vox--2020-05-15--Companies are giving essential workers bullshit rewards

As the gravity of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States took hold in March , Walgreens decided to let its workers wear jeans .
It would be nearly two weeks before the pharmacy announced it was also giving them masks .
“ The jeans thing I would say was within two weeks or so of getting locked down .
The gloves and mask timing pissed me off , though .
Everyone else had them , and it would take almost three weeks or so , before the company got them to us , ” one New Jersey Walgreens worker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our manager when we would get them.
” Other associates were equally perplexed .
While a relaxed dress code isn ’ t bad , it ’ s not going to protect you from a deadly virus .
“ The jeans thing has me rolling , ” one worker remarked on a Reddit thread when the policy was implemented .
“ Our conspiracy theory at our store is that they ’ re letting us wear jeans to try to placate us instead of offering us hazard pay/bonus like every other company is doing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who wants extra money over jeans days , right ?
” Walgreens did pay out a one-time bonus to workers for their services in March : $ 300 to full-time employees and $ 150 for part-time .
But given the risks and anxieties its employees are facing , such rewards seem deeply insufficient .
And Walgreens is hardly unique .
In recent weeks , I ’ ve spoken with multiple essential workers about the often awkward ways their employers are trying to reward and motivate them .
Amid the coronavirus crisis , millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been deemed “ essential.
” And while commercials honor them and the public applauds them , there is a broader conversation brewing about how to fairly compensate and protect them , not just now , but always .
There is federal guidance offering some guidelines for protecting essential workers , and there are some legislative proposals for protections and compensation .
But by and large , companies are left to their own devices with regard to how they compensate and reward their workers during the pandemic , and some have resorted to some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a safe job , no one should be risking their lives , and one of the biggest problems with trying to incentivize people to work in unsafe conditions is that it is inevitably condescending , ” said Celine McNichols , director of government affairs and labor counsel at the Economic Policy Institute .
A package of cookies from corporate isn ’ t a replacement for the sneeze guards you ’ ve been waiting on for weeks .
Calling someone a hero is a sign of respect , but so is paying them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t sign up to be one for $ 10 an hour and no health insurance .
A Walgreens spokesperson said in an email that the health and safety of its workers and employees is a “ top priority ” and noted the pharmacy chain has instituted safety measures such as enhanced cleaning , social distancing , and plexiglass shields during the Covid-19 outbreak .
They said the company has followed governmental guidelines for retail businesses and in early April began providing face coverings in advance of CDC guidelines , which are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were never part of the CDC ’ s recommendations .
In mid-March , McDonald ’ s workers at a store in Monterey Park near Los Angeles began agitating to management about protections .
As Mona Holmes at Eater outlined , workers walked off the job multiple times , alleging management hadn ’ t taken their concerns seriously and demanding the store be thoroughly cleaned and employees paid during a two-week quarantine period .
In the midst of the drama , one of their colleagues fell ill .
According to a Fight for $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Covid-19 and eventually wound up on a ventilator .
( They have now recovered and been released . )
Also in the midst of all the drama , workers say a calendar appeared in the store for the month of April .
It laid out themed days , sort of like spirit week during high school : “ Wacky Wednesday ” for wearing your favorite sports jersey or crazy socks , “ Sunday Funday ” with bingo and trivia , and “ # Freebie Friyay ” with raffles .
HuffPost first reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about giving us what we need at work — because we didn ’ t at that time have gloves or hand sanitizer — they worried about a ridiculous calendar , ” Angelica Hernandez , a worker at that McDonald ’ s for 15 years , told me in a phone interview .
“ We felt offended , because primarily what we want for our store is to protect us , not offending us with this , putting these absurd things out , ” said Laura Pozos , who has worked at the McDonald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 46 , took part in two walkouts in March and April , and workers have achieved some of their demands : She said there are now sneeze guards in place , the store does temperature checks , and the break room has a two-person limit .
“ I think we ’ ve achieved something , but there ’ s more that we want to achieve , ” she told me .
Hernandez has three children and has sent them to live with her mother-in-law to keep them safe .
She ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s unjust for someone to be a life-long McDonald ’ s employee , and McDonald ’ s doesn ’ t do anything for their employees , ” she said .
A new calendar has been put up for May .
McDonald ’ s said the calendar was created five years ago .
Workers in the Monterey Park store insist that it is a new addition to their location .
A spokesperson for Fight for $ 15 , an organizing group that fights for a $ 15 minimum wage and union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of rewards companies such as McDonald ’ s and Taco Bell have given workers during the coronavirus crisis : a free hamburger for a worker or their kid , $ 20 worth of in-store food , one-time “ thank you pay ” of $ 100 or $ 200 .
“ While some of these other examples are not as egregious as the calendar , workers think these incentives are a slap in the face as their demands for sufficient PPE , paid sick days , and pandemic pay go unaddressed , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for $ 15 , in an emailed statement .
“ On top of that , in the middle of this crisis , while workers were begging for masks , McDonald ’ s dished out nearly $ 1 billion in dividends to its shareholders .
It ’ s wrong to hand out cash to shareholders while workers struggle for health and economic protections.
” In an email , a McDonald ’ s spokesperson said its restaurant crew is the “ heart and soul ” of the company and its top priority , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our restaurants and adjust operations ” during the coronavirus crisis .
The spokesperson pointed to benefits to employees including five days earned paid time off per year , two weeks paid leave for those impacted by the coronavirus , and “ nurse support ” for people without health insurance .
They added that the activism at Monterey Park is “ not an accurate representation ” of most of its restaurants .
Many American institutions were slow to react to the coronavirus pandemic , including the government , the health care system , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate America .
According to a recent survey from the Shift Project out of the University of California Berkeley and UC San Francisco conducted from early March to early April , workers at major companies report that basic safety protections on the job are lacking .
And while things have improved , the process has often been slow .
In mid-April , I spoke with a Family Dollar worker in Georgia , who told me she felt like a “ sacrificial lamb ” and was “ terrified ” at work .
She told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sneeze guards on April 2 but they hadn ’ t yet arrived , though corporate had managed to send cookies .
“ We ’ re looking at each other like , okay , thanks for the cookies , but that ’ s not really doing us any kind of service , ” she told me .
Her pay had temporarily been bumped by $ 2 an hour , from $ 10.50 to $ 12.50 .
But she was worried about her hours being cut , which would effectively cancel that increase out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ need every single minute you can possibly give me , and hours are being cut down because they ’ re trying to save money , ” she said .
A spokesperson for Dollar Tree , which owns Family Dollar , said in an email that the safety and health of its associates is a “ top priority ” and that 99 percent of its stores now have plexiglass guards .
“ We prioritized the areas affected most by the pandemic .
There were not any major delays during this initiative , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Kristi in May , she told me the guards had finally arrived .
The problem with rewards like cookies , calendars , relaxed dress codes , or an extra dollar or two isn ’ t that they ’ re necessarily bad , it ’ s that if they ’ re not accompanied by real protections , transparency , and significant pay , they fall flat .
“ Obviously , people want to see their employers show their recognition through words but definitely by action , ” said Molly Kinder , a researcher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institution .
“ Nothing goes off the table because you did a luncheon.
” The coronavirus pandemic has revealed that many low-paid jobs are instrumental to the engine of our economy .
And even as the country is now acutely aware of how essential these workers are , it still can ’ t quite break the mold of how they ’ re treated .
Many are still low-paid , many still lack benefits , and many are still left to fend for basic protections and respect .
Denise Allegretti and Margarette Nerette , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Workers East , represent more than 8,000 workers in nursing homes in Florida .
They told me a handful of the employers they deal with have offered a small one-time bonus , and some have added on an extra $ 1 or $ 3 in hazard pay .
“ We think that ’ s baloney , ” Nerette said .
“ People are putting their lives in danger , and this is how management says thank you to them ?
” The pair described pleading with nursing home management for transparency and fielding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and afraid for their lives .
The day I spoke with them , they ’ d just learned a worker in their unit had died of Covid-19 .
“ It definitely has an impact on the rest of the workers , without question , ” Allegretti said .
She added , “ We need employers to be transparent , they need to meet with the employees every day and give updates on what ’ s going on in the building .
It ’ s pulling teeth to get them to have that happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a premium you pay , or you ’ re offering something as ridiculously shameful as wearing jeans to work or your favorite team jersey , you ’ re essentially saying to workers , ‘ We would have to do X or Y to maximize your safety , but instead of doing that , we ’ re going to give you this little incentive , ’ and they ’ re left between a rock and a hard place , ” she said .
Workers need the job and the pay , so they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s worth the risk .
Animosity is building up among many essential workers .
Many make less on the job than they would on unemployment insurance , but they feel they ’ re trapped in their jobs because generally benefits don ’ t go to people who quit .
Rewards and recognition can be a source of acrimony as well — in the health care system , there ’ s a lot of praise for doctors and nurses , but what about hospital cleaning staff or home health aids ?
And if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the anger built up now will last .
“ There ’ s going to need to be something after this is said and done to make peace with this , or else you ’ re going to have a very angry workforce , ” one social worker in a Queens hospital told me .
Companies can and should do better by their employees , but it doesn ’ t mean they will .
“ It ’ s really important that companies are taking this time now to step back and really look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are we doing the right thing during the current situation ?
And they should have an eye toward what it will look like three months down the road or six months down the road , ” said Jeff Cates , the CEO of Achievers , a company focused on employee benefits and rewards .
McDonald ’ s is one of Achievers ’ clients , but it focuses on online recognition .
It does not work with the Monterey Park location , and the calendar was not tied to its consulting .
We don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want .
We can ask them .
Worker power and unions have been in steady decline in recent decades , which is one reason so many essential workers are left to the whims of their employers .
The government isn ’ t protecting them , and lawmakers from both parties have let them down , so they ’ re left to fend for themselves .
As Luke Winkie recently laid out for The Goods , some workers are using Reddit and Facebook to connect , swap stories , get information , and organize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , they ’ ve become a crucial tool for workers who find themselves under extreme levels of stress .
Winkie points out that one Kroger worker in Arkansas didn ’ t know the company would be offering hazard pay until she found out on Facebook .
( Hazard pay — or rather , “ hero pay ” — that is set to expire on May 17 . )
“ There ’ s going to need to be something after this is said and done to make peace with this , or else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very angry workforce ” These less-than-stellar rewards come up often in these groups .
One UPS worker shared a meme about ignored hazard pay demands , where a corporation asks , “ What do you want ?
How about a light show and applause ?
How about we call you heroes ?
” A CVS worker shared a meme about jeans day .
( It seems to be a trend . )
Deciphering what is and isn ’ t a valuable way to reward workers isn ’ t an exact science .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount for risking your and your family ’ s health during a pandemic ?
An extra $ 3 an hour ?
How about an extra $ 30 ?
What size bonus ?
And some individuals may perceive benefits differently .
In one essential worker Facebook group I ’ m in , a worker talked about her company starting a $ 250 drawing for people who complete all their shifts each week , remarking that “ being a workaholic ” sometimes pays off and expressing her excitement about her luck .
Another worker in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A thanks for risking you and your families [ sic ] well being lottery ?
Cute but kind of insulting really lol.
” While it ’ s a complex issue , it ’ s not impossible to at least try to tackle .
Right now , more workers are speaking out about their asks — Fight for $ 15 , for example , has put out a list of Covid-related demands , and employee activism at places such as Amazon , Instacart , and Trader Joe ’ s is on the rise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they need , and we should listen to them , ” McNichols said , emphasizing the importance of worker power and , where possible , unions .
“ It ’ s even more critical that workers have the ability to trigger those wins for themselves on the job.
” It ’ s also worth noting that the way these workers are treated and how they are and aren ’ t compensated stretches far beyond the pandemic .
“ What our broader research shows is that stable hours , efficient hours , meaningful pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s health and well-being and the well-being of their kids , ” said Danny Schneider , an assistant professor of sociology at the University of California Berkeley .
“ The amount of hazard pay and bonuses that they are talking about , it doesn ’ t change these fundamentals of job quality , and those things are more important now.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As the gravity of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States took hold in March, Walgreens decided to let its workers wear jeans. It would be nearly two weeks before the pharmacy announced it was also giving them masks.
“The jeans thing I would say was within two weeks or so of getting locked down. The gloves and mask timing pissed me off, though. Everyone else had them, and it would take almost three weeks or so, before the company got them to us,” one New Jersey Walgreens worker told me. “We kept asking our manager when we would get them.”
Other associates were equally perplexed. While a relaxed dress code isn’t bad, it’s not going to protect you from a deadly virus. “The jeans thing has me rolling,” one worker remarked on a Reddit thread when the policy was implemented. “Our conspiracy theory at our store is that they’re letting us wear jeans to try to placate us instead of offering us hazard pay/bonus like every other company is doing,” another user replied. “Cuz who wants extra money over jeans days, right?” Walgreens did pay out a one-time bonus to workers for their services in March: $300 to full-time employees and $150 for part-timers. But given the risks and anxieties its employees are facing, such rewards seem deeply insufficient. And Walgreens is hardly unique. In recent weeks, I’ve spoken with multiple essential workers about the often awkward ways their employers are trying to reward and motivate them.
Amid the coronavirus crisis, millions of workers across the country have suddenly been deemed “essential.” And while commercials honor them and the public applauds them, there is a broader conversation brewing about how to fairly compensate and protect them, not just now, but always. There is federal guidance offering some guidelines for protecting essential workers, and there are some legislative proposals for protections and compensation. But by and large, companies are left to their own devices with regard to how they compensate and reward their workers during the pandemic, and some have resorted to some less-than-valuable tactics.
“Every job should be a safe job, no one should be risking their lives, and one of the biggest problems with trying to incentivize people to work in unsafe conditions is that it is inevitably condescending,” said Celine McNicholas, director of government affairs and labor counsel at the Economic Policy Institute.
A package of cookies from corporate isn’t a replacement for the sneeze guards you’ve been waiting on for weeks. Calling someone a hero is a sign of respect, but so is paying them like one, especially when they didn’t sign up to be one for $10 an hour and no health insurance.
A Walgreens spokesperson said in an email that the health and safety of its workers and employees is a “top priority” and noted the pharmacy chain has instituted safety measures such as enhanced cleaning, social distancing, and plexiglass shields during the Covid-19 outbreak. They said the company has followed governmental guidelines for retail businesses and in early April began providing face coverings in advance of CDC guidelines, which now require them. To be sure, jeans were never part of the CDC’s recommendations.
A colleague on a ventilator and a spirit-month calendar
In mid-March, McDonald’s workers at a store in Monterey Park near Los Angeles began agitating to management about protections. As Mona Holmes at Eater outlined, workers walked off the job multiple times, alleging management hadn’t taken their concerns seriously and demanding the store be thoroughly cleaned and employees paid during a two-week quarantine period.
In the midst of the drama, one of their colleagues fell ill. According to a Fight for $15 spokesperson, the colleague was hospitalized with Covid-19 and eventually wound up on a ventilator. (They have now recovered and been released.) Also in the midst of all the drama, workers say a calendar appeared in the store for the month of April. It laid out themed days, sort of like spirit week during high school: “Wacky Wednesday” for wearing your favorite sports jersey or crazy socks, “Sunday Funday” with bingo and trivia, and “#Freebie Friyay” with raffles. HuffPost first reported the calendar.
“Instead of worrying about giving us what we need at work — because we didn’t at that time have gloves or hand sanitizer — they worried about a ridiculous calendar,” Angelica Hernandez, a worker at that McDonald’s for 15 years, told me in a phone interview.
“We felt offended, because primarily what we want for our store is to protect us, not offending us with this, putting these absurd things out,” said Laura Pozos, who has worked at the McDonald’s for four years.
Hernandez, 46, took part in two walkouts in March and April, and workers have achieved some of their demands: She said there are now sneeze guards in place, the store does temperature checks, and the break room has a two-person limit. “I think we’ve achieved something, but there’s more that we want to achieve,” she told me. Hernandez has three children and has sent them to live with her mother-in-law to keep them safe. She’s still worried about her recovering colleague. “It’s unjust for someone to be a life-long McDonald’s employee, and McDonald’s doesn’t do anything for their employees,” she said.
A new calendar has been put up for May.
McDonald’s said the calendar was created five years ago. Workers in the Monterey Park store insist that it is a new addition to their location.
A spokesperson for Fight for $15, an organizing group that fights for a $15 minimum wage and union rights for workers, relayed multiple stories of rewards companies such as McDonald’s and Taco Bell have given workers during the coronavirus crisis: a free hamburger for a worker or their kid, $20 worth of in-store food, one-time “thank you pay” of $100 or $200.
“While some of these other examples are not as egregious as the calendar, workers think these incentives are a slap in the face as their demands for sufficient PPE, paid sick days, and pandemic pay go unaddressed,” said Allynn Umel, organizing director for Fight for $15, in an emailed statement. “On top of that, in the middle of this crisis, while workers were begging for masks, McDonald’s dished out nearly $1 billion in dividends to its shareholders. It’s wrong to hand out cash to shareholders while workers struggle for health and economic protections.”
In an email, a McDonald’s spokesperson said its restaurant crew is the “heart and soul” of the company and its top priority, and it has “continued to enhance processes at our restaurants and adjust operations” during the coronavirus crisis. The spokesperson pointed to benefits to employees including five days earned paid time off per year, two weeks paid leave for those impacted by the coronavirus, and “nurse support” for people without health insurance. They added that the activism at Monterey Park is “not an accurate representation” of most of its restaurants.
A mask shouldn’t be a win
Many American institutions were slow to react to the coronavirus pandemic, including the government, the health care system, and the media. The same goes for corporate America. According to a recent survey from the Shift Project at the University of California Berkeley and UC San Francisco conducted from early March to early April, workers at major companies report that basic safety protections on the job are lacking. And while things have improved, the process has often been slow.
In mid-April, I spoke with Kristi, a Family Dollar worker in Georgia, who told me she felt like a “sacrificial lamb” and was “terrified” at work. She told me her store was supposed to get sneeze guards on April 2 but they hadn’t yet arrived, though corporate had managed to send cookies. “We’re looking at each other like, okay, thanks for the cookies, but that’s not really doing us any kind of service,” she told me.
Her pay had temporarily been bumped by $2 an hour, from $10.50 to $12.50. But she was worried about her hours being cut, which would effectively cancel that increase out. “I need my hours, I need every single minute you can possibly give me, and hours are being cut down because they’re trying to save money,” she said.
A spokesperson for Dollar Tree, which owns Family Dollar, said in an email that the safety and health of its associates is a “top priority” and that 99 percent of its stores now have plexiglass guards. “We prioritized the areas affected most by the pandemic. There were not any major delays during this initiative,” the spokesperson said. When I checked in on Kristi in May, she told me the guards had finally arrived.
The problem with rewards like cookies, calendars, relaxed dress codes, or an extra dollar or two isn’t that they’re necessarily bad, it’s that if they’re not accompanied by real protections, transparency, and significant pay, they fall flat.
“Obviously, people want to see their employers show their recognition through words but definitely by action,” said Molly Kinder, a researcher focused on workforce equity at the Brookings Institution. “Nothing goes off the table because you did a luncheon.”
The coronavirus pandemic has revealed that many low-paid jobs are instrumental to the engine of our economy. And even as the country is now acutely aware of how essential these workers are, it still can’t quite break the mold of how they’re treated. Many are still low-paid, many still lack benefits, and many are still left to fend for basic protections and respect.
Denise Allegretti and Margarette Nerette, organizers of the 1199SEIU United Health Care Workers East, represent more than 8,000 workers in nursing homes in Florida. They told me a handful of the employers they deal with have offered a small one-time bonus, and some have added on an extra $1 or $3 in hazard pay. “We think that’s baloney,” Nerette said. “People are putting their lives in danger, and this is how management says thank you to them?”
The pair described pleading with nursing home management for transparency and fielding calls from employees begging for protective equipment and afraid for their lives. The day I spoke with them, they’d just learned a worker in their unit had died of Covid-19. “It definitely has an impact on the rest of the workers, without question,” Allegretti said. She added, “We need employers to be transparent, they need to meet with the employees every day and give updates on what’s going on in the building. It’s pulling teeth to get them to have that happen everywhere.”
“Whether it’s a premium you pay, or you’re offering something as ridiculously shameful as wearing jeans to work or your favorite team jersey, you’re essentially saying to workers, ‘We would have to do X or Y to maximize your safety, but instead of doing that, we’re going to give you this little incentive,’ and they’re left between a rock and a hard place,” she said. Workers need the job and the pay, so they are left to make the calculation if it’s worth the risk.
Animosity is building up among many essential workers. Many make less on the job than they would on unemployment insurance, but they feel they’re trapped in their jobs because generally benefits don’t go to people who quit. Rewards and recognition can be a source of acrimony as well — in the health care system, there’s a lot of praise for doctors and nurses, but what about hospital cleaning staff or home health aides? And if these issues aren’t addressed now, the anger built up now will last.
“There’s going to need to be something after this is said and done to make peace with this, or else you’re going to have a very angry workforce,” one social worker in a Queens hospital told me.
Companies can and should do better by their employees, but it doesn’t mean they will. “It’s really important that companies are taking this time now to step back and really look at their whole benefits and ask, are we doing the right thing during the current situation? And they should have an eye toward what it will look like three months down the road or six months down the road,” said Jeff Cates, the CEO of Achievers, a company focused on employee benefits and rewards. McDonald’s is one of Achievers’ clients, but it focuses on online recognition. It does not work with the Monterey Park location, and the calendar was not tied to its consulting.
We don’t have to guess what workers want. We can ask them.
Worker power and unions have been in steady decline in recent decades, which is one reason so many essential workers are left to the whims of their employers. The government isn’t protecting them, and lawmakers from both parties have let them down, so they’re left to fend for themselves.
As Luke Winkie recently laid out for The Goods, some workers are using Reddit and Facebook to connect, swap stories, get information, and organize. While these communities existed before the pandemic, they’ve become a crucial tool for workers who find themselves under extreme levels of stress. Winkie points out that one Kroger worker in Arkansas didn’t know the company would be offering hazard pay until she found out on Facebook. (Hazard pay — or rather, “hero pay” — that is set to expire on May 17.)
“There’s going to need to be something after this is said and done to make peace with this, or else you’re going to have a very angry workforce”
These less-than-stellar rewards come up often in these groups. One UPS worker shared a meme about ignored hazard pay demands, where a corporation asks, “What do you want? How about a light show and applause? How about we call you heroes?” A CVS worker shared a meme about jeans day. (It seems to be a trend.)
Deciphering what is and isn’t a valuable way to reward workers isn’t an exact science. After all, what’s an appropriate amount for risking your and your family’s health during a pandemic? An extra $3 an hour? How about an extra $30? What size bonus? And some individuals may perceive benefits differently. In one essential worker Facebook group I’m in, a worker talked about her company starting a $250 drawing for people who complete all their shifts each week, remarking that “being a workaholic” sometimes pays off and expressing her excitement about her luck. Another worker in the group was not impressed: “A thanks for risking you and your families [sic] well being lottery? Cute but kind of insulting really lol.”
While it’s a complex issue, it’s not impossible to at least try to tackle. Right now, more workers are speaking out about their asks — Fight for $15, for example, has put out a list of Covid-19-related demands, and employee activism at places such as Amazon, Instacart, and Trader Joe’s is on the rise.
“Workers in these positions know what they need, and we should listen to them,” McNicholas said, emphasizing the importance of worker power and, where possible, unions. “It’s even more critical that workers have the ability to trigger those wins for themselves on the job.”
It’s also worth noting that the way these workers are treated, and how they are and aren’t compensated, stretches far beyond the pandemic.
“What our broader research shows is that stable hours, efficient hours, meaningful pay, these things really matter for people’s health and well-being and the well-being of their kids,” said Danny Schneider, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of California Berkeley. “The amount of hazard pay and bonuses that they are talking about, it doesn’t change these fundamentals of job quality, and those things are more important now.”


vox--2020-05-15--A coronavirus vaccine may take longer than 12 to 18 months

As much of the world remains at home due to the coronavirus , a lot of people have put their hopes of a big economic reopening on a vaccine .
With more than 100 vaccine candidates for Covid-19 in production , things seem to be looking up — and the conventional wisdom , often restated by White House officials , is that this medical reprieve could come within 12 to 18 months .
But some experts caution even 12 to 18 months might be optimistic for a Covid-19 vaccine : The previous record for getting a vaccine was four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that vaccine development is measured in years , not months .
That ’ s not to say that the chances of a widely available vaccine within 12 to 18 months are zero .
But they ’ re not 100 percent either .
Amesh Adalja , a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me the 12- to 18-month timeline is “ very ambitious.
” Kendall Hoyt , a vaccine and biosecurity expert at Dartmouth , told me it will be a challenge , but arguably doable : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have something in that timeline — if everything goes right.
” There are two major problems .
First , it ’ s not clear whether a vaccine can even be developed ; it ’ s possible — as has been true for other pathogens , like malaria and HIV — that even the world ’ s best scientists just never crack the Covid-19 coronavirus .
Second , even if a vaccine candidate does show promise , time is a necessary component of this line of research .
Scientists need months to evaluate not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conferring immunity for months , but also if it ’ s safe , since side effects could pop up weeks or months down the line .
Safety has important implications for public health , too : Any harm from a Covid-19 vaccine could be used by anti-vaccine advocates , who ’ ve already spread their message even with the facts against them , to perpetuate their agenda .
Even without a vaccine , there ’ s still a chance that other scientific and medical innovations come around that make Covid-19 significantly less dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outright cure it .
Advances in treatment , along with enough health care capacity to see all infected patients ( still a work in progress ) , could bring an end to at least some social distancing even if a vaccine doesn ’ t .
And some experts are still hopeful a vaccine will come quickly .
“ I ’ m optimistic , ” Natalie Dean , a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida , told me .
“ There ’ s just so much work being done in parallel.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly as we all hope .
For policymakers , that means putting more stock in other medical treatments as well as a vaccine , and boosting other measures , like testing and tracing , that will let states somewhat ease social distancing even without a vaccine .
For the general public , it means preparing to stay home , to some degree , for longer than they might prefer .
Vaccines really do take time Experts emphasized that vaccine development takes a lot of time — and it ’ s not just due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For one , a vaccine candidate , which can be validated as the real thing through research , has to be discovered .
This alone takes a lot of work , with scientists still tinkering with different types of vaccines — some of which have never been successfully developed and used in humans — to see what can work with Covid-19 as well as other kinds of viruses .
That can range from the traditional vaccine , in which a weakened version of a virus is used to spur immunity , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential use of messenger RNA to attempt to more precisely trigger an immune response .
( For more on the different kinds of vaccines , I strongly recommend Derek Lowe ’ s post on the topic at Science magazine . )
Whether a truly successful vaccine candidate is developed is the first big hurdle .
“ Things can fail for multiple reasons , ” Hoyt said .
“ Something that can look very promising in the lab just might not behave in a human body in a way that we expect it to.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of vaccines : A 2017 analysis in PLOS One found that less than 10 percent of drugs that entered clinical trials between 2006 and 2015 were ultimately approved by the Food and Drug Administration .
So for every 10 articles you see about promising new drugs , chances are nine of those drugs will fail .
Other experts are more optimistic on this front .
Adalja noted that there ’ s a coronavirus vaccine for cows — not for the SARS-CoV-2 virus that ’ s sending people into hiding today , but for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 vaccines better odds than HIV vaccines , Adalja argued : “ I don ’ t think the same obstacles that apply to the HIV quest even come close to the coronavirus vaccine quest.
” Even if we do get a promising vaccine candidate , though , the work of making sure that candidate is safe and effective will take time .
Researchers need months to make sure that immunity lasts in the long term , while making sure the vaccine doesn ’ t produce nasty side effects that could , albeit typically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than the disease .
And if a vaccine candidate does make it through all these trials and into manufacturing , that won ’ t be the end of the challenges .
This is a vaccine that the entire world will want .
“ There will be a capacity problem because a large percentage of the world population will need a vaccine , ” Hoyt said .
“ You ’ re just not going to get enough .
Vaccine companies are not built to produce enough vaccines for the whole world in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times analyzed the many steps required for a vaccine candidate to make it out into the real world : academic research , pre-clinical work , three phases of trials , building up factories and manufacturing , and distribution .
From the first point to the last , a vaccine could take up to 16 years .
Thankfully , there are ways to speed that along .
Some of these steps can be done in parallel .
Public and private entities could start building vaccine factories right now , as Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Human challenge trials , which directly expose healthy people to the virus , could help test for immunity more quickly ( though some people in the field are skeptical , because setting up these trials could take longer than more traditional studies ) .
Even without human challenge trials — which can raise genuine ethical concerns if there ’ s no treatment for the virus people are being infected with — there ’ s a case for optimism on this front as well : Because coronavirus is already all over the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfortunately ) won ’ t be difficult .
With some viruses , this isn ’ t so easy ; Dean pointed out that this was really hard for the MERS vaccine because the virus wasn ’ t widely circulating .
“ It ’ s so rare , ” she explained .
“ That ’ s not a problem here ” with Covid-19 .
According to Thompson ’ s analysis , if every step is successfully sped up , there ’ s a chance that we could get emergency vaccine deployment by February 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that year .
But , again , those are big ifs — assuming that a lot of bets do pay off in the end .
“ Finding a working vaccine in that time frame would be remarkable , ” Hoyt said .
“ It would be something to be very , very proud of .
Having enough of that vaccine for everyone in that time frame would be a miracle.
” There are real risks to rushing a vaccine Beyond the unavoidable time constraints , there are good reasons that vaccines take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without months or even years of evidence , there might not be enough proof that a vaccine works as promised .
That could lull people into a false sense of security , or lead to dangerous side effects down the line .
There ’ s some good reason for caution with Covid-19 .
In the New England Journal of Medicine , experts with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation warned that vaccine trials for the coronaviruses SARS and MERS “ raised concerns about exacerbating lung disease , either directly or as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines are very safe , based on large reviews of the research .
They have helped eradicate diseases , including smallpox , at the national and global scale .
But one of the reasons these vaccines got to be so safe is because the researchers and manufacturers behind them followed rigorous scientific standards .
They made sure these medicines produced lasting immunity without major side effects .
They made sure the vaccines were produced in safe conditions without contamination .
They made sure the people administering the vaccines were properly equipped and trained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurdles , but they ’ re there to protect people .
If these steps aren ’ t properly followed , there ’ s a real risk .
In 1976 , America rushed out a vaccine in response to fears of a widespread swine flu outbreak .
It turned out the swine flu that year wasn ’ t as widespread as officials feared , and the improperly tested vaccine led to a rare neurological disorder , Guillain-Barré syndrome , in 450 people .
“ It caused more harm than it saved , ” Josh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me .
Vaccine production has come a long way since 1976 .
But it ’ s come a long way in part because we have regulations and safeguards to try to guarantee efficacy and safety , and those protections now might slow the arrival of a cure beyond the 12- to 18-month window .
And lapses still happen , like a European H1N1 flu vaccine that increased the risk of narcolepsy .
The potential harm here is not just at the personal but social level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad side effects , some experts worried that anti-vaccination groups — already perpetuating concerns about the disease , even when the facts aren ’ t on their side — could capitalize on the problems to spread their message .
That would be a public health disaster .
“ We ’ ve already seen anti-vaxxers rallying against the vaccine we don ’ t even have yet , ” Tara Smith , an epidemiologist at Kent State University , told me .
“ It is huge in my mind that we need to do this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any way on any of the safety mechanisms.
” Still , the risks of rushing also have to be weighed with the realities people are dealing with right now .
Covid-19 is killing hundreds of thousands of people around the globe .
It ’ s forcing places to shut down their economies and individuals to stay home — causing harm not just through losses in jobs and income but also to activities that helped sustain people ’ s mental health and happiness .
There may be a risk of harm from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trapped in its current condition carries risks and harms as well .
It ’ s a balancing act .
And we may not know if we ’ ve struck the right balance until a vaccine has been out in the world for a few months or years , giving researchers time and data to see if it ’ s truly safe and effective .
“ Everything is cost-benefit , ” Hoyt said .
“ Going to the grocery store is not risk-free currently .
Which risk would you rather have ?
” Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ void At the same time , humanity doesn ’ t necessarily have to rely on a vaccine to get us out of the current situation .
The story of HIV is instructive .
While a safe and effective HIV vaccine has eluded humanity for decades , we have developed antiretrovirals that can combat HIV so well that it becomes undetectable in the body — even preventing its spread — and other treatments that make it much less likely someone will catch the virus from someone who ’ s HIV-positive .
People now treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as their HIV-negative peers .
There are many differences between HIV and the coronavirus , but this shows that there are alternatives to a vaccine .
With the coronavirus , research into non-vaccine treatments is still early .
So far , the results have been mixed with remdesivir and disappointing with hydroxychloroquine .
But , again , it ’ s early , so there could be a big breakthrough at some point among the 280-plus non-vaccine therapeutics currently under study .
Short of a blockbuster drug , a new process in hospitals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients much more effectively and safely .
The downside , though , is producing these alternatives could still take weeks or months .
“ We need more time , ” Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist , told me .
“ It ’ s going to be a while until we really understand some of the medical interventions that work and don ’ t work.
” Other medications and treatments could also help make a vaccine .
If one of the concerns with human challenge trials , for example , is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can ’ t be treated , that concern is obviously going to be mitigated if there are medications that can effectively treat Covid-19 .
That could open the door to more aggressive means of testing a vaccine , speeding up its development and deployment .
Outside of treatment , there are also public health interventions that could help control the coronavirus without a vaccine .
Other countries , such as South Korea and Germany , have aggressively deployed widespread testing and contact tracing to isolate people who are infected , quarantine their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like lockdowns or other forms of social distancing , as necessary .
These measures alone aren ’ t enough to let life return to normal — as South Korea and Germany are learning — but they make it much easier , experts say , to put out embers before they become wildfires .
Again , this will take time — likely more than it should .
The US has made some progress in recent weeks in doing more testing , but the great majority of states still don ’ t have enough .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of non-vaccine medications aren ’ t the best possible outcome — a vaccine still holds that claim — but they could offer some relief .
As people get tired of staying home , the reprieves and hope the alternatives provide could help buy time until a vaccine arrives — whether that takes six months or many more years .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As much of the world remains at home due to the coronavirus, a lot of people have put their hopes of a big economic reopening on a vaccine. With more than 100 vaccine candidates for Covid-19 in production, things seem to be looking up — and the conventional wisdom, often restated by White House officials, is that this medical reprieve could come within 12 to 18 months. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper outright promised that “we will deliver, by the end of this year, a vaccine at scale to treat the American people and our partners abroad.”
But some experts caution even 12 to 18 months might be optimistic for a Covid-19 vaccine: The previous record for getting a vaccine was four years, and a cliché in the field is that vaccine development is measured in years, not months.
That’s not to say that the chances of a widely available vaccine within 12 to 18 months are zero. But they’re not 100 percent either. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me the 12- to 18-month timeline is “very ambitious.” Kendall Hoyt, a vaccine and biosecurity expert at Dartmouth, told me it will be a challenge, but arguably doable: “It’s conceivable we could have something in that timeline — if everything goes right.”
There are two major problems. First, it’s not clear whether a vaccine can even be developed; it’s possible — as has been true for other pathogens, like malaria and HIV — that even the world’s best scientists just never crack the Covid-19 coronavirus.
Second, even if a vaccine candidate does show promise, time is a necessary component of this line of research. Scientists need months to evaluate not just if a vaccine is effective at conferring immunity for months, but also if it’s safe, since side effects could pop up weeks or months down the line. Safety has important implications for public health, too: Any harm from a Covid-19 vaccine could be used by anti-vaccine advocates, who’ve already spread their message even with the facts against them, to perpetuate their agenda.
Even without a vaccine, there’s still a chance that other scientific and medical innovations come around that make Covid-19 significantly less dangerous, even if they don’t outright cure it. Advances in treatment, along with enough health care capacity to see all infected patients (still a work in progress), could bring an end to at least some social distancing even if a vaccine doesn’t.
And some experts are still hopeful a vaccine will come quickly. “I’m optimistic,” Natalie Dean, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida, told me. “There’s just so much work being done in parallel.”
But a vaccine savior may not come as quickly as we all hope. For policymakers, that means putting more stock in other medical treatments as well as a vaccine, and boosting other measures, like testing and tracing, that will let states somewhat ease social distancing even without a vaccine. For the general public, it means preparing to stay home, to some degree, for longer than they might prefer.
Vaccines really do take time
Experts emphasized that vaccine development takes a lot of time — and it’s not just due to bureaucratic hurdles or overly cautious measures.
For one, a vaccine candidate, which can be validated as the real thing through research, has to be discovered. This alone takes a lot of work, with scientists still tinkering with different types of vaccines — some of which have never been successfully developed and used in humans — to see what can work with Covid-19 as well as other kinds of viruses. That can range from the traditional vaccine, in which a weakened version of a virus is used to spur immunity, to newer kinds of vaccines, like the potential use of messenger RNA to attempt to more precisely trigger an immune response. (For more on the different kinds of vaccines, I strongly recommend Derek Lowe’s post on the topic at Science magazine.)
Whether a truly successful vaccine candidate is developed is the first big hurdle. “Things can fail for multiple reasons,” Hoyt said. “Something that can look very promising in the lab just might not behave in a human body in a way that we expect it to.”
This isn’t just true of vaccines: An analysis by Stuart Thompson at the New York Times found that less than 10 percent of drugs that entered clinical trials were ultimately approved by the Food and Drug Administration. So for every 10 articles you see about promising new drugs, chances are nine of those drugs will fail.
Other experts are more optimistic on this front. Adalja noted that there’s a coronavirus vaccine for cows — not for the SARS-CoV-2 virus that’s sending people into hiding today, but for another type of coronavirus. That gives Covid-19 vaccines better odds than HIV vaccines, Adalja argued: “I don’t think the same obstacles that apply to the HIV quest even come close to the coronavirus vaccine quest.”
Even if we do get a promising vaccine candidate, though, the work of making sure that candidate is safe and effective will take time. Researchers need months to make sure that immunity lasts in the long term, while making sure the vaccine doesn’t produce nasty side effects that could, albeit typically in rare cases, make the cure worse than the disease.
And if a vaccine candidate does make it through all these trials and into manufacturing, that won’t be the end of the challenges. This is a vaccine that the entire world will want. “There will be a capacity problem because a large percentage of the world population will need a vaccine,” Hoyt said. “You’re just not going to get enough. Vaccine companies are not built to produce enough vaccines for the whole world in a short time frame.”
Thompson at the Times analyzed the many steps required for a vaccine candidate to make it out into the real world: academic research, pre-clinical work, three phases of trials, building up factories and manufacturing, and distribution. From the first point to the last, a vaccine could take up to 16 years.
Thankfully, there are ways to speed that along. Some of these steps can be done in parallel. Public and private entities could start building vaccine factories right now, as Bill Gates has already promised to do. Human challenge trials, which directly expose healthy people to the virus, could help test for immunity more quickly (though some people in the field are skeptical, because setting up these trials could take longer than more traditional studies).
Even without human challenge trials — which can raise genuine ethical concerns if there’s no treatment for the virus people are being infected with — there’s a case for optimism on this front as well: Because coronavirus is already all over the world, testing for immunity in real-world settings (unfortunately) won’t be difficult. With some viruses, this isn’t so easy; Dean pointed out that this was really hard for the MERS vaccine because the virus wasn’t widely circulating. “It’s so rare,” she explained. “That’s not a problem here” with Covid-19.
According to Thompson’s analysis, if every step is successfully sped up, there’s a chance that we could get emergency vaccine deployment by February 2021 and full distribution by the end of that year. But, again, those are big ifs — assuming that a lot of bets do pay off in the end.
“Finding a working vaccine in that time frame would be remarkable,” Hoyt said. “It would be something to be very, very proud of. Having enough of that vaccine for everyone in that time frame would be a miracle.”
There are real risks to rushing a vaccine
Beyond the unavoidable time constraints, there are good reasons that vaccines take a long time to develop and distribute: Without months or even years of evidence, there might not be enough proof that a vaccine works as promised. That could lull people into a false sense of security, or lead to dangerous side effects down the line.
There’s some good reason for caution with Covid-19. In the New England Journal of Medicine, experts with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation warned that vaccine trials for the coronaviruses SARS and MERS “raised concerns about exacerbating lung disease, either directly or as a result of antibody-dependent enhancement.”
Now, modern vaccines are very safe, based on large reviews of the research. They have helped eradicate diseases, including smallpox, at the national and global scale.
But one of the reasons these vaccines got to be so safe is because the researchers and manufacturers behind them followed rigorous scientific standards. They made sure these medicines produced lasting immunity without major side effects. They made sure the vaccines were produced in safe conditions without contamination. They made sure the people administering the vaccines were properly equipped and trained. These things can be viewed as hurdles, but they’re there to protect people.
Related A guide to the vaccines and drugs that could fight coronavirus
If these steps aren’t properly followed, there’s a real risk. In 1976, America rushed out a vaccine in response to fears of a widespread swine flu outbreak. It turned out the swine flu that year wasn’t as widespread as officials feared, and the improperly tested vaccine led to a rare neurological disorder, Guillain-Barré syndrome, in 450 people. “It caused more harm than it saved,” Josh Michaud, associate director for global health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me.
Vaccine production has come a long way since 1976. But it’s come a long way in part because we have regulations and safeguards to try to guarantee efficacy and safety, and those protections now might slow the arrival of a cure beyond the 12- to 18-month window.
And lapses still happen, like a European H1N1 flu vaccine that increased the risk of narcolepsy.
The potential harm here is not just at the personal but social level. If a Covid-19 vaccine leads to bad side effects, some experts worried that anti-vaccination groups — already perpetuating concerns about the disease, even when the facts aren’t on their side — could capitalize on the problems to spread their message. That would be a public health disaster.
“We’ve already seen anti-vaxxers rallying against the vaccine we don’t even have yet,” Tara Smith, an epidemiologist at Kent State University, told me. “It is huge in my mind that we need to do this as quickly as possible but not skimp in any way on any of the safety mechanisms.”
Still, the risks of rushing also have to be weighed with the realities people are dealing with right now. Covid-19 is killing hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. It’s forcing places to shut down their economies and individuals to stay home — causing harm not just through losses in jobs and income but also to activities that helped sustain people’s mental health and happiness. There may be a risk of harm from a rushed vaccine, but keeping the world trapped in its current condition carries risks and harms as well.
It’s a balancing act. And we may not know if we’ve struck the right balance until a vaccine has been out in the world for a few months or years, giving researchers time and data to see if it’s truly safe and effective.
“Everything is cost-benefit,” Hoyt said. “Going to the grocery store is not risk-free currently. Which risk would you rather have?”
Other medications and efforts could help fill the void
At the same time, humanity doesn’t necessarily have to rely on a vaccine to get us out of the current situation.
The story of HIV is instructive. While a safe and effective HIV vaccine has eluded humanity for decades, we have developed antiretrovirals that can combat HIV so well that it becomes undetectable in the body — even preventing its spread — and other treatments that make it much less likely someone will catch the virus from someone who’s HIV-positive. People now treated early for HIV can live as long as their HIV-negative peers. There are many differences between HIV and the coronavirus, but this shows that there are alternatives to a vaccine.
With the coronavirus, research into non-vaccine treatments is still early. So far, the results have been mixed with remdesivir and disappointing with hydroxychloroquine. But, again, it’s early, so there could be a big breakthrough at some point among the 280-plus non-vaccine therapeutics currently under study. Short of a blockbuster drug, a new process in hospitals and clinics could at least help treat Covid-19 patients much more effectively and safely.
The downside, though, is producing these alternatives could still take weeks or months. “We need more time,” Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, told me. “It’s going to be a while until we really understand some of the medical interventions that work and don’t work.”
Other medications and treatments could also help make a vaccine. If one of the concerns with human challenge trials, for example, is that they will expose people to a virus that can’t be treated, that concern is obviously going to be mitigated if there are medications that can effectively treat Covid-19. That could open the door to more aggressive means of testing a vaccine, speeding up its development and deployment.
Outside of treatment, there are also public health interventions that could help control the coronavirus without a vaccine. Other countries, such as South Korea and Germany, have aggressively deployed widespread testing and contact tracing to isolate people who are infected, quarantine their contacts, and deploy community-wide efforts, like lockdowns or other forms of social distancing, as necessary. These measures alone aren’t enough to let life return to normal — as South Korea and Germany are learning — but they make it much easier, experts say, to put out embers before they become wildfires.
Again, this will take time — likely more than it should. The US has made some progress in recent weeks in doing more testing, but the great majority of states still don’t have enough.
These public health interventions and the prospects of non-vaccine medications aren’t the best possible outcome — a vaccine still holds that claim — but they could offer some relief. As people get tired of staying home, the reprieves and hope the alternatives provide could help buy time until a vaccine arrives — whether that takes six months or many more years.


vox--2020-05-15--Remote voting is likely coming to the House of Representatives

The US House of Representatives will consider a historic resolution on Friday to allow remote voting during the coronavirus pandemic .
The resolution , introduced by House Rules Committee Chair Jim McGovern ( D-MA ) , would allow for voting by proxy on the House floor , as well as remote committee hearings and bill markup .
The resolution would also provide for future remote voting during the pandemic through technology , “ after a system is developed and certified.
” It would be the first time in centuries that the House has changed the part of its rules stipulating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the Hall of the House during its sittings ” when it comes time to vote .
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ( D-MD ) and other Democratic leaders have stressed these changes would be temporary and would go away after the threat of the Covid-19 pandemic subsides .
Unlike other parts of the country , Washington , DC , has not yet seen its number of cases meaningfully drop ; DC Mayor Muriel Bowser extended a city-wide stay-at-home order until June 8 .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has previously said proxy voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fashion and be related to coronavirus legislation until Congress can safely return to in-person voting on the floor .
Hoyer in particular has been a proponent of proxy voting , citing other governments around the world that have made similar changes , as well as states around the US , including Iowa , Kentucky , Utah , and Vermont .
“ We are seeing legislatures around the world and across our country working remotely , as well as the Supreme Court .
There is no reason we can not find a way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Vox ’ s Jen Kirby in a recent interview .
While Hoyer has stressed that remote voting during the pandemic should be a bipartisan issue , House Republicans don ’ t seem to be on board .
A Friday vote is expected to pass along party lines .
While Hoyer said he is moving the resolution forward with input from Republicans , the House GOP has made its opposition well known , shooting down a previous attempt to pass remote voting .
They remain opposed to this attempt , House Minority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Democrats ’ proposal calls for the House of Representatives to abandon ship — potentially for the remainder of the session , ” McCarthy said in a statement .
“ As we have said from the start , any change to centuries-old rules of the House should only be done in a bipartisan way that achieves consensus .
This proposal fails that critical test and would forever alter our democratic institution for the worse.
” What proxy voting and hearings would look like The new resolution will give the House Speaker the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and remote committee proceedings for 45 days , which can be extended or renewed .
The resolution spells out that proxy voting would happen in consultation with the minority leader , the House sergeant at arms , and the Capitol attending physician , and would be explicitly related to a public health emergency due to the coronavirus .
The period of time for proxy voting could also be terminated early by the House speaker .
Here ’ s how proxy voting would occur : A member who can not physically be present will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also be submitted electronically ) to the House clerk designating who their proxy is .
The proxy would then enter their colleague ’ s vote into the record during voting , whether done electronically or through a roll call vote .
The proxy for a member will indicate they are voting on behalf of another colleague during voting and is expressly not allowed to change their colleague ’ s vote .
While the resolution allows for committee work and markups to happen over technology like Zoom or another type of videoconferencing service , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the floor .
As Vox ’ s Jen Kirby wrote , videoconferencing has become the new mode of meeting , and sometimes voting , for many other legislative bodies around the world during the Covid-19 era .
The UK Parliament has been meeting partially with a smaller number of its body in the chamber , and a larger number weighing in from home .
The United Kingdom ’ s “ hybrid ” Parliament has spent a few weeks in this mode , holding hearings and questions .
About 50 members of Parliament are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while another 120 can beam in from their computer screens .
( Johnson , who had been hospitalized for the coronavirus , returned to the House of Commons on Wednesday for the first time since March . )
Right now , Parliament is testing the technology it will need for remote voting , which could happen for the first time next week .
But the need to abide by social distancing guidelines accompanied a recognition that Parliament had very serious work to do to confront the pandemic , and that now more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held accountable .
Both MPs and their constituents needed a platform to scrutinize the government ’ s response to Covid-19 .
On Friday , the House will most likely join this growing world trend .
The Senate , which has been conducting some hearings remotely but has kept in-person voting , so far will not follow suit .
The Senate is more skeptical of proxy voting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been relatively firm about bringing senators back to the Capitol in order to work and vote .
Senators of both parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R-KY ) , Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) , and Rob Portman ( R-OH ) , have offered their own proposals for how remote voting could work .
The bipartisan measure from Durbin and Portman , if passed , would grant McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer the authority to declare the need for a 30-day period of remote voting during a national crisis .
“ Remote voting would then be allowed for up to 30 days , and the Senate would have to vote to renew remote voting after every 30-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Washington Post op-ed .
“ This limitation will ensure that voting remotely can not become the norm without a consensus around the continuity of an emergency.
” The Senate has conducted some hearings over Zoom ; the Senate Committee on Health , Education , Labor and Pensions conducted a high-profile hearing on coronavirus with Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public health experts remotely this week , as committee Chairman Lamar Alexander ( R-TX ) was quarantining after a staffer tested positive for Covid-19 .
Still , the Senate has also shown the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bipartisan Senate amendment to shield Americans ’ browsing history from government surveillance failed on Wednesday by one vote because some lawmakers were working from home .
McConnell hasn ’ t signaled interest in backing the remote voting resolution , though Democrats could use the leverage they have in the upper chamber to put pressure on him .
Since every bill in the Senate requires 60 votes to pass , for example , Democrats could potentially withhold their support on future packages in an effort to force the consideration of remote voting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell had said that lawmakers would use other means , like trying to stagger when they vote , to maintain social distancing in the Capitol .
Correction : An earlier version of this story stated House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer introduced the proxy voting resolution .
It was introduced by House Rules Committee Chair Jim McGovern .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The US House of Representatives on Friday passed a historic resolution to temporarily allow remote voting during the coronavirus pandemic.
The resolution, introduced by House Rules Committee Chair Jim McGovern (D-MA), allows for voting by proxy on the House floor, as well as for remote committee hearings and bill markups. The resolution also provides for future remote voting during the pandemic using technology, “after a system is developed and certified.”
It’s the first time in centuries that the House has changed the part of its rules stipulating that “every Member shall be present within the Hall of the House during its sittings” when it comes time to vote.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and other Democratic leaders have stressed these changes will be temporary and will go away after the threat of the Covid-19 pandemic subsides. Unlike other parts of the country, Washington, DC, has not yet seen its number of cases meaningfully drop; DC Mayor Muriel Bowser extended a city-wide stay-at-home order until June 8.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has previously said proxy voting should only be used in a limited fashion and be related to coronavirus legislation until Congress can safely return to in-person voting on the floor.
Hoyer in particular has been a proponent of proxy voting, citing other governments around the world that have made similar changes, as well as states around the US, including Iowa, Kentucky, Utah, and Vermont.
“We are seeing legislatures around the world and across our country working remotely, as well as the Supreme Court. There is no reason we cannot find a way to do so as well,” Hoyer told Vox’s Jen Kirby in a recent interview.
While Hoyer has stressed that remote voting during the pandemic should be a bipartisan issue, House Republicans haven’t been on board. The Friday vote passed 217-189 largely along party lines.
“The Democrats’ proposal calls for the House of Representatives to abandon ship — potentially for the remainder of the session,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said in a statement expressing his opposition to the measure. “As we have said from the start, any change to centuries-old rules of the House should only be done in a bipartisan way that achieves consensus. This proposal fails that critical test and would forever alter our democratic institution for the worse.”
What proxy voting and hearings would look like
The new resolution will give the House Speaker the authority to temporarily implement remote proxy voting and remote committee proceedings for 45 days, which can be extended or renewed.
The resolution spells out that proxy voting would happen in consultation with the minority leader, the House sergeant at arms, and the Capitol attending physician, and would be explicitly related to a public health emergency due to the coronavirus. The period of time for proxy voting could also be terminated early by the House speaker.
Here’s how proxy voting will work: A member who cannot physically be present will submit a signed letter (which can also be submitted electronically) to the House clerk designating who their proxy is.
The proxy will then enter their colleague’s vote into the record during voting, whether done electronically or through a roll call vote. The proxy for a member will indicate they are voting on behalf of another colleague during voting and are expressly not allowed to change their colleague’s vote.
While the resolution allows for committee work and markups to happen over technology like Zoom or another type of videoconferencing service, that would not apply to voting on the floor.
As Vox’s Jen Kirby wrote, videoconferencing has become the new mode of meeting, and sometimes voting, for many other legislative bodies around the world during the Covid-19 era. The UK Parliament has been meeting partially with a smaller number of its body in the chamber, and a larger number weighing in from home.
The United Kingdom’s “hybrid” Parliament has spent a few weeks in this mode, holding hearings and questions. About 50 members of Parliament are allowed to be present in the chamber, while another 120 can beam in from their computer screens. (Johnson, who had been hospitalized for the coronavirus, returned to the House of Commons on Wednesday for the first time since March.) Right now, Parliament is testing the technology it will need for remote voting, which could happen for the first time next week. But the need to abide by social distancing guidelines accompanied a recognition that Parliament had very serious work to do to confront the pandemic, and that now more than ever the government needed to be held accountable. Both MPs and their constituents needed a platform to scrutinize the government’s response to Covid-19.
On Friday, the House joined this growing world trend. The Senate, which has been conducting some hearings remotely but has kept in-person voting, so far will not follow suit.
The Senate is more skeptical of proxy voting
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been relatively firm about bringing senators back to the Capitol in order to work and vote.
Senators of both parties, including Rand Paul (R-KY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Rob Portman (R-OH), have offered their own proposals for how remote voting could work. The bipartisan measure from Durbin and Portman, if passed, would grant McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer the authority to declare the need for a 30-day period of remote voting during a national crisis.
“Remote voting would then be allowed for up to 30 days, and the Senate would have to vote to renew remote voting after every 30-day period afterward,” they wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. “This limitation will ensure that voting remotely cannot become the norm without a consensus around the continuity of an emergency.”
The Senate has conducted some hearings over Zoom; the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions conducted a high-profile hearing on coronavirus with Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public health experts remotely this week, as committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TX) was quarantining after a staffer tested positive for Covid-19.
Still, the Senate has also shown the limits of in-person voting this week; a bipartisan Senate amendment to shield Americans’ internet browsing histories from government surveillance failed on Wednesday by one vote because some lawmakers were working from home.
McConnell hasn’t signaled interest in backing the remote voting resolution, though Democrats could use the leverage they have in the upper chamber to put pressure on him. Since every bill in the Senate requires 60 votes to pass, for example, Democrats could potentially withhold their support on future packages in an effort to force the consideration of remote voting.
Before leaving for an earlier recess, McConnell had said that lawmakers would use other means, like trying to stagger when they vote, to maintain social distancing in the Capitol.
Correction: An earlier version of this story stated House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer introduced the proxy voting resolution. It was introduced by House Rules Committee Chair Jim McGovern.


vox--2020-05-15--I was a conspiracy theorist, too

I was a conspiracy theorist, too

It was October 2005 when my husband Mike called me with the news .
I was working on my dissertation in my home office , and he had just received the call from his ophthalmologist .
“ I have a brain tumor .
It ’ s called a craniopharyngioma .
It ’ s a benign tumor near the pituitary gland.
” “ Benign ” is a misnomer for the tumor in his midbrain that would ultimately rob my smart , improv comedian , graphic designer husband of not only his vision but his short-term memory and his ability to care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the early days of the diagnosis , I was debilitated by grief and anxiety .
One night , I wept at dinner .
“ It ’ s not fair , ” I remember repeating .
He calmly responded , “ Who would it be fair for , though ?
Would it be fair if I were old ?
Would it be fair if we did not have a baby ?
It has nothing to do with what is fair , Danna .
It is just random.
” It is just random @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
They made me angry .
Mike lived with , in the language of social science , seemingly infinite tolerance for ambiguity .
He loved to take adventures and felt little need to know what was going to happen next .
But I was not like Mike .
I had ( and have ) a high need for closure .
I dislike uncertainty and need control over my world .
So , while Mike was satisfied with the notion that his brain tumor was “ just random , ” I was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account for the causes of his brain tumor , which eventually led me down a dark internet rabbit hole .
Perhaps there were chemicals at his job that caused the tumor , I thought .
One of his 30-year-old coworkers had died of cancer several years prior .
That seemed weird , didn ’ t it ?
And now Mike with this brain tumor ?
When I mentioned this to his doctors , they pointed out that for a company of more than 300 employees , these numbers were far below average .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thought .
We had recently moved to a new neighborhood near the site of an old diaper company that was in need of environmental remediation for spilled “ chlorinated solvents and heating oil ” from the 1970s and ’ 80s .
That seemed bad and probably had adverse effects , I thought .
But Mike had started showing symptoms of the tumor just three weeks after we moved in , and the doctors explained that craniopharyngiomas don ’ t appear that fast .
It had likely been present in Mike ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Each time I landed on a possible culprit , my anger reenergized me .
Instead of making me feel hopeless , it gave me a target and suggested there might be some action I could take .
If it were from his work or from an old factory site , maybe I could file a lawsuit .
Maybe I could launch an investigation or trigger some media exposé .
If I could just find the right person or thing to blame , I could get some justice .
Or vengeance .
Or … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ambiguity , anger , and the elixir of “ assigning blame ” In 2001 , social psychologists Jennifer Lerner and Dacher Keltner studied how anger and fear have very different effects on how we think about ourselves and our world .
Their research found that feelings of anger ( compared to fear ) are associated with increased feelings of certainty , control , and optimism .
Especially when people contemplate “ ambiguous events ” — such as having a heart attack at a young age or being unable to find a job — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Once anger triggers feelings of control , feelings of optimism follow .
This is why identifying someone to blame for Mike ’ s tumor gave me the focus and will to stop crying and get out of bed .
Instead of wallowing in grief , I became a warrior furiously charging in a precise direction .
My anger invigorated me ; it lifted me up out of the sea of muck we were stuck in .
“ It is just random.
” These words were not comforting to me .
They made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , information that helps direct our negative emotions toward a target is psychologically comforting .
When we feel powerless in a situation that is both complex and overwhelming , the identification of people and institutions to “ blame ” feels good to us .
This explains not only families lashing out when their loved ones are ill , but also the appeal of conspiracy theories more broadly .
Especially in the context of ambiguous and terrible events like 9/11 or the Sandy Hook shooting , conspiracy theories increase perceptions of control .
Such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secret plots by powerful actors working behind the scenes , either to cause the horrible chaos or to fabricate it .
The anger we then feel toward these “ powerful actors ” is accompanied by a feeling of efficacy ( confidence in one ’ s ability to effectively navigate the world ) , hence increasing the likelihood that we will take action — by engaging in political participation , protest , or , in the case of a loved one ’ s medical situation , maybe filing a lawsuit .
I know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do something tangible in the face of lack of control .
As weeks turned to months , and three surgical procedures turned to 12 , well-meaning friends asked about potential malpractice — maybe the powerful doctors behind the scenes had some secret plot to deliver substandard care .
But each time I started down that path , even in my own mind , it quickly fell apart .
Who had acted with negligence ?
No one .
Had Mike received the proper standard of care ?
Above and beyond .
Were his complications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or to the tumor itself ?
None of his complications were from his care .
Every complication had been the fault of what we came to call the S.F.T .
( the “ stupid f***ing tumor ” ) .
Most importantly for me : Assigning blame and looking for retribution was antithetical to Mike ’ s governing philosophy , which was to accept life as it comes and be open to what happens .
Embracing uncertainty rather than trying to control it Having lived with uncertainty , powerlessness , and negativity during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 feels eerily familiar from an emotional standpoint .
Today , many of us feel little efficacy or agency over the course of this virus , its impact , or its spread .
We don ’ t know when or how the situation will resolve .
And we ’ ve got a nagging sense that life will be forever altered , perhaps in negative ways .
These feelings of collective uncertainty , powerlessness , and negativity likely account for the popularity of Covid-related conspiracy theories circulating online .
Perhaps you ’ ve seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gates is responsible for the coronavirus ( he is not ) , or that 5G towers are somehow amplifying the virus ( they are not ) , or maybe your friends or family have shared pieces of the propagandistic “ Plandemic ” documentary in which discredited biologist Dr. Judy Mikovits advances several false claims — including the notion that wearing a mask “ literally activates your own virus ” ( it does not ) .
Searching for “ new answers ” to assign blame and impose order on this life-altering pandemic through conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel comforting — even invigorating — in the short term .
But such actions will not help solve this crisis , and they certainly won ’ t bring us peace .
These feelings of collective uncertainty , powerlessness , and negativity likely account for the popularity of Covid-related conspiracy theories circulating online Just as I had been desperate to feel control over the chaos of Mike ’ s illness by wanting to assign blame , today many of us are desperate to feel control over the pandemic .
But while it may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things to blame for Mike ’ s tumor , it quickly became clear that these behaviors would not cure Mike .
And they certainly didn ’ t bring me peace .
Interestingly , there were some behaviors that did bring me a feeling of control and peace during the months that Mike was hospitalized .
I stopped searching the internet and started just being present with Mike , focusing on my gratitude for friends and family , making sure Mike was comfortable and surrounded by friends .
I created a Google calendar where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at mealtime and visit when I had to be home taking care of our baby .
I organized for people to bring the nurses doughnuts and treats , and made sure Mike was comfortable with cozy blankets and calm music playing .
Today , when I look at social media , sure , I see a few people sharing Covid-19 conspiracy theories , but what I see more of is people creating feelings of control and peace in more functional ways : sewing masks , helping neighbors get food , scheduling Zoom happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for health care workers .
These actions signal a healthier approach to chaos and trauma — not one anchored in either anger or fear but rooted in presence and gratitude , and echoing a profound tolerance for ambiguity .
It ’ s okay to not know On July 18 , 2006 , Mike died surrounded by a sea of friends .
His doctor wept and hugged me .
“ I really thought we could get to the other side of this one , ” he told me .
Then he placed a hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a terrible time to ask this , Danna .
But do you want to do an autopsy ?
” I thought of the months of grueling procedures , doctor ’ s appointments , and hospital stays .
Then I thought of my happy and hilarious best friend , Mike Young , and his infinite tolerance for ambiguity .
Channeling Mike , I wiped my face , then raised an eyebrow , “ Autopsy ?
Why ?
” I whispered dramatically , feigning surprise .
“ Do you think he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — then we both laughed a bit , hugged , and wept some more .
Mike was right .
It was just random .
Dannagal G. Young is an associate professor of communication and political science at the University of Delaware .
She has authored more than 40 academic articles and book chapters exploring themes related to political entertainment , media psychology , public opinion , and misinformation .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a @ @ @ @ @

It was October 2005 when my husband Mike called me with the news. I was working on my dissertation in my home office, and he had just received the call from his ophthalmologist.
“I have a brain tumor. It’s called a craniopharyngioma. It’s a benign tumor near the pituitary gland.”
“Benign” is a misnomer for the tumor in his midbrain that would ultimately rob my smart, improv comedian, graphic designer husband of not only his vision but his short-term memory and his ability to care for himself over the following nine months.
In the early days of the diagnosis, I was debilitated by grief and anxiety. One night, I wept at dinner. “It’s not fair,” I remember repeating.
He calmly responded, “Who would it be fair for, though? Would it be fair if I were old? Would it be fair if we did not have a baby? It has nothing to do with what is fair, Danna. It is just random.”
It is just random. These words were not comforting to me. They made me angry.
Mike lived with, in the language of social science, seemingly infinite tolerance for ambiguity. He loved to take adventures and felt little need to know what was going to happen next. But I was not like Mike. I had (and have) a high need for closure. I dislike uncertainty and need control over my world. So, while Mike was satisfied with the notion that his brain tumor was “just random,” I was not.
I started searching for information to account for the causes of his brain tumor, which eventually led me down a dark internet rabbit hole. Perhaps there were chemicals at his job that caused the tumor, I thought. One of his 30-year-old coworkers had died of cancer several years prior. That seemed weird, didn’t it? And now Mike with this brain tumor? When I mentioned this to his doctors, they pointed out that for a company of more than 300 employees, these numbers were far below average.
What about environmental carcinogens, then? I thought. We had recently moved to a new neighborhood near the site of an old diaper company that was in need of environmental remediation for spilled “chlorinated solvents and heating oil” from the 1970s and ’80s. That seemed bad and probably had adverse effects, I thought. But Mike had started showing symptoms of the tumor just three weeks after we moved in, and the doctors explained that craniopharyngiomas don’t appear that fast. It had likely been present in Mike’s brain for years, maybe decades.
Each time I landed on a possible culprit, my anger reenergized me. Instead of making me feel hopeless, it gave me a target and suggested there might be some action I could take. If it were from his work or from an old factory site, maybe I could file a lawsuit. Maybe I could launch an investigation or trigger some media exposé. If I could just find the right person or thing to blame, I could get some justice. Or vengeance. Or … maybe just a sense of control.
Ambiguity, anger, and the elixir of “assigning blame”
In 2001, social psychologists Jennifer Lerner and Dacher Keltner studied how anger and fear have very different effects on how we think about ourselves and our world. Their research found that feelings of anger (compared to fear) are associated with increased feelings of certainty, control, and optimism. Especially when people contemplate “ambiguous events” — such as having a heart attack at a young age or being unable to find a job — anger translates into higher perceptions of control. Once anger triggers feelings of control, feelings of optimism follow.
This is why identifying someone to blame for Mike’s tumor gave me the focus and will to stop crying and get out of bed. Instead of wallowing in grief, I became a warrior furiously charging in a precise direction. My anger invigorated me; it lifted me up out of the sea of muck we were stuck in.
“It is just random.” These words were not comforting to me. They made me angry.
Under conditions of uncertainty, information that helps direct our negative emotions toward a target is psychologically comforting. When we feel powerless in a situation that is both complex and overwhelming, the identification of people and institutions to “blame” feels good to us.
This explains not only families lashing out when their loved ones are ill, but also the appeal of conspiracy theories more broadly. Especially in the context of ambiguous and terrible events like 9/11 or the Sandy Hook shooting, conspiracy theories increase perceptions of control. Such narratives typically point to the existence of secret plots by powerful actors working behind the scenes, either to cause the horrible chaos or to fabricate it. The anger we then feel toward these “powerful actors” is accompanied by a feeling of efficacy (confidence in one’s ability to effectively navigate the world), hence increasing the likelihood that we will take action — by engaging in political participation, protest, or, in the case of a loved one’s medical situation, maybe filing a lawsuit.
I know what it’s like to want to do something tangible in the face of lack of control. As weeks turned to months, and three surgical procedures turned to 12, well-meaning friends asked about potential malpractice — maybe the powerful doctors behind the scenes had some secret plot to deliver substandard care. But each time I started down that path, even in my own mind, it quickly fell apart. Who had acted with negligence? No one. Had Mike received the proper standard of care? Above and beyond. Were his complications related to the care he was given, or to the tumor itself? None of his complications were from his care. Every complication had been the fault of what we came to call the S.F.T. (the “stupid f***ing tumor”).
Most importantly for me: Assigning blame and looking for retribution was antithetical to Mike’s governing philosophy, which was to accept life as it comes and be open to what happens.
Embracing uncertainty rather than trying to control it
Having lived with uncertainty, powerlessness, and negativity during Mike’s illness, life during Covid-19 feels eerily familiar from an emotional standpoint. Today, many of us feel little efficacy or agency over the course of this virus, its impact, or its spread. We don’t know when or how the situation will resolve. And we’ve got a nagging sense that life will be forever altered, perhaps in negative ways.
These feelings of collective uncertainty, powerlessness, and negativity likely account for the popularity of Covid-related conspiracy theories circulating online. Perhaps you’ve seen folks on social media claiming that Bill Gates is responsible for the coronavirus (he is not), or that 5G towers are somehow amplifying the virus (they are not), or maybe your friends or family have shared pieces of the propagandistic “Plandemic” documentary in which discredited biologist Dr. Judy Mikovits advances several false claims — including the notion that wearing a mask “literally activates your own virus” (it does not).
Searching for “new answers” to assign blame and impose order on this life-altering pandemic through conspiracy theories and allegations of secret plots may feel comforting — even invigorating — in the short term. But such actions will not help solve this crisis, and they certainly won’t bring us peace.
These feelings of collective uncertainty, powerlessness, and negativity likely account for the popularity of Covid-related conspiracy theories circulating online
Just as I had been desperate to feel control over the chaos of Mike’s illness by wanting to assign blame, today many of us are desperate to feel control over the pandemic. But while it may have been temporarily empowering to identify people and things to blame for Mike’s tumor, it quickly became clear that these behaviors would not cure Mike. And they certainly didn’t bring me peace.
Interestingly, there were some behaviors that did bring me a feeling of control and peace during the months Mike was hospitalized. I stopped searching the internet and started just being present with Mike, focusing on my gratitude for friends and family, making sure Mike was comfortable and surrounded by friends. I created a Google calendar where people could sign up to help him at mealtime and visit when I had to be home taking care of our baby. I organized for people to bring the nurses doughnuts and treats, and made sure Mike was comfortable with cozy blankets and calm music playing.
Today, when I look at social media, sure, I see a few people sharing Covid-19 conspiracy theories, but what I see more of is people creating feelings of control and peace in more functional ways: sewing masks, helping neighbors get food, scheduling Zoom happy hours, gardening, and expressing gratitude for health care workers. These actions signal a healthier approach to chaos and trauma — not one anchored in either anger or fear but rooted in presence and gratitude, and echoing a profound tolerance for ambiguity.
It’s okay to not know
On July 18, 2006, Mike died surrounded by a sea of friends. His doctor wept and hugged me. “I really thought we could get to the other side of this one,” he told me. Then he placed a hand on my arm. “I know it’s a terrible time to ask this, Danna. But do you want to do an autopsy?”
I thought of the months of grueling procedures, doctor’s appointments, and hospital stays. Then I thought of my happy and hilarious best friend, Mike Young, and his infinite tolerance for ambiguity. Channeling Mike, I wiped my face, then raised an eyebrow, “Autopsy? Why?” I whispered dramatically, feigning surprise. “Do you think he was murdered, Doctor?”
He paused — then we both laughed a bit, hugged, and wept some more.
Mike was right. It was just random.
Dannagal G. Young is an associate professor of communication and political science at the University of Delaware. She has authored more than 40 academic articles and book chapters exploring themes related to political entertainment, media psychology, public opinion, and misinformation.