vox--2020-12-28--Hilaria Baldwin’s Spanish accent and suspect origin story, explained

I ’ m not entirely sure I ’ d ever consciously thought about Hilaria Baldwin until this week .
She occupies a level of fame slightly above social influencer but below TV actress .
A podcaster and a former yoga instructor , she ’ s best known as the glamorous , mysterious woman to whom Alec Baldwin is married .
I suppose I assumed she must be foreign ; “ Hilaria ” sounds too breathy to be American .
Recently , though , I learned , along with the rest of the world , that the Hilaria Baldwin I barely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created by a Bostonian named Hillary Hayward-Thomas .
The idealized Hilaria was born in Mallorca , speaks with an accent , doesn ’ t know the English word for “ cucumber , ” jogs for fun , does flamenco , loves speedboats , drinks hemp milk , eats lentils and paella , and does a plethora of workout classes .
Hillary was born in Massachusetts , went to NYU , and has a brother named Jeremy .
How did there come to be two Hilarias Baldwin ?
Why do we suddenly know all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have come to light if not for her inability to take a joke .
Why are we talking about Hilaria Baldwin ?
Hilaria/Hillary ’ s ever-changing Spanish ancestry was revealed and scrutinized thanks to the Streisand effect .
On December 21 , Hilaria Baldwin , who has been married to actor Alec Baldwin since 2012 , posted a picture of herself in fancy underwear , holding her 3-month-old son Eduardo , a.k.a Edu .
She looked very fit and slim , which is often why people put photos on social media .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy Schumer , who took a shot at Hilaria on Instagram in a now-deleted repost of the image that read : “ Gene and I wanted to wish everyone a happy holiday season .
Enjoy it with whatever family members are talking to you this year.
” Hilaria caught Schumer ’ s snarky post and then responded in a four-minute video saying that Schumer was attacking Edu and body-shaming her .
“ We ’ re getting into a place of body-shaming , ” she said in the video .
“ There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t look like that ’ — some moms do .
This mom ” — pointing at herself — “ does , and I am included in the inclusivity.
” This kerfuffle with Schumer brought Hilaria ’ s name back into the pop culture sphere .
People enjoy watching rich , famous people fight .
But that was just the beginning .
That ’ s when Twitter user @ lenibriscoe pointed out a long-simmering concern about Hilaria : that her much-touted Spanish heritage is , in their assessment , totally fake .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today show not knowing the word for cucumber : “ I had no idea about Schumer , ” @ lenibriscoe told me , explaining that they had observed Hilaria ’ s accent for the past nine years and that it was a well-known joke in New York City .
“ The thing that really made me mad is that it ’ s so offensive to pretend to be an immigrant and struggle with English .
You can just be a hot American influencer come on now.
” Someone from Spain not knowing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But someone who grew up in the Greater Boston area acting like they don ’ t know the word for cucumber ?
That raises all kinds of questions , not just about Hilaria ’ s Spanish heritage but about what she gains from faking it .
The simple observation of Hilaria ’ s accent and weird backstory prompted investigation .
The most comprehensive one I found is from Tracie Egan Morrissey , a writer , producer , host of Pot Psychology , and infamous celebrity lying expert , known for taking down Jameela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dying multiple times .
In a series of Instagram stories , Morrissey explains that Hilaria ’ s Spanish origin story began from Hilaria stating in multiple features with Hola !
USA that she was born in Spain and Spanish was her native language .
Baldwin ’ s bio on her CAA speaking engagement site states that she was born in Mallorca .
The bio has changed since Morrissey ’ s reporting and now has been scrubbed of Hilaria ’ s supposed birth country .
Hilaria is actually the Hillary Hayward-Thomas who graduated high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hilaria also stated in a previous interview that she moved to America at 19 to attend NYU .
Morrissey debunks these claims , pointing out that Hilaria is actually the Hillary Hayward-Thomas who graduated high school from the Cambridge School of Weston in Weston , Massachusetts .
Her parents are Dr. Kathryn Hayward , whose family is from Massachusetts , and David Thomas , whose family has deep roots in Vermont .
Thomas , Hilaria ’ s father , studied Spanish literature in undergrad , and he and Hayward moved to Spain in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , social media users on Twitter and Instagram began digging into Hilaria ’ s past , uncovering past interviews where she speaks with an accent and how different her voice sounds compared to her Instagram video .
There ’ s also this video of her mother , Kathryn Hayward , who commenters pointed out seems to stumble over her daughter ’ s name when talking about when she decided to start a family : A search for “ Spain ” or “ Spanish ” from Hilaria ’ s Twitter account yields multiple results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ linked Instagram accounts .
They include reminders to her followers that May 3 is Mother ’ s Day in Spain , an account of how her parents made a macrobiotic dinner in Spain and how that was a sign that Spain ’ s attitude toward health was improving , Spanish proverbs , an assertion that if you bring Spanish women ( referring to herself and her mother ) to a nail salon they will sing flamenco songs , references to herself as a Spanish yoga teacher , and tweets about her childhood in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s public mentions of Spain and being Spanish is that most of them seem to include very well-known Spanish touchstones , like a Westworld version of Spain where everyone just eats paella , listens to flamenco , and loves the Spanish flag .
As some of Hilaria ’ s critics have pointed out , she used this claim of Spanish heritage for personal gain .
Hilaria Baldwin admits she ’ s actually Bostonian and says everyone else got it wrong In response to the ongoing scrutiny about her past and what parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted a seven-minute video explaining that she “ is a white girl.
” Her accent sounds different from the videos in which she doesn ’ t seem to remember the word cucumber .
In the video , Hilaria doesn ’ t really explain why she didn ’ t correct the various articles that focused on her supposed Spanish origins nor the podcasts or interviews she did where she claimed she was born in Spain .
She does not clarify whether she has any Spanish ancestry .
She says she spent time in Spain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two cultures .
This seems to obscure her critics ’ concerns .
In 2013 , Glamour launched a supplemental magazine and website called Glam Belleza Latina .
Its goal was to spotlight Latinos and Latin culture , and how they ’ ve shaped American culture .
The initial issue focused on Jennifer Lopez , designer Narciso Rodriguez , and TV anchor Natalie Morales .
Also included in that issue was Hilaria Baldwin , who was touted as the magazine ’ s “ natural beauty expert.
” It ’ s possible that Hilaria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magazine .
But it sure seems like the magazine was intent on amplifying Latinx and Hispanic people , like Rodriguez , whose parents are of Spanish Cuban descent .
It certainly appears that Hilaria was picked because she touted her Spanish roots .
Her critics argue that , knowing what we now know about her real American roots , Hilaria accepting offers and publicity from magazines and outlets geared toward Spanish and Latinx people was a conscious decision .
That decision meant taking up space from actual Spanish and Latinx people .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the quarterly supplemental magazine in 2015 , and will update if and when I receive a response .
Hilaria also has posted on social media about being the victim of casual racism .
In 2016 , she posted on Instagram about how often she ’ s stopped and asked if she ’ s a nanny because she speaks Spanish .
I have no doubt that Hilaria could have been stopped by people hearing her speak Spanish and assuming she is a nanny .
These kinds of microaggressions plague people of color in predominantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s bizarre that a white woman from Boston who may or may not be pretending to be a Spanish immigrant would try to co-opt that experience and post it on Instagram for clout .
Hilaria denies that she wanted to muddy the waters .
“ I tried to be very clear , ” she says in the response video , explaining that it was various journalists and not herself , who said she was born in Spain .
“ I ’ m like , I was born in Boston .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ husband .
I ’ m a different kind of Bostonian.
” She continues , clumsily explaining that she is ethnically a white person and that she ’ s culturally diverse .
Being white doesn ’ t preclude her from being Spanish , she argues .
“ Europe has a lot of white people in there , ” she says .
“ My family is white .
Ethnically , I am a mix of many , many , many things ; culturally , I grew up with the two cultures .
So it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This does not clarify her own ancestry , but it is true — as we were reminded by the controversy around 2020 Best Actor Oscar nominee Antonio Banderas being referred to as a person of color — that white European Spaniards are not considered people of color .
Hilaria followed that up with another video , this one six minutes long , that again claims it ’ s mostly everyone else that got it wrong .
She again blamed her Spanish origin story on everyone but herself .
“ We ’ ve gotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning to do different stories , and what ’ s frustrating is that they ’ ll say things that I ’ ve never said , ” she says in the video , explaining that her interviews are a game of telephone and claims it wasn ’ t her who started her Spanish immigrant origin story .
She doesn ’ t explain why she accepted the publicity from outlets like the supplemental Glamour insert .
In recent days , her husband Alec Baldwin and her stepdaughter Ireland Basinger Baldwin have defended Hilaria ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe unintended effect of those defenses and Hilaria ’ s videos about the controversy is that they , like her initial response to Amy Schumer , just bring more attention to this identity fiasco .
Every time Hilaria and her family try to shift blame to various journalists and publications where her Spanish heritage is discussed , those interviews resurface and are examined again and again .
In these waning days of 2020 , with most people just trying to get through to New Year ’ s Eve and taking their entertainment where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the discovered potential grifts of rich white women — Hilaria is now exponentially more famous , trending on social media and Google searches .
More people are interested in her story than ever before .
It ’ s just that she ’ s now known for being the woman who lied about being Spanish .

I’m not entirely sure I’d ever consciously thought about Hilaria Baldwin until this week. She occupies a level of fame slightly above social influencer but below TV actress. A podcaster and a former yoga instructor, she’s best known as the glamorous, mysterious woman to whom Alec Baldwin is married. I suppose I assumed she must be foreign; “Hilaria” sounds too breathy to be American.
Recently, though, I learned, along with the rest of the world, that the Hilaria Baldwin I barely knew is actually an aspirational European illusion created by a Bostonian named Hillary Hayward-Thomas.
The idealized Hilaria was born in Mallorca, speaks with an accent, doesn’t know the English word for “cucumber,” jogs for fun, does flamenco, loves speedboats, drinks hemp milk, eats lentils and paella, and does a plethora of workout classes. Hillary was born in Massachusetts, went to NYU, and has a brother named Jeremy.
How did there come to be two Hilarias Baldwin? Why do we suddenly know all about this? Well, it never would have come to light if not for her inability to take a joke.
Why are we talking about Hilaria Baldwin?
Hilaria/Hillary’s ever-changing Spanish ancestry was revealed and scrutinized thanks to the Streisand effect.
On December 21, Hilaria Baldwin, who has been married to actor Alec Baldwin since 2012, posted a picture of herself in fancy underwear, holding her 3-month-old son Eduardo, a.k.a Edu. She looked very fit and slim, which is often why people put photos on social media. The post caught the eye of comedian Amy Schumer, who took a shot at Hilaria on Instagram in a now-deleted repost of the image that read: “Gene and I wanted to wish everyone a happy holiday season. Enjoy it with whatever family members are talking to you this year.”
Hilaria caught Schumer’s snarky post and then responded in a four-minute video saying that Schumer was attacking Edu and body-shaming her. “We’re getting into a place of body-shaming,” she said in the video. “There’s this whole thing of ‘moms don’t look like that’ — some moms do. This mom” — pointing at herself — “does, and I am included in the inclusivity.”
This kerfuffle with Schumer brought Hilaria’s name back into the pop culture sphere. People enjoy watching rich, famous people fight. But that was just the beginning.
That’s when Twitter user @lenibriscoe pointed out a long-simmering concern about Hilaria: that her much-touted Spanish heritage is, in their assessment, totally fake.
You have to admire Hilaria Baldwin’s commitment to her decade long grift where she impersonates a Spanish person — elena ilana alana alina elana (not) (@lenibriscoe) December 21, 2020
They included a clip of Hilaria on the Today show not knowing the word for cucumber:
Here she is pretending not to know how to say cucumber in English pic.twitter.com/g8xYNktsNY — elena ilana alana alina elana (not) (@lenibriscoe) December 21, 2020
These tweets went viral.
“I had no idea about Schumer,” @lenibriscoe told me, explaining that they had observed Hilaria’s accent for the past nine years and that it was a well-known joke in New York City. “The thing that really made me mad is that it’s so offensive to pretend to be an immigrant and struggle with English. You can just be a hot American influencer come on now.”
Someone from Spain not knowing the English word for cucumber is understandable. But someone who grew up in the Greater Boston area acting like they don’t know the word for cucumber? That raises all kinds of questions, not just about Hilaria’s Spanish heritage but about what she gains from faking it.
Hilaria is actually Hillary Hayward-Thomas
The simple observation of Hilaria’s accent and weird backstory prompted investigation. The most comprehensive one I found is from Tracie Egan Morrissey, a writer, producer, host of Pot Psychology, and infamous celebrity lying expert, known for taking down Jameela Jamil’s knotty anecdotes about almost dying multiple times.
In a series of Instagram stories, Morrissey explains that Hilaria’s Spanish origin story began from Hilaria stating in multiple features with Hola! USA that she was born in Spain and Spanish was her native language. Baldwin’s bio on her CAA speaking engagement site states that she was born in Mallorca. The bio has changed since Morrissey’s reporting and now has been scrubbed of Hilaria’s supposed birth country.
Hilaria is actually the Hillary Hayward-Thomas who graduated high school from the Cambridge School of Weston
Hilaria also stated in a previous interview that she moved to America at 19 to attend NYU. Morrissey debunks these claims, pointing out that Hilaria is actually the Hillary Hayward-Thomas who graduated high school from the Cambridge School of Weston in Weston, Massachusetts. Her parents are Dr. Kathryn Hayward, whose family is from Massachusetts, and David Thomas, whose family has deep roots in Vermont. Thomas, Hilaria’s father, studied Spanish literature in undergrad, and he and Hayward moved to Spain in 2011.
As the story went viral, social media users on Twitter and Instagram began digging into Hilaria’s past, uncovering past interviews where she speaks with an accent and how different her voice sounds compared to her Instagram video. There’s also this video of her mother, Kathryn Hayward, who commenters pointed out seems to stumble over her daughter’s name when talking about when she decided to start a family:
here’s hilaria/hillary’s mom being interviewed about having her kids in the US during med school - notice how she stumbles over her daughter’s name pic.twitter.com/oq2YHwK6AB — #1 Rachel (@rachel) December 25, 2020
A search for “Spain” or “Spanish” from Hilaria’s Twitter account yields multiple results, many of them reposts from her linked Instagram accounts. They include reminders to her followers that May 3 is Mother’s Day in Spain, an account of how her parents made a macrobiotic dinner in Spain and how that was a sign that Spain’s attitude toward health was improving, Spanish proverbs, an assertion that if you bring Spanish women (referring to herself and her mother) to a nail salon they will sing flamenco songs, references to herself as a Spanish yoga teacher, and tweets about her childhood in Spain.
The curious thing about Hilaria’s public mentions of Spain and being Spanish is that most of them seem to include very well-known Spanish touchstones, like a Westworld version of Spain where everyone just eats paella, listens to flamenco, and loves the Spanish flag. As some of Hilaria’s critics have pointed out, she used this claim of Spanish heritage for personal gain.
Hilaria Baldwin admits she’s actually Bostonian and says everyone else got it wrong
In response to the ongoing scrutiny about her past and what parts of her life were fabricated, Hilaria posted a seven-minute video explaining that she “is a white girl.” Her accent sounds different from the videos in which she doesn’t seem to remember the word cucumber.
In the video, Hilaria doesn’t really explain why she didn’t correct the various articles that focused on her supposed Spanish origins nor the podcasts or interviews she did where she claimed she was born in Spain. She does not clarify whether she has any Spanish ancestry. She says she spent time in Spain as a child and grew up amid the two cultures. This seems to obscure her critics’ concerns.
In 2013, Glamour launched a supplemental magazine and website called Glam Belleza Latina. Its goal was to spotlight Latinos and Latin culture, and how they’ve shaped American culture. The initial issue focused on Jennifer Lopez, designer Narciso Rodriguez, and TV anchor Natalie Morales. Also included in that issue was Hilaria Baldwin, who was touted as the magazine’s “natural beauty expert.”
It’s possible that Hilaria was just a random add to the magazine. But it sure seems like the magazine was intent on amplifying Latinx and Hispanic people, like Rodriguez, whose parents are of Spanish Cuban descent. It certainly appears that Hilaria was picked because she touted her Spanish roots.
Her critics argue that, knowing what we now know about her real American roots, Hilaria accepting offers and publicity from magazines and outlets geared toward Spanish and Latinx people was a conscious decision. That decision meant taking up space from actual Spanish and Latinx people. I’ve contacted Glamour, which folded the quarterly supplemental magazine in 2015, and will update if and when I receive a response.
Hilaria also has posted on social media about being the victim of casual racism. In 2016, she posted on Instagram about how often she’s stopped and asked if she’s a nanny because she speaks Spanish.
I have no doubt that Hilaria could have been stopped by people hearing her speak Spanish and assuming she is a nanny. These kinds of microaggressions plague people of color in predominantly white, affluent circles. But it’s bizarre that a white woman from Boston who may or may not be pretending to be a Spanish immigrant would try to co-opt that experience and post it on Instagram for clout.
Hilaria denies that she wanted to muddy the waters. “I tried to be very clear,” she says in the response video, explaining that it was various journalists and not herself, who said she was born in Spain. “I’m like, I was born in Boston. That’s the first thing I told my husband. I’m a different kind of Bostonian.”
She continues, clumsily explaining that she is ethnically a white person and that she’s culturally diverse. Being white doesn’t preclude her from being Spanish, she argues. “Europe has a lot of white people in there,” she says. “My family is white. Ethnically, I am a mix of many, many, many things; culturally, I grew up with the two cultures. So it’s really as simple as that.”
This does not clarify her own ancestry, but it is true — as we were reminded by the controversy around 2020 Best Actor Oscar nominee Antonio Banderas being referred to as a person of color — that white European Spaniards are not considered people of color.
“I’m a different kind of Bostonian”
Hilaria followed that up with another video, this one six minutes long, that again claims it’s mostly everyone else that got it wrong. She again blamed her Spanish origin story on everyone but herself.
“We’ve gotten calls from some different outlets that are planning to do different stories, and what’s frustrating is that they’ll say things that I’ve never said,” she says in the video, explaining that her interviews are a game of telephone and claims it wasn’t her who started her Spanish immigrant origin story. She doesn’t explain why she accepted the publicity from outlets like the supplemental Glamour insert.
In recent days, her husband Alec Baldwin and her stepdaughter Ireland Basinger Baldwin have defended Hilaria’s character and honor.
The odd, maybe unintended effect of those defenses and Hilaria’s videos about the controversy is that they, like her initial response to Amy Schumer, just bring more attention to this identity fiasco. Every time Hilaria and her family try to shift blame to various journalists and publications where her Spanish heritage is discussed, those interviews resurface and are examined again and again.
In these waning days of 2020, with most people just trying to get through to New Year’s Eve and taking their entertainment where they can find it — such as in the discovered potential grifts of rich white women — Hilaria is now exponentially more famous, trending on social media and Google searches. More people are interested in her story than ever before. It’s just that she’s now known for being the woman who lied about being Spanish.


vox--2020-12-28--The 4 major unknowns of how vaccines will affect the Covid-19 pandemic

Two highly effective Covid-19 vaccines are now being administered across the United States , and more are in the pipeline .
Almost 2 million people have already received the first of two doses of these vaccines , and officials are aiming to immunize one-third of the US population by the end of March 2021 .
It ’ s a stunning accomplishment for a disease that was barely known to the world a year ago , and it means that an end to the crisis is in sight .
Yet the US remains in the worst throes of the pandemic to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break records .
Vaccines are critical in drawing down the pandemic as we know it , but it won ’ t be a simple return to the world before Covid-19 .
It will likely be a process that lasts several months , and precautions like social distancing and wearing masks will still be needed until there is widespread immunity to the virus .
“ It ’ s a bit of a glide path in my mind toward a new normal , and a new normal that will continue to get better and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dean of the School of Public Health at Brown University .
“ Ultimately , the mental model that I ’ m going for is ‘ When are people going about their day and not thinking about Covid ?
’ ” Exactly when and how this will happen hinges on several key variables relating to vaccines that scientists and health officials are still trying to sort out .
The vaccines being administered right now — the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine — have only received emergency use authorizations , not full approval , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regulators have determined that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks for most adults at high risk of exposure , but there are still some unanswered questions , such as how long protection lasts , and how well these vaccines block transmission of the virus between people .
And beyond the vaccines themselves , how quickly and how readily people accept them can change the course of the pandemic .
How well a Covid-19 vaccine contains the pandemic depends on the answers to several key questions The clinical trials for Covid-19 vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will emerge in the coming months .
But for now , these remain some of the most important unknowns .
How well do vaccines prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 ?
Both the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine reported efficacies of roughly 95 percent against Covid-19 disease , meaning they protected the vast majority of recipients from getting sick enough to have disease symptoms , like loss of smell , fever , and cough .
However , Covid-19 is caused by a virus , SARS-CoV-2 , that some people can carry and transmit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether or not they eventually end up feeling ill. Finding the people who are carrying the virus ( and preventing them from infecting others ) is therefore critical to control the spread of the virus , but has proven to be a persistent obstacle during the pandemic .
Currently , the main way to identify the infected is by proactively testing for the virus and ideally , tracing who else they encountered .
It ’ s a tedious , time-consuming process .
This is also true in vaccine clinical trials .
Phase 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent disease in the real world , something that ’ s readily apparent when comparing the number of disease events in the vaccine group to the placebo group .
It only takes 150 events or so to yield results on how well the vaccine prevents disease .
But to gauge efficacy against preventing infections , including low-grade infections that don ’ t generate symptoms , researchers will have to test the tens of thousands of participants in their phase 3 trial .
It ’ s likely that a Covid-19 vaccine would reduce transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet by how much .
“ What we know is that we ’ ve been seeing studies focusing specifically on efficacy with regards to severity of disease , meaning ameliorating the severity of the disease itself , but there ’ s still no studies that really are going to help us understand how we can certainly interrupt transmission , ” said Maria Elena Bottazzi , a co-director of the Texas Children ’ s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development .
The companies conducting trials do plan to test their participants to see if there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be a while before they report their results .
That said , Moderna presented some early data showing that its vaccine does begin to reduce infections between its doses , which are spaced 28 days apart .
“ There were approximately 2/3 fewer swabs that were positive in the vaccine group as compared to the placebo group at the pre-dose 2 timepoint , suggesting that some asymptomatic infections start to be prevented after the first dose , ” according to Moderna ’ s report to the FDA .
However , these results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing to see if this effect lasts longer than a few weeks .
The more that a vaccine can reduce the virus ’ transmission , the more quickly a population can move toward herd immunity , the point where the virus can no longer spread easily between people .
Scientists estimate that herd immunity threshold is when roughly between 60 to 90 percent of a population is immune to this virus , whether through a vaccine or from natural exposure .
( A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed to SARS-CoV-2 produced protective antibodies against the virus and were protected against reinfection for at least six months . )
But vaccines might not protect every single person who gets a shot from getting infected , just like they don ’ t provide a 100 percent guarantee against getting sick .
That means even the vaccinated will still have to wear face masks and keep their distance from others to prevent virus transmission until immunity is widespread .
How long do vaccines protect against Covid-19 ?
The Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech trials have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection against Covid-19 illness quickly — and that protection starts building up right after the first dose .
Whether that protection fades after a few months or a few years is unclear .
And researchers can only find out by waiting and observing .
That means monitoring the thousands of participants of clinical trials , as well as recipients of the vaccines in the general population , for years .
Pfizer and BioNTech , as well as Moderna , have committed to actively monitoring the participants in their clinical trials for at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an eye on people who are receiving their vaccines .
But hints on the durability of vaccine protection could arrive sooner .
Looking at vaccine recipients six months or one year after they receive their injections , researchers should be able to see how many were infected with SARS-CoV-2 — and when — to get an early estimate of how quickly protection weakens .
“ That would give us potentially some information for what future years will look like , ” said Meagan Fitzpatrick , an assistant professor at the center for vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Maryland School of Medicine .
“ You will definitely get some signal , but you don ’ t know really for sure in a way that ’ s backed up by data until that amount of time passes from when the first people got their first doses.
” Longer protection would buy time for the health sector as vaccines roll out since they wouldn ’ t have to worry about reinfections or revaccinating people .
Evidence from past coronavirus outbreaks like SARS and MERS showed that among survivors , protection for those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus , and much remains uncertain .
There ’ s also a chance that SARS-CoV-2 could mutate in a way that would escape the protection offered by a vaccine .
However , scientists say that ’ s unlikely in the near term because Covid-19 vaccines target several different parts of the virus and the odds of simultaneous mutations in all of those regions are low .
But more study is needed to yield more definite answers , and the best way to reduce the likelihood of major mutations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How quickly can we get the vaccine to everyone ?
The United States is now in the midst of its largest vaccination campaign in history , an endeavor that ’ s anywhere from three to four times as big as vaccinating against seasonal flu , according to Moncef Slaoui , the scientific lead for the Department of Health and Human Services ’ Operation Warp Speed vaccine program .
It ’ s a delicate and critical process .
“ How soon can we really start driving our Covid numbers low really definitely depends on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A vaccine is only as good as the doses that actually get into people.
” However , the debut of Covid-19 vaccines has already hit several bumps .
Some states have reported that their initial allotments of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine were cut , while the manufacturer reported that many doses have gone unclaimed .
Part of the challenge is technical constraints of the vaccines themselves .
Both the Moderna and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines require maintaining cold temperatures from factories to transportation to clinics .
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in particular demands ultra-cold storage at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit ) .
Another complicating factor is simply sorting out who should get the vaccines and when .
Enough doses are not immediately available for everyone , so health officials have to make delicate decisions about whom to prioritize .
The vaccines available so far have to be administered as two doses spaced several weeks apart , so everyone will have to come back for a second shot .
Doses have to be set aside for follow-ups and if people don ’ t get their second dose , they may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or less durable than expected .
In a large enough population , that could erode the power of a vaccine to contain the virus .
At the same time , health officials will have to overcome vaccine hesitancy .
Getting a high uptake of vaccines is critical in drawing down pandemic restrictions .
And the more holdouts there are , the longer it will take .
The good news is that reluctance in getting a vaccine seems to have diminished in the United States .
A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would likely get a Covid-19 vaccine , up from 63 percent in September .
A vaccine is not just about protecting individuals , but protecting a population as a whole .
With enough people immunized , even people who haven ’ t received the vaccine — including those who can ’ t get vaccinated for health reasons — will experience a much lower risk of infection .
“ If you really , really , really want to interrupt and really get rid of this pandemic , you really need high levels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels of efficacy , ” Bottazzi said .
And over the coming months , more Covid-19 vaccines will likely gain approval .
That will help ease some of the supply constraints , but will add to the complexity of administering them .
Each vaccine has its own storage requirements , dosing schedule , and may be best suited for different demographics .
Taken together , there ’ s a lot that can go wrong with distributing vaccines .
But getting these steps right would mean a much faster route out of the Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control the spread of the virus ?
In addition to vaccinating millions of people , controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is critical .
Efforts to contain the virus will allow the vaccine to have a much greater impact .
Vaccines could be targeted to hotspots rather than having to push back against a national onslaught , for instance .
As mentioned earlier , curtailing the virus ’ s transmission also reduces the likelihood of a mutation that could render a vaccine less effective .
( But if virus variants discovered in the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US , that could complicate efforts of curbing spread , even if the vaccine is just as effective against these variants . )
If all goes fairly well with the logistics of vaccine distribution , it will take weeks to months for it to actually start reducing hospitalizations and fatalities from Covid-19 .
A vaccine is meant to prevent illness , so it will do little for people who are already ill with Covid-19 .
And the SARS-CoV-2 virus can incubate in a person for up to two weeks before the individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can take longer after that for them to seek treatment .
As such , there will be a lag in seeing the impacts of a vaccine across the population .
But slowing the spread of the virus would make vaccines a more powerful tool to end the pandemic , and results would start to manifest much sooner .
Vaccination is also going to be working in tandem with immunity people have built up from surviving infection .
Almost 20 million people in the US have been infected to date .
“ Around 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little bit , especially in the places that have been hit hard , ” Jha said .
Conversely , if Covid-19 continues to rage out of control , it will be much harder for a vaccine to make a difference in morbidity and mortality , and it will take even longer to see results .
We still need testing , masking , distancing , and treatments While scientists and health experts have been elated at the speed at which Covid-19 vaccines have been developed , they ’ ve also been adamant that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to control the Covid-19 pandemic .
The existing measures for slowing Covid-19 remain just as important as they ’ ve ever been , if not more so , given that hospitalizations and daily deaths are continuing to mount .
Tactics like wearing face masks , rigorous hand washing , and avoiding large gatherings and close contact with others will still be needed in the coming months , even among people who have been immunized .
Treatments for Covid-19 are also critical since they are the most immediate way to reduce fatalities .
Approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help people survive the illness .
Widespread testing for Covid-19 will also continue to be crucial to identify potential spreaders and to allow people in key jobs to continue working .
It ’ s a sliding scale between these variables .
For example , better testing and tracing could allow people more freedom even if they are not immune .
Or effective treatments can drastically reduce fatality rates , reducing the burden of the disease .
However , pressure on all fronts — vaccines , treatment , testing , social distancing — is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The vaccine works at a population level a lot faster if we ’ re introducing it into a context into which are throwing all of our other methods to interrupt the virus , ” Fitzpatrick said .
While millions of people are growing weary of all the drastic restrictions imposed by the pandemic and the efforts to contain it , keeping them up in the coming months will help ensure that the US finds the quickest and least painful way out of routines bound by Covid-19 .

Two highly effective Covid-19 vaccines are now being administered across the United States, and more are in the pipeline. Almost 2 million people have already received the first of two doses of these vaccines, and officials are aiming to immunize one-third of the US population by the end of March 2021.
It’s a stunning accomplishment for a disease that was barely known to the world a year ago, and it means that an end to the crisis is in sight. Yet the US remains in the worst throes of the pandemic to date, with hospitalizations and deaths continuing to break records.
Vaccines are critical in drawing down the pandemic as we know it, but it won’t be a simple return to the world before Covid-19. It will likely be a process that lasts several months, and precautions like social distancing and wearing masks will still be needed until there is widespread immunity to the virus.
“It’s a bit of a glide path in my mind toward a new normal, and a new normal that will continue to get better and better,” said Ashish Jha, dean of the School of Public Health at Brown University. “Ultimately, the mental model that I’m going for is ‘When are people going about their day and not thinking about Covid?’”
Exactly when and how this will happen hinges on several key variables relating to vaccines that scientists and health officials are still trying to sort out.
The vaccines being administered right now — the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine — have only received emergency use authorizations, not full approval, from the Food and Drug Administration. Regulators have determined that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks for most adults at high risk of exposure, but there are still some unanswered questions, such as how long protection lasts and how well these vaccines block transmission of the virus between people.
And beyond the vaccines themselves, how quickly and how readily people accept them can change the course of the pandemic.
How well a Covid-19 vaccine contains the pandemic depends on the answers to several key questions
The clinical trials for Covid-19 vaccines are still ongoing, and more clarity will emerge in the coming months. But for now, these remain some of the most important unknowns.
How well do vaccines prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2?
Both the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine reported efficacies of roughly 95 percent against Covid-19 disease, meaning they protected the vast majority of recipients from getting sick enough to have disease symptoms, like loss of smell, fever, and cough.
However, Covid-19 is caused by a virus, SARS-CoV-2, that some people can carry and transmit without having any symptoms at all — whether or not they eventually end up feeling ill.
Finding the people who are carrying the virus (and preventing them from infecting others) is therefore critical to control the spread of the virus, but has proven to be a persistent obstacle during the pandemic. Currently, the main way to identify the infected is by proactively testing for the virus and, ideally, tracing who else they encountered. It’s a tedious, time-consuming process.
This is also true in vaccine clinical trials. Phase 3 trials mainly look at how well vaccines prevent disease in the real world, something that’s readily apparent when comparing the number of disease events in the vaccine group to the placebo group. It only takes 150 events or so to yield results on how well the vaccine prevents disease.
But to gauge efficacy against preventing infections, including low-grade infections that don’t generate symptoms, researchers will have to test the tens of thousands of participants in their phase 3 trial. It’s likely that a Covid-19 vaccine would reduce transmission, but it’s not clear yet by how much.
“What we know is that we’ve been seeing studies focusing specifically on efficacy with regards to severity of disease, meaning ameliorating the severity of the disease itself, but there’s still no studies that really are going to help us understand how we can certainly interrupt transmission,” said Maria Elena Bottazzi, a co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.
The companies conducting trials do plan to test their participants to see if there were any hidden infections, but it may be a while before they report their results.
That said, Moderna presented some early data showing that its vaccine does begin to reduce infections between its doses, which are spaced 28 days apart.
“There were approximately 2/3 fewer swabs that were positive in the vaccine group as compared to the placebo group at the pre-dose 2 timepoint, suggesting that some asymptomatic infections start to be prevented after the first dose,” according to Moderna’s report to the FDA. However, these results are preliminary and will require follow-up testing to see if this effect lasts longer than a few weeks.
The more that a vaccine can reduce the virus’s transmission, the more quickly a population can move toward herd immunity, the point where the virus can no longer spread easily between people. Scientists estimate that herd immunity threshold is when roughly between 60 percent and 90 percent of a population is immune to this virus, whether through a vaccine or from natural exposure. (A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that health workers in the United Kingdom exposed to SARS-CoV-2 produced protective antibodies against the virus and were protected against reinfection for at least six months.)
But vaccines might not protect every single person who gets a shot from getting infected, just like they don’t provide a 100 percent guarantee against getting sick. That means even the vaccinated will still have to wear face masks and keep their distance from others to prevent virus transmission until immunity is widespread.
How long do vaccines protect against Covid-19?
The Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech trials have shown that their vaccines start to provide protection against Covid-19 illness quickly — and that protection starts building up right after the first dose.
Whether that protection fades after a few months or a few years is unclear. And researchers can only find out by waiting and observing. That means monitoring the thousands of participants of clinical trials, as well as recipients of the vaccines in the general population, for years. Pfizer and BioNTech, as well as Moderna, have committed to actively monitoring the participants in their clinical trials for at least two years. They are also keeping an eye on people who are receiving their vaccines.
But hints on the durability of vaccine protection could arrive sooner. Looking at vaccine recipients six months or one year after they receive their injections, researchers should be able to see how many were infected with SARS-CoV-2 — and when — to get an early estimate of how quickly protection weakens.
“That would give us potentially some information for what future years will look like,” said Meagan Fitzpatrick, an assistant professor at the center for vaccine development and global health at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. “You will definitely get some signal, but you don’t know really for sure in a way that’s backed up by data until that amount of time passes from when the first people got their first doses.”
Longer protection would buy time for the health sector as vaccines roll out since they wouldn’t have to worry about reinfections or revaccinating people. Evidence from past coronavirus outbreaks like SARS and MERS showed that among survivors, protection for those diseases lasted for several years. But SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus, and much remains uncertain.
There’s also a chance that SARS-CoV-2 could mutate in a way that would escape the protection offered by a vaccine. However, scientists say that’s unlikely in the near term because Covid-19 vaccines target several different parts of the virus and the odds of simultaneous mutations in all of those regions are low.
But more study is needed to yield more definite answers, and the best way to reduce the likelihood of major mutations in SARS-CoV-2 is to limit its spread.
How quickly can we get the vaccine to everyone?
The United States is now in the midst of its largest vaccination campaign in history, an endeavor that’s anywhere from three to four times as big as vaccinating against seasonal flu, according to Moncef Slaoui, the scientific lead for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Operation Warp Speed vaccine program.
It’s a delicate and critical process. “How soon can we really start driving our Covid numbers low really definitely depends on rollout,” Fitzpatrick said. “A vaccine is only as good as the doses that actually get into people.”
However, the debut of Covid-19 vaccines has already hit several bumps. Some states have reported that their initial allotments of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine were cut, while the manufacturer reported that many doses have gone unclaimed.
Part of the challenge is technical constraints of the vaccines themselves. Both the Moderna and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines require maintaining cold temperatures from factories to transportation to clinics. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in particular demands ultra-cold storage at temperatures of minus 70 degrees Celsius (minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit).
Another complicating factor is simply sorting out who should get the vaccines and when. Enough doses are not immediately available for everyone, so health officials have to make delicate decisions about who to prioritize.
The vaccines available so far have to be administered as two doses spaced several weeks apart, so everyone will have to come back for a second shot. Doses have to be set aside for follow-ups and if people don’t get their second dose, they may have protection that’s less robust or less durable than expected. In a large enough population, that could erode the power of a vaccine to contain the virus.
At the same time, health officials will have to overcome vaccine hesitancy. Getting a high uptake of vaccines is critical in drawing down pandemic restrictions. And the more holdouts there are, the longer it will take. The good news is that reluctance to getting a vaccine seems to have diminished in the United States. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 71 percent of Americans said they would likely get a Covid-19 vaccine, up from 63 percent in September.
A vaccine is not just about protecting individuals, but protecting a population as a whole. With enough people immunized, even people who haven’t received the vaccine — including those who can’t get vaccinated for health reasons — will experience a much lower risk of infection.
“If you really, really, really want to interrupt and really get rid of this pandemic, you really need high levels of [vaccine] coverage and very high levels of efficacy,” Bottazzi said.
And over the coming months, more Covid-19 vaccines will likely gain approval. That will help ease some of the supply constraints, but will add to the complexity of administering them. Each vaccine has its own storage requirements, dosing schedule, and may be best suited for different demographics.
Taken together, there’s a lot that can go wrong with distributing vaccines. But getting these steps right would mean a much faster route out of the Covid-19 crisis.
How well will the US control the spread of the virus?
In addition to vaccinating millions of people, controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is critical. Efforts to contain the virus will allow the vaccine to have a much greater impact. Vaccines could be targeted to hot spots, for instance, rather than having to push back against a national onslaught.
As mentioned earlier, curtailing the virus’s transmission also reduces the likelihood of a mutation that could render a vaccine less effective. (But if virus variants discovered in the UK that appear more transmissive spread widely in the US, that could complicate efforts of curbing spread, even if the vaccine is just as effective against these variants.)
If all goes fairly well with the logistics of vaccine distribution, it will take weeks to months for it to actually start reducing hospitalizations and fatalities from Covid-19.
A vaccine is meant to prevent illness, so it will do little for people who are already ill with Covid-19. And the SARS-CoV-2 virus can incubate in a person for up to two weeks before the individual starts to show symptoms, and it can take longer after that for them to seek treatment.
As such, there will be a lag in seeing the impacts of a vaccine across the population. But slowing the spread of the virus would make vaccines a more powerful tool to end the pandemic, and results would start to manifest much sooner. Vaccination is also going to be working in tandem with immunity people have built up from surviving infection. Almost 20 million people in the US have been infected to date. “Around 30 percent population immunity, things start slowing a little bit, especially in the places that have been hit hard,” Jha said.
Conversely, if Covid-19 continues to rage out of control, it will be much harder for a vaccine to make a difference in morbidity and mortality, and it will take even longer to see results.
We still need testing, masking, distancing, and treatments
While scientists and health experts have been elated at the speed at which Covid-19 vaccines have been developed, they’ve also been adamant that vaccines on their own are not enough to control the Covid-19 pandemic.
The existing measures for slowing Covid-19 remain just as important as they’ve ever been, if not more so, given that hospitalizations and daily deaths are continuing to mount. Tactics like wearing face masks, rigorous hand-washing, and avoiding large gatherings and close contact with others will still be needed in the coming months, even among people who have been immunized.
Treatments for Covid-19 are also critical since they are the most immediate way to reduce fatalities. Approaches like monoclonal antibodies will be needed to help people survive the illness.
Widespread testing for Covid-19 will also continue to be crucial to identify potential spreaders and to allow people in key jobs to continue working.
It’s a sliding scale between these variables. For example, better testing and tracing could allow people more freedom even if they are not immune. Or effective treatments can drastically reduce fatality rates, reducing the burden of the disease.
However, pressure on all fronts — vaccines, treatment, testing, social distancing — is what will end the crisis the soonest. “The vaccine works at a population level a lot faster if we’re introducing it into a context into which we are throwing all of our other methods to interrupt the virus,” Fitzpatrick said.
While millions of people are growing weary of all the drastic restrictions imposed by the pandemic and the efforts to contain it, keeping them up in the coming months will help ensure that the US finds the quickest and least painful way out of routines bound by Covid-19.


vox--2020-12-28--2020 had some significant silver linings. Here are 7 of them.

2020 has been a lousy year .
Time magazine ’ s cover story declared it the “ worst year ever ” ( or at least “ in living memory for most Americans ” ) .
And it is finishing on a miserable note , with coronavirus deaths reaching horrifying new heights — worse than a 9/11 every single day — while public health experts beg us to celebrate the winter holidays alone .
But 2020 wasn ’ t all bad news .
In fact , I ’ ll go further than that : 2020 had good news that would stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any other year .
In areas ranging from public health to medicine , from poverty alleviation to food technology , there were some tremendous leaps .
To highlight them — as I ’ d like to do here — isn ’ t to deny the misery and grief that were visited upon so many around the world in 2020 .
Rather , it ’ s to remind us that there ’ s so much to fight for , and to honor the work of the many people who , under adverse conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made tremendous progress on key problems .
The world will start 2021 having lost many things we shouldn ’ t have lost .
More than 1.5 million preventable deaths have occurred so far .
Hundreds of millions have been pushed into a spiral of poverty .
In the US , the transition of power to President-elect Joe Biden promises to be ugly as Trump and his allies refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any election that their opponent won .
But beneath all that , there is still real work going on in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives , helps people , treats disease , and makes the future brighter .
That work deserves a spotlight .
Here are seven things that give me optimism about the future .
1 ) The record speed of the vaccine rollout won ’ t just end this pandemic soon .
It ’ s also a reminder that humanity is still capable of astonishing leaps .
The first vaccines for the coronavirus have begun , 11 months after the existence of the virus started to become widely known .
Impressive results have been published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines publishing results in the upcoming weeks as well .
Overall , things look very good .
The vaccines are safe , with a very low rate of adverse effects , and several of the vaccines are more than 90 percent effective at preventing serious coronavirus symptoms .
When they are widely distributed , they should cut deaths dramatically .
Public health experts have cautioned that people should continue to wear masks until everyone ’ s vaccinated .
And it remains to be seen how much the vaccines will prevent transmission of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But likely by mid-year , high-risk people and essential workers will be vaccinated .
The worst horrors of the pandemic will soon be under control : Health care workers will have a vaccine and their lives will be less in danger while they work long hours to protect us .
Hospitals will be less overwhelmed as enough at-risk people have vaccines to keep ICU beds open .
And by late 2021 , a vaccine will likely be available to everyone who wants one , and it will be safe to return to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the pandemic .
This crisis has dragged on long enough that it seems endless .
It isn ’ t .
The vaccines —produced and distributed with astonishing speed — change everything .
In a time when it seemed like so much around us broke down , the vaccine success story is a reminder that humanity is still capable of groundbreaking achievements .
2 ) The coronavirus vaccine is also a good sign for new vaccine technologies In the past , vaccines have taken years or even decades to develop .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ones now hitting the market were developed in the space of days or weeks ( the time since then has been for safety testing ) .
That sped-up process took a long time to develop .
For the past several years , researchers have been working on new ways to develop vaccines .
The success of the coronavirus vaccines is a major vindication of that work and a really good sign of how well it could work for other diseases .
One breakthrough here is something called “ mRNA vaccines.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this kind of vaccine .
Unlike most vaccines , mRNA vaccines don ’ t use a dead or inactivated version of the virus .
Instead , the vaccine uses mRNA : a single-strand RNA molecule that the ribosomes inside your cells use as a template or instruction set to learn what proteins they should build next .
The vaccine injects the mRNA into your body , telling it to produce a “ spike protein ” present on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus ; your cells will follow the instructions , producing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make antibodies .
Researchers have hoped for years that mRNA vaccines will make it possible to vaccinate against diseases we otherwise struggle to vaccinate for and to do so on a much faster timeline than usual .
“ mRNA vaccines represent a promising alternative to conventional vaccine approaches because of their high potency , capacity for rapid development and potential for low-cost manufacture and safe administration , ” a 2018 paper in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery by University of Pennsylvania medical researchers argued .
Even before the pandemic hit , there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to make mRNA vaccines possible .
But 2020 put that work to the test as vaccine researchers the world over tried to rapidly retool to fight Covid-19 .
Now , with the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines , the technology has been tested and it has succeeded .
That success is likely to drive development of tons more mRNA vaccines targeting other diseases .
Meanwhile , the Oxford research institute that produced the Oxford/AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine is also moving into late-stage clinical trials with another major achievement : a vaccine for malaria , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past century .
If the malaria vaccine works , it could put one of the world ’ s biggest killers to rest for good .
And even if it ’ s only moderately effective , it can save a lot of lives .
Other good news to look forward to on the vaccine front : Moderna is reportedly working on a flu vaccine that lasts for life instead of requiring a yearly update .
And mRNA vaccines might also be used to train the body to — one day — fight cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ready for the next pandemic Scientists and policy experts have been warning for years that the United States was unready for the next pandemic .
No one could have predicted that it would happen this year , of course , but we knew it would happen someday — and the US wasn ’ t ready .
In February and March , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) made mistakes with testing that hampered the US ’ s ability to stop the spread of the coronavirus into the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in low adoption , a problem that persists today .
There were personal protective equipment ( PPE ) shortages despite stockpiles intended to solve that exact problem .
Many institutional weaknesses were suddenly and humiliatingly laid bare .
But there ’ s a silver lining .
The coronavirus pandemic has been awful , but it ’ s nowhere near as bad as it could have been .
“ The coronavirus appears not to be deadly enough to kill tens of millions of people , as was initially feared , ” I wrote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more or less a matter of luck .
The virus could easily have been deadlier , and the world would currently be in the grip of a horrifying mass casualty event.
” Perhaps 2020 ’ s single biggest stroke of luck — one that , as a parent of young kids , I appreciate every single day — is that the disease largely isn ’ t deadly to children .
Other pandemic diseases might be different .
It is possible for a disease to spread like Covid-19 while being deadlier to younger people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as influenzas typically are .
One thing the country can take a small measure of comfort in is that its unreadiness was exposed and its lessons were learned now , with this virus , instead of something much , much worse .
Countries that faced SARS in the mid-2000s handled Covid-19 better , and hopefully having faced Covid-19 will help the US be ready for the next pandemic .
“ I think we ’ ve learned an enormous amount in the course of this year , ” Steve Morrison , who studies pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Studies , told me .
“ Health security prior to this was a kind of niche domain .
It was one prone to these cycles of crisis and complacency .
It was underfinanced , underprioritized.
” That came back to bite the US — but hopefully , having learned its lesson , it can do better .
Post-pandemic accountability will make a big difference in determining how much America lets its mistakes this time around make it stronger for the next time .
Morrison , for his part , believes the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around because of what it went through in 2020 .
It ’ s the thinnest of silver linings , but I ’ ll take it .
4 ) Our digital infrastructure for remote work was tested — and passed As rough as 2020 was , it would have been much worse without remote communications tech .
After a decade of asking , “ What is tech even getting us ?
” we saw an answer : the ability for fully 40 percent of the labor force to stay home during a pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we complain about them , enabled companies to switch to remote meetings more or less overnight .
The amount of traffic online jumped dramatically , and the internet mostly handled it without visible strain .
That ’ s easy to take for granted , since we mostly experience it as an absence — websites that load when we expect them to , devices that work .
But it ’ s really pretty remarkable , and it points at one of our modern world ’ s greatest strengths , a strength that has survived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by AT & T , one of the nation ’ s largest internet providers , rose almost immediately by 20 percent starting in mid-March , ” Charles Fishman pointed out in an Atlantic article : AT & T also told the Atlantic it experienced even more dramatic spikes in time spent on the phone and in text messages sent .
As the pandemic made it unsafe to connect with one another in person , we connected digitally .
If we ’ d suffered a pandemic like this only a few decades ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically impossible .
The infrastructure simply didn ’ t exist to allow most white-collar workers to safely work from home .
In 2020 , it did — and where it didn ’ t , we built it .
“ At one point in March , for instance , ” Fishman writes , “ traffic was rising so fast in Chicago and Atlanta that dozens of technicians and engineers in those cities worked all night , adding fresh fiber connections and routers.
” There are , of course , still galling inequities in access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the country , kids were switched to “ remote school ” despite not having reliable internet access at home .
The CARES Act contained money for expanding broadband access in poorly served communities , though there have been challenges in ensuring the money is spent usefully by the end-of-year deadline .
And most people don ’ t have the luxury of doing their jobs from home , and they didn ’ t reap this benefit as much as knowledge economy workers .
That said , the resilience of the home internet infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it might only get better : Over the course of the year , innovative engineers worked to make online meeting tools better and more reliable , and to mimic many of the missing bits of regular life .
In the past few months , I ’ ve attended online parties where people get louder or quieter as you walk toward them , to imitate how normal parties work ; I ’ ve tested out special technology to enable group singing , which usually doesn ’ t work over video calls because of lag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems .
But it can also be innovative , flexible , and fast-moving , and in 2020 it lived up to its promise as a source not just of shiny distractions but of critical tools .
The engineers who made working and connecting from home possible saved lives , and it should be an opportunity to reflect on how much technology can do when it ’ s directed at important problems .
5 ) Biotech is making huge leaps in other sectors If you ’ ve ever seen a three-dimensional model of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way the atoms twist and fold up into a shape looks kind of random .
For a long time , scientists have tried to identify principles that explain what shape proteins will take when they fold .
They ’ ve had only moderate success .
There are more than a googol possibilities for any given protein , and which form a protein will take depends on incredibly complex interactions among its thousands of amino acids .
Researchers have kept at it , though , because the “ protein-folding problem ” is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Successfully predicting how proteins fold will make it possible to design new drugs with a particular desired structure .
It opens the door to breakthroughs in everything from new cancer treatments to new antidepressants .
2020 saw a big leap in these efforts , thanks to AI .
Every two years at an annual competition called the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction ( CASP ) , biologists compete to design systems that predict how unfamiliar proteins will fold .
Their predictors are judged by how far their best guess at a protein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined structure — the one the protein has when it is built out of amino acids and measured how it folds .
Last CASP , in 2018 , the leader of the pack was Alphabet ’ s DeepMind , an AI research organization .
At this year ’ s CASP , DeepMind didn ’ t just win again — it improved on its previous performance by an enormous margin , producing results almost as good as those you would get if you laboriously built and laboratory-imaged all of the proteins .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-founder John Moult told Nature .
“ In some sense the problem is solved.
” DeepMind ’ s results are good enough that researchers should be able to use them for all kinds of biomedical research , custom-designing drugs that have desired receptors .
It would also let researchers quickly scan every existing drug to learn which ones will work against some novel disease .
And there ’ s no reason to think that the progress will stop here .
“ It ’ s a breakthrough of the first order , certainly one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my lifetime , ” Columbia computational biologist Mohammed AlQuraishi told Nature .
Skeptics have protested that while DeepMind has made progress , they haven ’ t “ solved ” protein folding , and there are many other steps before this work will produce new drugs .
But there ’ s no arguing that this has been a major goal in biology and in pharmaceutical research for a long time .
DeepMind made its name in the AI field with its work beating top players at Go , chess , and Starcraft .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were easy for some to dismiss as being novelties — an AI that can play video games better than a human won ’ t change the world .
This achievement makes it clear that AI breakthroughs are also coming to scientific fields and are poised to be hugely consequential .
While many of the implications of highly advanced AI systems give me pause , there ’ s lots of cause for optimism here .
If we get AI right , we can use it to tackle many of the thorniest problems we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learned more about what works to fight poverty This year is ending with a poverty crisis .
But during April , May , and June — as the economy ground to a halt because of the pandemic — poverty in the US actually fell .
Why ?
The CARES Act , the landmark $ 2 trillion pandemic relief bill that Congress passed last March , briefly left many Americans better off .
Transferring $ 1,200 to most taxpayers and padding out unemployment benefits with an extra $ 600 a week caused poverty rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the depth of the crisis , as you can see on the chart below ( the March decline is due to tax refunds ) .
Poverty doesn ’ t usually fall in the middle of an economic crisis .
But the US had never tried anything on the scale of CARES before .
The CARES Act ’ s provisions for unemployment insurance eventually expired , the act wasn ’ t renewed , and now poverty is spiking to record levels .
That ’ s awful news .
But it also provides some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long time , there have been claims that America doesn ’ t really know how to tackle poverty , or that it requires solving lots of complex problems all at once .
The CARES Act made it pretty clear that the country does know .
A bill doesn ’ t have to be perfectly targeted , ideally designed , or incredibly clever to reduce poverty .
It just has to send money to people who are struggling .
This lesson has been reflected in the ways macroeconomists think about policy , economist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least as far as policy debates go , arguments about optimal fiscal policy based in formal macroeconomic models seem to be out , replaced by a consensus that giving people money is necessary and good ( at least , for the foreseeable future ) , ” Smith wrote recently .
Since the new consensus seems to reflect the empirical evidence a lot better than the old one — and presents policymakers with a lot more options to fight poverty — that ’ s great news .
7 ) The meat of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , farms around the world produce chicken for sale by raising fast-growing chicken breeds in batches of tens of thousands , tightly packed in warehouses that are a public health hazard , a fire hazard , a worker safety hazard , and a hazard to the well-being of the chickens themselves .
What if , instead , we could grow the meat without the chickens ?
Researchers all over the world have been chasing that dream , of “ lab-grown ” or “ cultured ” meat , for years .
This year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality as the Singapore Food Agency approved the sale of cultured chicken meat grown in bioreactors , becoming the first agency in the world to issue such an approval .
Its sign-off means that chicken bites from the US company Eat Just will be available to consumers in Singapore .
( There are a few other places in the world where you can try lab-grown meat , such as an experimental restaurant in Israel . )
While the US isn ’ t close to commercial approval , the government is interested in figuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stateside , as well : The US government gave out its first university research grant for lab-grown meat this winter .
While meat consumption is still rising , these steps have the potential to grow into much more than a novelty .
If scale and cost concerns can be resolved , this can be a path to ending our reliance on barbaric factory farming practices , and building a food system that meets the world demand for meat ethically .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good .

2020 has been a lousy year. Time magazine’s cover story declared it the “worst year ever” (or at least “in living memory for most Americans”). And it is finishing on a miserable note, with coronavirus deaths reaching horrifying new heights — worse than a 9/11 every single day — while public health experts beg us to celebrate the winter holidays alone.
But 2020 wasn’t all bad news. In fact, I’ll go further than that: 2020 had good news that would stand out as astonishing triumphs of human achievement in any other year. In areas ranging from public health to medicine, from poverty alleviation to food technology, there were some tremendous leaps. To highlight them — as I’d like to do here — isn’t to deny the misery and grief that were visited upon so many around the world in 2020. Rather, it’s to remind us that there’s so much to fight for, and to honor the work of the many people who, under adverse conditions in an extraordinarily difficult time, still made tremendous progress on key problems.
The world will start 2021 having lost many things we shouldn’t have lost. More than 1.5 million preventable deaths have occurred so far. Hundreds of millions have been pushed into a spiral of poverty. In the US, the transition of power to President-elect Joe Biden promises to be ugly as Trump and his allies refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any election that their opponent won.
But beneath all that, there is still real work going on in the world, work that transforms our lives, helps people, treats disease, and makes the future brighter. That work deserves a spotlight. Here are seven things that give me optimism about the future.
1) The record speed of the vaccine rollout won’t just end this pandemic soon. It’s also a reminder that humanity is still capable of astonishing leaps.
The first vaccines for the coronavirus have begun, 11 months after the existence of the virus started to become widely known. Impressive results have been published from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, with other vaccines publishing results in the upcoming weeks as well. Overall, things look very good. The vaccines are safe, with a very low rate of adverse effects, and several of the vaccines are more than 90 percent effective at preventing serious coronavirus symptoms. When they are widely distributed, they should cut deaths dramatically.
Public health experts have cautioned that people should continue to wear masks until everyone’s vaccinated. And it remains to be seen how much the vaccines will prevent transmission of the virus (if at all).
But likely by mid-year, high-risk people and essential workers will be vaccinated. The worst horrors of the pandemic will soon be under control: Health care workers will have a vaccine and their lives will be less in danger while they work long hours to protect us. Hospitals will be less overwhelmed as enough at-risk people have vaccines to keep ICU beds open. And by late 2021, a vaccine will likely be available to everyone who wants one, and it will be safe to return to the activities we’ve put on hold during the pandemic.
This crisis has dragged on long enough that it seems endless. It isn’t. The vaccines —produced and distributed with astonishing speed — change everything. In a time when it seemed like so much around us broke down, the vaccine success story is a reminder that humanity is still capable of groundbreaking achievements.
2) The coronavirus vaccine is also a good sign for new vaccine technologies
In the past, vaccines have taken years or even decades to develop. It’s striking to learn that some of the ones now hitting the market were developed in the space of days or weeks (the time since then has been for safety testing).
That sped-up process took a long time to develop. For the past several years, researchers have been working on new ways to develop vaccines. The success of the coronavirus vaccines is a major vindication of that work and a really good sign of how well it could work for other diseases.
One breakthrough here is something called “mRNA vaccines.” The Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus shots are examples of this kind of vaccine. Unlike most vaccines, mRNA vaccines don’t use a dead or inactivated version of the virus. Instead, the vaccine uses mRNA: a single-strand RNA molecule that the ribosomes inside your cells use as a template or instruction set to learn what proteins they should build next. The vaccine injects the mRNA into your body, telling it to produce a “spike protein” present on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; your cells will follow the instructions, producing the unfamiliar protein and spurring the body to make antibodies.
Researchers have hoped for years that mRNA vaccines will make it possible to vaccinate against diseases we otherwise struggle to vaccinate for and to do so on a much faster timeline than usual. “mRNA vaccines represent a promising alternative to conventional vaccine approaches because of their high potency, capacity for rapid development and potential for low-cost manufacture and safe administration,” a 2018 paper in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery by University of Pennsylvania medical researchers argued.
Even before the pandemic hit, there was already a lot of exciting work going on to make mRNA vaccines possible. But 2020 put that work to the test as vaccine researchers the world over tried to rapidly retool to fight Covid-19. Now, with the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, the technology has been tested and it has succeeded. That success is likely to drive development of tons more mRNA vaccines targeting other diseases.
Meanwhile, the Oxford research institute that produced the Oxford/AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine is also moving into late-stage clinical trials with another major achievement: a vaccine for malaria, which has stubbornly resisted research efforts over the past century. If the malaria vaccine works, it could put one of the world’s biggest killers to rest for good. And even if it’s only moderately effective, it can save a lot of lives.
Other good news to look forward to on the vaccine front: Moderna is reportedly working on a flu vaccine that lasts for life instead of requiring a yearly update. And mRNA vaccines might also be used to train the body to — one day — fight cancer.
3) America is likelier to be ready for the next pandemic
Scientists and policy experts have been warning for years that the United States was unready for the next pandemic. No one could have predicted that it would happen this year, of course, but we knew it would happen someday — and the US wasn’t ready.
In February and March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made mistakes with testing that hampered the US’s ability to stop the spread of the coronavirus into the country. Confusing public messaging around masks resulted in low adoption, a problem that persists today. There were personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages despite stockpiles intended to solve that exact problem. Many institutional weaknesses were suddenly and humiliatingly laid bare.
But there’s a silver lining. The coronavirus pandemic has been awful, but it’s nowhere near as bad as it could have been. “The coronavirus appears not to be deadly enough to kill tens of millions of people, as was initially feared,” I wrote on February 6, “but this is more or less a matter of luck. The virus could easily have been deadlier, and the world would currently be in the grip of a horrifying mass casualty event.” Perhaps 2020’s single biggest stroke of luck — one that, as a parent of young kids, I appreciate every single day — is that the disease largely isn’t deadly to children.
Other pandemic diseases might be different. It is possible for a disease to spread like Covid-19 while being deadlier to younger people, and particularly deadly to young children as influenzas typically are. One thing the country can take a small measure of comfort in is that its unreadiness was exposed and its lessons were learned now, with this virus, instead of something much, much worse. Countries that faced SARS in the mid-2000s handled Covid-19 better, and hopefully having faced Covid-19 will help the US be ready for the next pandemic.
“I think we’ve learned an enormous amount in the course of this year,” Steve Morrison, who studies pandemic preparedness at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me. “Health security prior to this was a kind of niche domain. It was one prone to these cycles of crisis and complacency. It was underfinanced, underprioritized.” That came back to bite the US — but hopefully, having learned its lesson, it can do better.
Post-pandemic accountability will make a big difference in determining how much America lets its mistakes this time around make it stronger for the next time. Morrison, for his part, believes the country will have a better response next time around because of what it went through in 2020. It’s the thinnest of silver linings, but I’ll take it.
4) Our digital infrastructure for remote work was tested — and passed
As rough as 2020 was, it would have been much worse without remote communications tech. After a decade of asking, “What is tech even getting us?” we saw an answer: the ability for fully 40 percent of the labor force to stay home during a pandemic. Zoom and similar tools, for all we complain about them, enabled companies to switch to remote meetings more or less overnight. The amount of traffic online jumped dramatically, and the internet mostly handled it without visible strain.
That’s easy to take for granted, since we mostly experience it as an absence — websites that load when we expect them to, devices that work. But it’s really pretty remarkable, and it points at one of our modern world’s greatest strengths, a strength that has survived the pandemic.
“Internet traffic carried by AT&T, one of the nation’s largest internet providers, rose almost immediately by 20 percent starting in mid-March,” Charles Fishman pointed out in an Atlantic article:
By the end of April, network traffic during the workweek was up 25 percent from typical Monday-to-Friday periods in January and February, and showed no signs of fading. That may not sound like much, but imagine suddenly needing to add 20 percent more long-haul trucks to U.S. highways instantly, or 20 percent more freight trains, or 20 percent more flights every day out of every airport in the country. In fact, none of those infrastructure systems could have provided 20 percent more capacity instantly — or sustained it day after day for months.
AT&T also told the Atlantic it experienced even more dramatic spikes in time spent on the phone and in text messages sent. As the pandemic made it unsafe to connect with one another in person, we connected digitally.
If we’d suffered a pandemic like this only a few decades ago, the way we responded would have been basically impossible. The infrastructure simply didn’t exist to allow most white-collar workers to safely work from home. In 2020, it did — and where it didn’t, we built it. “At one point in March, for instance,” Fishman writes, “traffic was rising so fast in Chicago and Atlanta that dozens of technicians and engineers in those cities worked all night, adding fresh fiber connections and routers.”
There are, of course, still galling inequities in access to the internet. In some parts of the country, kids were switched to “remote school” despite not having reliable internet access at home. The CARES Act contained money for expanding broadband access in poorly served communities, though there have been challenges in ensuring the money is spent usefully by the end-of-year deadline. And most people don’t have the luxury of doing their jobs from home, and they didn’t reap this benefit as much as knowledge economy workers.
That said, the resilience of the home internet infrastructure was an undeniably good thing. And it might only get better: Over the course of the year, innovative engineers worked to make online meeting tools better and more reliable, and to mimic many of the missing bits of regular life. In the past few months, I’ve attended online parties where people get louder or quieter as you walk toward them, to imitate how normal parties work; I’ve tested out special technology to enable group singing, which usually doesn’t work over video calls because of lag.
The tech industry has lots of problems. But it can also be innovative, flexible, and fast-moving, and in 2020 it lived up to its promise as a source not just of shiny distractions but of critical tools. The engineers who made working and connecting from home possible saved lives, and it should be an opportunity to reflect on how much technology can do when it’s directed at important problems.
5) Biotech is making huge leaps in other sectors
If you’ve ever seen a three-dimensional model of a protein, you might have noticed that the way the atoms twist and fold up into a shape looks kind of random. For a long time, scientists have tried to identify principles that explain what shape proteins will take when they fold. They’ve had only moderate success. There are more than a googol possibilities for any given protein, and which form a protein will take depends on incredibly complex interactions among its thousands of amino acids.
Researchers have kept at it, though, because the “protein-folding problem” is one of the most critical ones in biology. Successfully predicting how proteins fold will make it possible to design new drugs with a particular desired structure. It opens the door to breakthroughs in everything from new cancer treatments to new antidepressants.
2020 saw a big leap in these efforts, thanks to AI. Every two years at an annual competition called the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP), biologists compete to design systems that predict how unfamiliar proteins will fold. Their predictors are judged by how far their best guess at a protein’s structure is from the experimentally determined structure — the one the protein has when it is built out of amino acids and measured how it folds.
Last CASP, in 2018, the leader of the pack was Alphabet’s DeepMind, an AI research organization. At this year’s CASP, DeepMind didn’t just win again — it improved on its previous performance by an enormous margin, producing results almost as good as those you would get if you laboriously built and laboratory-imaged all of the proteins.
“This is a big deal,” CASP co-founder John Moult told Nature. “In some sense the problem is solved.”
DeepMind’s results are good enough that researchers should be able to use them for all kinds of biomedical research, custom-designing drugs that have desired receptors. It would also let researchers quickly scan every existing drug to learn which ones will work against some novel disease. And there’s no reason to think that the progress will stop here.
“It’s a breakthrough of the first order, certainly one of the most significant scientific results of my lifetime,” Columbia computational biologist Mohammed AlQuraishi told Nature. Skeptics have protested that while DeepMind has made progress, they haven’t “solved” protein folding, and there are many other steps before this work will produce new drugs. But there’s no arguing that this has been a major goal in biology and in pharmaceutical research for a long time.
DeepMind made its name in the AI field with its work beating top players at Go, chess, and Starcraft. Those triumphs involved impressive technical achievements, but they were easy for some to dismiss as being novelties — an AI that can play video games better than a human won’t change the world. This achievement makes it clear that AI breakthroughs are also coming to scientific fields and are poised to be hugely consequential.
While many of the implications of highly advanced AI systems give me pause, there’s lots of cause for optimism here. If we get AI right, we can use it to tackle many of the thorniest problems we face.
6) We’ve learned more about what works to fight poverty
This year is ending with a poverty crisis. But during April, May, and June — as the economy ground to a halt because of the pandemic — poverty in the US actually fell.
Why? The CARES Act, the landmark $2 trillion pandemic relief bill that Congress passed last March, briefly left many Americans better off. Transferring $1,200 to most taxpayers and padding out unemployment benefits with an extra $600 a week caused poverty rates to fall in April and May, at the depth of the crisis, as you can see on the chart below (the March decline is due to tax refunds). Poverty doesn’t usually fall in the middle of an economic crisis. But the US had never tried anything on the scale of CARES before.
The CARES Act’s provisions for unemployment insurance eventually expired, the act wasn’t renewed, and now poverty is spiking to record levels.
That’s awful news. But it also provides some useful perspective for policymakers. For a long time, there have been claims that America doesn’t really know how to tackle poverty, or that it requires solving lots of complex problems all at once. The CARES Act made it pretty clear that the country does know. A bill doesn’t have to be perfectly targeted, ideally designed, or incredibly clever to reduce poverty. It just has to send money to people who are struggling.
This lesson has been reflected in the ways macroeconomists think about policy, economist and finance commentator Noah Smith argues. “At least as far as policy debates go, arguments about optimal fiscal policy based in formal macroeconomic models seem to be out, replaced by a consensus that giving people money is necessary and good (at least, for the foreseeable future),” Smith wrote recently. Since the new consensus seems to reflect the empirical evidence a lot better than the old one — and presents policymakers with a lot more options to fight poverty — that’s great news.
7) The meat of the future is closer to the present
Currently, farms around the world produce chicken for sale by raising fast-growing chicken breeds in batches of tens of thousands, tightly packed in warehouses that are a public health hazard, a fire hazard, a worker safety hazard, and a hazard to the well-being of the chickens themselves.
What if, instead, we could grow the meat without the chickens?
Researchers all over the world have been chasing that dream, of “lab-grown” or “cultured” meat, for years. This year, lab-grown meat took one step closer to reality as the Singapore Food Agency approved the sale of cultured chicken meat grown in bioreactors, becoming the first agency in the world to issue such an approval. Its sign-off means that chicken bites from the US company Eat Just will be available to consumers in Singapore. (There are a few other places in the world where you can try lab-grown meat, such as an experimental restaurant in Israel.)
While the US isn’t close to commercial approval, the government is interested in figuring out how to foster lab-grown meat work stateside, as well: The US government gave out its first university research grant for lab-grown meat this winter.
While meat consumption is still rising, these steps have the potential to grow into much more than a novelty. If scale and cost concerns can be resolved, this can be a path to ending our reliance on barbaric factory farming practices, and building a food system that meets the world demand for meat ethically.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.