time jitters.
I’m no stranger to dating apps, but I found video speed dating slightly awkward. It’s (unsurprisingly) nothing like messaging, where there’s ample time to tailor responses and run an entry-level background check through reverse image search. That’s not to say I didn’t find it refreshing. Chemistry can be difficult to recognize over text, but during a virtual face-to-face it’s easier to detect. Nothing beats meeting in real life, but in the beginning, wouldn’t you rather spend two minutes on a video chat than risk an entire hour on drinks and discomfort?
This modern format might have been previously scoffed at, but over the past decade, skeptical attitudes toward online dating have relaxed. Plus we now have a more practical push to do our romantic bidding online: a pandemic. As coronavirus sweeps the globe, dating apps and daters are adjusting to the new normal.
Major dating apps have been responding to coronavirus in their own ways. Tinder issued an in-app card encouraging social distancing and made Tinder Passport — a feature that allows people to match in any location — free for all users. Bumble released an epidemiologist-led guide to dating. While these warnings might have led to daters canceling in-person dates, it hasn’t deterred online matchmaking.
Over the past week, users have observed an increase in matches. Mike, a 37-year-old who uses Hinge, has referred to this surge in online dating as a new “cuffing season.”
“I’ve been getting a lot more matches. People want to stay in on dates, rather than go out. Like in the fall when you’re moving into winter. It’s cuffing season, but couples quarantine season,” says the Toronto-based sales director.
Given the rapid spread of the virus, and the disarray that comes with it, it might surprise you that people have the bandwidth to contemplate dating. But in times of crisis, people need distraction. Big cat Netflix documentaries and viral TikTok dances might entertain us and keep us occupied, but will these keep the loneliness epidemic at bay? During a time when many singles are separated from friends and family, dating apps provide another layer of human connection, a sense of normality.
“It’s cuffing season, but couples quarantine season”
While Tinder and Bumble issued practical warnings about coronavirus, some apps are stepping up to facilitate this kind of positive distraction in a more personalized way. Coffee Meets Bagel, a dating app with 166,900 monthly downloads, recently shared tips on virtual dating. This guide included a remote version of “Netflix and Chill” whereby a half-watched episode of Altered Carbon and couch canoodling isn’t the only goal.
“This is an opportunity for us to all break the same old dating app pattern. Many of us are jaded about swiping and texting, doing the same old thing. What if we used this time to be a bit more creative about how we get to know someone?” says Dawoon Kang, the founder of Coffee Meets Bagel.
In an app-led survey, shared with me by Coffee Meets Bagel, 17 percent of US users have had voice calls with their matches and 9 percent have had video calls over the past few weeks. Dawoon sees this willingness to interact beyond text as vital during times where people are geographically isolated.
“The power of connection is so important when it comes to us being able to navigate troubled times. People think that because they can’t physically meet other people that they should totally isolate. So, we thought it was important to stay connected and be creative about how to do that,” she says.
While Coffee Meets Bagel doesn’t offer a video or voice call feature, there’s a new niche dating app that does. Launched in October 2019, Blindlee allows strangers to have three-minute video calls to “vibe-check the chemistry with a potential match”. While some might be fearful of this Chatroulette-style set-up — think back to 2009 when an unsolicited dong shot was but an Internet Explorer window away — there’s a catch. Calls on Blindlee are, wait for it, “blind.” This means video chats are blurred to strip away the “sometimes fake and superficial aspect of the online dating world.”
Consider it an appified version of reality series Love Is Blind, the quarantine-like dating show that somehow mirrors new reality despite being filmed in 2018. This dystopian setup seems to have struck a chord with daters, with activity on Blindlee almost doubling in recent weeks. A survey shared with me by Blindlee found that 22 percent of users were also using it for moral support during the outbreak.
Lucy, a 22-year-old financial services worker, is one dater who’s found that while her pile of matches is growing, concern about the virus isn’t.
“Since coronavirus broke out, guys are trying to match with me a lot more frequently. The notifications on my Hinge are increasing threefold ever since it happened. People are bored self-isolating and have to keep themselves busy,” she says.
“In the conversations I’m having on Hinge, coronavirus comes up every single time. It is dealt with in such a comical way. There are lines like: ‘We can Netflix and quarantine together.’”
This “comical” take on the pandemic is echoed across dating apps. In data shared with me by the friend-led matchmaking app Wingman, the app saw a 75 percent increase in registrations since coronavirus spread internationally and found that the words “isolation,” “corona,” and “soap” featured in more than 200 profiles within a 24-hour period. On Coffee Meets Bagel, 7 percent of US users mention “coronavirus” every day.
Then there are those who aren’t exactly joking about the virus but are still rejecting the gravity of it. Even in the face of contagion, the urge for physical contact is stronger than self-preservation.
“The messages I’ve been getting aren’t, ‘We need to self-isolate’; people still want to meet up. I’d say the gay community is quite horny, so it doesn’t surprise me,” says 22-year-old Ben of his recent experiences on Tinder.
“I had a guy message me and say: ‘I need you right now now’ and I said, ‘This is nonessential social contact, and going with government guidelines, I’m not going to see you.’”
Ben is also an active user on Grindr. On the hookup app, he’s noticed that sex is more readily available than usual due to the number of people working from home.
“People are putting ‘working from home’ in their profile so you’ll go around for a hookup, but it’s not my vibe. There’s a lot of activity on there as people are so bored now. In conversation, the virus hasn’t come up that much. I haven’t had anyone mention they didn’t want to meet up because they’re self-isolating,” he says.
While some users are piling on the self-quarantine quips and using work-from-home situations to get laid, some are genuinely concerned about contracting the virus and are factoring this into conversation. Zoe May, 33, recently started speaking to a Hinge match who seemed more nervous about the virus than her other matches did.
“He’s been on edge. I joked that we should have a Skype date and he said yes. I’ve never done anything like it before, so I guess I’ll put on my makeup and not bother with perfume,” says Zoe.
Zoe and her flame from afar ended up video chatting over Skype. It went so well that the two have continued to talk, and hope to meet up once it’s finally safe to do so. Ah, modern, pandemic-stricken love.
“I guess I’ll put on my makeup and not bother with perfume”
“Coronavirus has made people realize that they don’t have to have as many meetings or work events and they can do more things online, so maybe it will make us realize that this could apply to dating,” says Zoe.
“We could have the first date online, coronavirus or not. I think early on in a date, you know whether it’s going to go anywhere, so with Skype dates you could do that without having to go to as much effort.”
Perhaps Zoe is onto something. As coronavirus spreads, so too have government-issued advice on social distancing and social media movements like #CancelEverything. For those whose line of work actually allows for this arrangement, working remotely has become less about employer-employee preference and more a matter of public health. The debate for flexible working arrangements has moved to the fore via think pieces and a chorus of professionals smugly declaring that most work meetings could have, in fact, been emails. So perhaps the pandemic is an impetus for dating to become similarly streamlined.
If there’s another positive outcome to emerge from dating apps during the pandemic, it’s that in-app conversations have taken a more meaningful turn.
“This crisis ushering in a new period of modern courtship. Longer, richer conversations taking place, taking the time to get to know people before meeting face to face,” says Dominic Gallello, chief marketing officer at the dating app and social network Badoo.
“The data is showing an increase in meaningful conversations. What we mean by this is longer chats and dwell time, with more interactions and longer messages.”
Lucy, for one, appreciates this change.
“Before coronavirus, I felt like a lot of guys I matched with instantly wanted to go for a drink, clearly just going off my photos. I didn’t like that,” she says.
“I always like having a bit more of a conversation. Coronavirus is sparking a lot more conversation because no one can actually meet.”
In a few months’ time, once people have completed Netflix and developed solid vitamin D deficiencies, hopefully the doors will fling back open to whatever life was like before social distancing. Only this time, there will be a whole lot of cyber sweeties finally able to meet. For those in this situation, may the conversation flow IRL as it did on the video chat, and may your lover be as tall as they said they were.
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.