vox--2020-08-12--The surprising benefits of contemplating your death

Nikki Mirghafori has a fantastically unusual career .
After getting a PhD in computer science , she ’ s spent three decades as an artificial intelligence researcher and scientific advisor to tech startups in Silicon Valley .
She ’ s also spent a bunch of time in Myanmar , training with a Buddhist meditation master in the Theravada tradition .
Now she teaches Buddhist meditation internationally , alongside her work as a scientist .
One of Mirghafori ’ s specialties is maranasati , which means mindfulness of death .
Mortality might seem like a scary thing to contemplate — in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop reading this right now — but that ’ s exactly why I ’ d say you should keep reading .
Death is something we really don ’ t like to think or talk about , especially in the West .
Yet our fear of mortality is what ’ s driving so much of our anxiety , especially during this pandemic .
Maybe it ’ s the prospect of your own mortality that scares you .
Or maybe you ’ re like me , and thinking about the mortality of the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to wrestle with .
Either way , I think now is actually a great time to face that fear , to get on intimate terms with it , so that we can learn how to reduce the suffering it brings into our lives .
I recently spoke with Mirghafori for Future Perfect ’ s limited-series podcast The Way Through , which is all about mining the world ’ s rich philosophical and spiritual traditions for guidance that can help us through these challenging times .
In our conversation , Mirghafori outlined the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then walked me through some specific practices for developing mindfulness of death and working through the fear that can come up around that .
Some of them are simple , like reciting a few key sentences each morning , and some of them are more … shall we say ... intense .
I think they ’ re all fascinating ways that Buddhists have generated over the centuries to come to terms with the prospect of death rather than trying to escape it .
You can hear our full conversation in the podcast here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ length and clarity , follows .
You ’ ve worked in Silicon Valley and you still live near there , so I ’ m sure you ’ ve encountered the desire in certain tech circles to live forever .
There are biohackers who are taking dozens of supplements every day .
Some are getting young blood transfusions , trying to put young people ’ s blood in their veins to live longer .
Some are having their bodies or brains preserved in liquid nitrogen , doing cryopreservation so they can be brought back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your feeling about all these efforts ?
It ’ s the quest for immortality and the denial of death .
Part of it is natural .
Human beings have done this for as long as we have been conscious of the fact that we are mortal .
A person who really put this well was Ernest Becker , the author of the seminal book The Denial of Death .
I ’ d like to offer this quote from him : There is a whole field of research in psychology called terror management theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ernest Becker .
This theory says that there ’ s a basic psychological conflict that arises from having , on the one hand , a self-preservation instinct , and on the other hand , that realization that death is inevitable .
This psychological conflict produces terror .
And how human beings manage this terror is either by embracing cultural beliefs or symbolic systems as ways to counter this biological reality , or doing these various things — cryogenics , trying to find elixirs of life , taking lots of supplements or whatnot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ancient Egyptians almost 4,000 years ago , and ancient Chinese almost 2,000 years ago , both believed that death-defying technology was right around the corner .
The zeitgeist is not so different .
We think we are more advanced , but it comes from the same fear , same denial of death .
It seems like in the West , we really have a bad case of that denial .
I think we rarely talk about death or are willing to face up to the reality that we ’ re going to die @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always distract ourselves from it .
You are a Buddhist practitioner and you have a practice that is very much the opposite of that , which is mindfulness of death , or maranasati .
You ’ ve done trainings and led retreats around this subject .
But some people might say this is too morbid and depressing to think about .
So before we actually delve into the mindfulness of death practices , could you entice us by telling us a few of the benefits of doing them ?
First and foremost , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myself included , is that facing the fact that I am not going to live forever really aligns my life with my values .
Most people suffer what ’ s called the misalignment problem , which is that we don ’ t quite live according to our values .
There was a study that really highlighted this , by a team of scientists , including Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman .
They surveyed a group of women and compared how much satisfaction they derived from their daily activities .
Among voluntary activities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s choices would roughly correlate to their satisfaction .
You ’ re choosing to do it , so you ’ d think that you actually enjoy it .
Guess what ?
That wasn ’ t the case .
The women reported deriving more satisfaction from prayer , worship , and meditation than from watching television .
But the average respondent spent more than five times as long watching television than engaging in spiritual activities that they actually said they enjoyed more .
This is a misalignment problem .
There ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but we don ’ t do that because we don ’ t have the sense that time is short , time is precious .
And the way to systematically raise the sense of urgency — Buddhism calls it samvega , spiritual urgency — is to bring the scarcity of time front and center in one ’ s consciousness : I am going to die .
This show is not going to go on forever .
This is a party on death row .
So the approach here is to bring to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time is , by impressing upon our minds how scarce it is .
And that helps align our life with our values .
Are there other benefits to practicing mindfulness of death ?
The second benefit is to live without fear of death for our own sake .
That way , we don ’ t engage in typical escape activities .
And it frees up a lot of psychic energy .
We have more peace , more ease in our lives .
The third benefit is to live without fear of death for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can support others in their dying process .
Usually the challenge of supporting a loved one is that we have a sense of grief for losing them , but a lot of that grief is actually that it ’ s bringing up fear of our own mortality .
So if we have made peace with our own mortality , we can be fully present and support them in their process , which can be a huge gift .
My mom passed away two years ago .
And for me , having done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be with her by her deathbed , holding her hand and supporting her so that she could have a peaceful transition .
She didn ’ t have to take care of me so much and console me .
She could be at peace and take delight in this mysterious process that we just don ’ t know what it ’ s like .
It might be beautiful , might be graceful .
We don ’ t know — there might be nothing ; there might be something .
Now I feel sufficiently enticed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mindfulness of death .
Let ’ s start with one that seems simple : the Five Daily Reflections , sometimes called the Five Remembrances , that are often recited in Buddhist circles .
Would you mind reciting those ?
Happy to .
These are the Five Daily Reflections that the Buddha suggested people recite every day .
Just like everyone , I am of the nature to age .
I have not gone beyond aging .
Just like everyone , I am of the nature to sicken .
I have not gone beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am subjected to the results of my own actions .
I am not free from these karmic effects .
Just like everyone , I am of the nature to die .
I have not gone beyond dying .
Just like everyone , all that is mine , beloved and pleasing , will change , will become otherwise , will become separated from me .
Allow whatever arises to come up .
It ’ s okay .
These contemplations can bring a lot up .
So just be with them as much as possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before , but every time I do them , I notice that some are much harder for me to absorb than others .
The fourth one — I ’ m of the nature to die — does not terrify me .
Maybe that ’ s weird , but that ’ s not the one that really scares me .
The one that I find impossibly hard is the fifth one .
Everyone that I love and everything that I love is of the nature to change and be separated from me .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separation from the people I love that I find much harder to face than the death of myself .
Because if I ’ m going to die , you know , then I ’ ll be gone .
There won ’ t be any me to miss things .
Yes .
So appreciate and make space for the one that really touches you .
Also I would say that with the fourth one , making peace with our own death , I ’ ve done the practice and sometimes I ’ m like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then I ’ ve really stayed with it , and thought , “ This could be my last breath.
” When the practice really takes hold and becomes alight with fire , it ’ s like , “ Oh , my God , I am going to die !
” It really hits home .
Just to clarify , this is a separate mindfulness of death practice , where you contemplate with every breath , “ This could be my last inhale .
This could be my last exhale.
” Yes .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : This particular teaching is what ’ s called maranasati .
Marana is death in Pali , the language of the Buddha .
Sati is mindfulness .
The mindfulness of death sutra , that ’ s where the Buddha taught it , and it ’ s actually quite a lovely teaching .
The Buddha comes and asks the monks , “ How are you practicing mindfulness of death ?
” And one of them says , “ Well , I think I could die in a fortnight , in a couple weeks.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , I think I could die in 24 hours.
” Or “ Well , I could die at the end of this meal.
” Or “ Well , I could die at the end of this bite of food I ’ m eating.
” And another one says , “ Well , I could die at the end of this very breath.
” And the Buddha says , “ Those of you who said , two weeks , 24 hours , whatever — you are practicing heedlessly .
Those who said right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heedfully , correctly .
That is the practice.
” There are ways to really bring the sense of immediacy and urgency to all this .
It ’ s not out of the question that there could be an aneurysm or that a meteor could just hit the Earth in this moment .
Use visualizations ; be creative .
Another thing I find really helpful is remembering the idea of impermanence .
Which , of course , is the theme of our whole conversation — that our whole life is impermanent — and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But also any emotion that I ’ m feeling is impermanent .
So if I ’ m feeling an intense surge of fear as I do a practice , that ’ s impermanent , too .
Yeah , I love that .
When I teach impermanence , there are little impermanences that come and go , and then there is the big impermanence , which is your life !
I ’ m chuckling because this is a case where impermanence is on your side .
Impermanence is just a rule of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s impersonal .
It ’ s just the way things are .
But in our perspective , it ’ s either working for us or against us .
Can you tell me about another kind of contemplation — the “ corpse contemplation ” or “ charnel ground contemplation ” ?
Charnel grounds are these places where , after people have died , their bodies are left to decay above ground , to rot in the open air .
And Buddhist monks would go and observe them up close , right ?
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In order to become more intimate with a sense of mortality , the practice is to go to the charnel ground and to actually see a corpse .
And the contemplation is : My body , this alive body , is just like this body that is decaying .
It ’ s in different stages of being a body , of decomposing .
A specific practice in the Buddhist canon is to contemplate a corpse in different stages of decay .
This particular practice requires a sense of stability of mind .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ only teach it on a retreat when there ’ s a container of safety , holding people and supporting them through it .
I definitely have not yet worked myself up to doing corpse contemplation by looking at images of actual human corpses .
But when I go for a walk , whenever I see a dead bird or squirrel or mouse that ’ s been run over in the road , I actually pause and take a minute to look at it .
I ’ m trying to ease my way into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another informal practice I wanted to share is having a memento mori .
Like a little skull , or those bracelets that are all skulls .
I just drew on a little Post-It a skull and bones , and posted it on my computer monitor , so I would remember : Life is short .
I ’ m going to die .
I ’ ve had various memento moris on my desk throughout the years , and I invite people to have them .
They don ’ t have to be sophisticated .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ write out , “ Life is short ” or “ You are going to die ” or “ Traveler , tread lightly.
” Whatever works for you to keep death in your perspective .
And I think it ’ s good to switch memento moris around so that your mind doesn ’ t get used to seeing the same thing all the time .
I ’ m glad you brought this up because I was going to say the corpse contemplation reminds me a lot of that memento mori tradition , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many different religious traditions have emphasized the importance of meditating on our death and have devised ways like the memento mori to try to keep forcing the ego to recognize its looming demise .
Yes .
And I know that for me , I feel most alive and I feel happiest and I feel most connected with myself , when I ’ m aware of my death .
If it happens for a day or two that it ’ s not in the forefront for whatever reason , I ’ m not as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So I just love bringing it back .
It enlivens me .
It supports me to live more fully and hopefully die with more delight and joy and curiosity .
I ’ m wondering if you can help me with something else .
I mentioned earlier that I ’ m not really scared of my own death so much , but I am scared of the death of the people I love .
And especially during the pandemic , I think that ’ s causing a lot of anxiety for me and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re scared about the potential death of our grandparents , our parents , our friends .
Is there a way to free ourselves of the overwhelming fear of their death ?
Grief is a natural part of the process .
However , it is complicated by our own seen and unseen fear of death .
So I invite you to actually work with the practice of making peace with your own death .
That ’ s what ’ s underlying it .
Even if you think you ’ re not afraid of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When people are really at peace with their own passing , there is a different perspective .
There ’ s a different way of being with the fear or sadness of losing others .
There is still a pain of loss , but it shifts .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Nikki Mirghafori has a fantastically unusual career. After getting a PhD in computer science, she’s spent three decades as an artificial intelligence researcher and scientific advisor to tech startups in Silicon Valley. She’s also spent a bunch of time training with a Burmese Buddhist meditation master in the Theravada tradition. Now she teaches Buddhist meditation internationally, alongside her work as a scientist.
One of Mirghafori’s specialties is maranasati, which means mindfulness of death. Mortality might seem like a scary thing to contemplate — in fact, maybe you’re tempted to stop reading this right now — but that’s exactly why I’d say you should keep reading. Death is something we really don’t like to think or talk about, especially in the West. Yet our fear of mortality is what’s driving so much of our anxiety, especially during this pandemic.
Maybe it’s the prospect of your own mortality that scares you. Or maybe you’re like me, and thinking about the mortality of the people you love is really what’s hard to wrestle with.
Either way, I think now is actually a great time to face that fear, to get on intimate terms with it, so that we can learn how to reduce the suffering it brings into our lives.
I recently spoke with Mirghafori for Future Perfect’s limited-series podcast The Way Through, which is all about mining the world’s rich philosophical and spiritual traditions for guidance that can help us through these challenging times.
In our conversation, Mirghafori outlined the benefits of contemplating our mortality. She then walked me through some specific practices for developing mindfulness of death and working through the fear that can come up around that. Some of them are simple, like reciting a few key sentences each morning, and some of them are more … shall we say... intense.
I think they’re all fascinating ways that Buddhists have generated over the centuries to come to terms with the prospect of death rather than trying to escape it.
You can hear our full conversation in the podcast here. A partial transcript, edited for length and clarity, follows.
Subscribe to Future Perfect: The Way Through wherever you get your podcasts, including: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or Stitcher.
Sigal Samuel
You’ve worked in Silicon Valley and you still live near there, so I’m sure you’ve encountered the desire in certain tech circles to live forever. There are biohackers who are taking dozens of supplements every day. Some are getting young blood transfusions, trying to put young people’s blood in their veins to live longer. Some are having their bodies or brains preserved in liquid nitrogen, doing cryopreservation so they can be brought back to life one day. What is your feeling about all these efforts?
Nikki Mirghafori
It’s the quest for immortality and the denial of death. Part of it is natural. Human beings have done this for as long as we have been conscious of the fact that we are mortal.
A person who really put this well was Ernest Becker, the author of the seminal book The Denial of Death. I’d like to offer this quote from him:
This is the paradox. A human is out of nature and hopelessly in it. We are dual. Up in the stars and yet housed in a heart-pumping, breath-gasping body that once belonged to a fish and still carries the gill marks to prove it. A human is literally split in two. We have an awareness of our own splendid uniqueness in that we stick out of nature with a towering majesty, and yet we go back into the ground a few feet in order to blindly and dumbly rot and disappear forever. It is a terrifying dilemma to be in and to have to live with.
There is a whole field of research in psychology called terror management theory, which started from the work of Ernest Becker. This theory says that there’s a basic psychological conflict that arises from having, on the one hand, a self-preservation instinct, and on the other hand, that realization that death is inevitable.
This psychological conflict produces terror. And how human beings manage this terror is either by embracing cultural beliefs or symbolic systems as ways to counter this biological reality, or doing these various things — cryogenics, trying to find elixirs of life, taking lots of supplements or whatnot.
It’s nothing new. The ancient Egyptians almost 4,000 years ago, and ancient Chinese almost 2,000 years ago, both believed that death-defying technology was right around the corner. The zeitgeist is not so different. We think we are more advanced, but it comes from the same fear, same denial of death.
Sigal Samuel
It seems like in the West, we really have a bad case of that denial. I think we rarely talk about death or are willing to face up to the reality that we’re going to die. We seem to be wanting to always distract ourselves from it.
You are a Buddhist practitioner and you have a practice that is very much the opposite of that, which is mindfulness of death, or maranasati. You’ve done trainings and led retreats around this subject. But some people might say this is too morbid and depressing to think about. So before we actually delve into the mindfulness of death practices, could you entice us by telling us a few of the benefits of doing them?
Nikki Mirghafori
First and foremost, what I found for many people, myself included, is that facing the fact that I am not going to live forever really aligns my life with my values.
Most people suffer what’s called the misalignment problem, which is that we don’t quite live according to our values. There was a study that really highlighted this, by a team of scientists, including Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman. They surveyed a group of women and compared how much satisfaction they derived from their daily activities. Among voluntary activities, you’d probably expect that people’s choices would roughly correlate to their satisfaction. You’re choosing to do it, so you’d think that you actually enjoy it.
Guess what? That wasn’t the case. The women reported deriving more satisfaction from prayer, worship, and meditation than from watching television. But the average respondent spent more than five times as long watching television than engaging in spiritual activities that they actually said they enjoyed more.
This is a misalignment problem. There’s a way we want to spend our time, but we don’t do that because we don’t have the sense that time is short, time is precious. And the way to systematically raise the sense of urgency — Buddhism calls it samvega, spiritual urgency — is to bring the scarcity of time front and center in one’s consciousness: I am going to die. This show is not going to go on forever. This is a party on death row.
Sigal Samuel
So the approach here is to bring to the forefront of our consciousness how precious our time is, by impressing upon our minds how scarce it is. And that helps align our life with our values.
Are there other benefits to practicing mindfulness of death?
Nikki Mirghafori
The second benefit is to live without fear of death for our own sake. That way, we don’t engage in typical escape activities. And it frees up a lot of psychic energy. We have more peace, more ease in our lives.
The third benefit is to live without fear of death for the sake of our loved ones. We can support others in their dying process. Usually the challenge of supporting a loved one is that we have a sense of grief for losing them, but a lot of that grief is actually that it’s bringing up fear of our own mortality. So if we have made peace with our own mortality, we can be fully present and support them in their process, which can be a huge gift.
My mom passed away two years ago. And for me, having done all of these practices, I could be with her by her deathbed, holding her hand and supporting her so that she could have a peaceful transition. She didn’t have to take care of me so much and console me. She could be at peace and take delight in this mysterious process that we just don’t know what it’s like. It might be beautiful, might be graceful. We don’t know — there might be nothing; there might be something.
Sigal Samuel
Now I feel sufficiently enticed to learn about the actual practices of mindfulness of death. Let’s start with one that seems simple: the Five Daily Reflections, sometimes called the Five Remembrances, that are often recited in Buddhist circles. Would you mind reciting those?
Nikki Mirghafori
Happy to. These are the Five Daily Reflections that the Buddha suggested people recite every day.
Just like everyone, I am of the nature to age. I have not gone beyond aging.
Just like everyone, I am of the nature to sicken. I have not gone beyond sickness.
Just like everyone, I am subjected to the results of my own actions. I am not free from these karmic effects.
Just like everyone, I am of the nature to die. I have not gone beyond dying.
Just like everyone, all that is mine, beloved and pleasing, will change, will become otherwise, will become separated from me.
Allow whatever arises to come up. It’s okay. These contemplations can bring a lot up. So just be with them as much as possible.
Sigal Samuel
I’ve done these reflections before, but every time I do them, I notice that some are much harder for me to absorb than others. The fourth one — I’m of the nature to die — does not terrify me. Maybe that’s weird, but that’s not the one that really scares me. The one that I find impossibly hard is the fifth one. Everyone that I love and everything that I love is of the nature to change and be separated from me.
It’s really the death or the separation from the people I love that I find much harder to face than the death of myself. Because if I’m going to die, you know, then I’ll be gone. There won’t be any me to miss things.
Nikki Mirghafori
Yes. So appreciate and make space for the one that really touches you.
Also I would say that with the fourth one, making peace with our own death, I’ve done the practice and sometimes I’m like yeah, sure, whatever. And then I’ve really stayed with it, and thought, “This could be my last breath.” When the practice really takes hold and becomes alight with fire, it’s like, “Oh, my God, I am going to die!” It really hits home.
Sigal Samuel
Just to clarify, this is a separate mindfulness of death practice, where you contemplate with every breath, “This could be my last inhale. This could be my last exhale.”
Nikki Mirghafori
Yes. And to bring the historical context into it: This particular teaching is what’s called maranasati. Marana is death in Pali, the language of the Buddha. Sati is mindfulness. The mindfulness of death sutra, that’s where the Buddha taught it, and it’s actually quite a lovely teaching.
The Buddha comes and asks the monks, “How are you practicing mindfulness of death?” And one of them says, “Well, I think I could die in a fortnight, in a couple weeks.” Another one of them says, “Well, I think I could die in 24 hours.” Or “Well, I could die at the end of this meal.” Or “Well, I could die at the end of this bite of food I’m eating.” And another one says, “Well, I could die at the end of this very breath.”
And the Buddha says, “Those of you who said, two weeks, 24 hours, whatever — you are practicing heedlessly. Those who said right at this breath or bite of food, you are practicing heedfully, correctly. That is the practice.”
There are ways to really bring the sense of immediacy and urgency to all this. It’s not out of the question that there could be an aneurysm or that a meteor could just hit the Earth in this moment. Use visualizations; be creative.
Sigal Samuel
Another thing I find really helpful is remembering the idea of impermanence. Which, of course, is the theme of our whole conversation — that our whole life is impermanent — and that’s a very central Buddhist teaching. But also any emotion that I’m feeling is impermanent. So if I’m feeling an intense surge of fear as I do a practice, that’s impermanent, too.
Nikki Mirghafori
Yeah, I love that. When I teach impermanence, there are little impermanences that come and go, and then there is the big impermanence, which is your life! I’m chuckling because this is a case where impermanence is on your side. Impermanence is just a rule of how things run in this world. It’s impersonal. It’s just the way things are. But in our perspective, it’s either working for us or against us.
Sigal Samuel
Can you tell me about another kind of contemplation — the “corpse contemplation” or “charnel ground contemplation”? Charnel grounds are these places where, after people have died, their bodies are left to decay above ground, to rot in the open air. And Buddhist monks would go and observe them up close, right?
Nikki Mirghafori
Many monks do that, especially in Asia. In order to become more intimate with a sense of mortality, the practice is to go to the charnel ground and to actually see a corpse. And the contemplation is: My body, this alive body, is just like this body that is decaying. It’s in different stages of being a body, of decomposing.
A specific practice in the Buddhist canon is to contemplate a corpse in different stages of decay. This particular practice requires a sense of stability of mind. Do the other ones first. I only teach it on a retreat when there’s a container of safety, holding people and supporting them through it.
Sigal Samuel
I definitely have not yet worked myself up to doing corpse contemplation by looking at images of actual human corpses. But when I go for a walk, whenever I see a dead bird or squirrel or mouse that’s been run over in the road, I actually pause and take a minute to look at it. I’m trying to ease my way into this practice.
Nikki Mirghafori
Brilliant. Similarly, another informal practice I wanted to share is having a memento mori. Like a little skull, or those bracelets that are all skulls. I just drew on a little Post-It a skull and bones, and posted it on my computer monitor, so I would remember: Life is short. I’m going to die.
I’ve had various memento moris on my desk throughout the years, and I invite people to have them. They don’t have to be sophisticated. On a piece of paper, just write out, “Life is short” or “You are going to die” or “Traveler, tread lightly.” Whatever works for you to keep death in your perspective. And I think it’s good to switch memento moris around so that your mind doesn’t get used to seeing the same thing all the time.
Sigal Samuel
I’m glad you brought this up because I was going to say the corpse contemplation reminds me a lot of that memento mori tradition, which is a centuries-long tradition in Christianity. So many different religious traditions have emphasized the importance of meditating on our death and have devised ways like the memento mori to try to keep forcing the ego to recognize its looming demise.
Nikki Mirghafori
Yes. And I know that for me, I feel most alive and I feel happiest and I feel most connected with myself, when I’m aware of my death. If it happens for a day or two that it’s not in the forefront for whatever reason, I’m not as bright, as sharp, as alive. So I just love bringing it back. It enlivens me. It supports me to live more fully and hopefully die with more delight and joy and curiosity.
Sigal Samuel
I’m wondering if you can help me with something else. I mentioned earlier that I’m not really scared of my own death so much, but I am scared of the death of the people I love. And especially during the pandemic, I think that’s causing a lot of anxiety for me and probably a lot of others. We’re scared about the potential death of our grandparents, our parents, our friends. Is there a way to free ourselves of the overwhelming fear of their death?
Nikki Mirghafori
Grief is a natural part of the process. However, it is complicated by our own seen and unseen fear of death. So I invite you to actually work with the practice of making peace with your own death. That’s what’s underlying it. Even if you think you’re not afraid of your own death, you probably are.
When people are really at peace with their own passing, there is a different perspective. There’s a different way of being with the fear or sadness of losing others. There is still a pain of loss, but it shifts.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-12--How bad is your state’s Covid-19 outbreak?

The US is now in the middle of what can only be described as a national Covid-19 epidemic , with cases across the country rising at alarming rates in recent weeks .
Public health experts look at a few markers to determine how bad things are in each state : the number of daily new cases ; the infection rate , which can show how likely the virus is to spread ; the percent of tests that come back positive , which should be low in a state with sufficient testing ; and the percent of hospital beds that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox analysis indicates the vast majority of states report alarming trends across all four benchmarks for coronavirus outbreaks .
Most states still report a high — sometimes very high — number of daily new Covid-19 cases .
Most still have high infection rates .
Most still have test positive rates that are too high , indicating they don ’ t have enough tests to track and contain the scope of their outbreaks .
( The US overall has seen a plateau in new cases in recent days , but at a level much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have hospitals with intensive care units that are too packed .
Across these benchmarks , only four states — Connecticut , New Hampshire , New Jersey , and New York — fare well on all four metrics , meaning their epidemics are relatively under control for now .
Only the Northeast currently seems to be doing better with the resurgence of Covid-19 cases .
But that region , particularly New York City , was hit hard by the initial wave of the Covid-19 pandemic , with New York reporting the highest overall death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The current national outbreak , reaching from California to Florida , is the result of the public and its leaders collectively letting their guard down .
States , with the support of President Donald Trump , moved to reopen — often before they saw sizable drops in daily new Covid-19 cases , and at times so quickly they didn ’ t have time to see if each phase of their reopening was leading to too many more cases .
The public embraced the reopenings , going out and often not adhering to recommended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask .
It ’ s this mix — of government withdrawal and public complacency — that experts have cited again and again in explaining why states are now seeing a resurgence in Covid-19 cases .
“ It ’ s a situation that didn ’ t have to be , ” Jaime Slaughter-Acey , an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota , told me .
“ For almost three months , you had opportunities to be proactive with respect to mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic and to help normalize culture to adopt practices that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the development of Covid-19 complications .
… It was not prioritized over the economy.
” The effects are felt not just in terms of more infections , critical illnesses , new chronic conditions , and deaths , but in the long-term financial impact as the economy starts shutting down again , people refuse to go out , and businesses resist reopening during a pandemic .
“ Dead people don ’ t shop .
They don ’ t spend money .
They don ’ t invest in things , ” Jade Pagkas-Bather , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of Chicago , told me .
“ When you fail to invest in the health of your population , then there are longitudinal downstream effects.
” The benchmarks tracked by Vox don ’ t cover every important facet of the pandemic .
They don ’ t show , for instance , how well a state is doing with contact tracing , when “ disease detectives ” track down people who may have been infected and push them to quarantine ; the data for how states are doing on that front is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are helpful for gauging if a state can safely start to reopen , like whether cases have fallen in the previous two weeks and total tests , are excluded to focus more on the status of each state ’ s current Covid-19 outbreak .
Together , these four benchmarks help give an idea of how each state is doing in its fight against Covid-19 .
Nationwide , it ’ s pretty grim .
1 ) Most states have too many daily new Covid-19 infections What ’ s the goal ?
Fewer than four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per day , based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Connecticut , Maine , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New York , and Vermont — just six states .
Why is this important ?
The most straightforward way to measure whether any place is suffering a big coronavirus outbreak is to look at the number of daily new Covid-19 cases .
There ’ s no widely accepted metric for how many cases , exactly , is too many .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 daily new cases per 100,000 is generally a good idea — a level low enough that a state can say it ’ s starting to get significant control over the virus .
A big caveat to this metric : It ’ s only as good as a state ’ s testing .
Cases can only get picked up if states are actually testing people for the virus .
So if a state doesn ’ t have enough tests , it ’ s probably going to miss a lot of cases — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the full story .
That ’ s why it ’ s important not just to use this benchmark by itself , but alongside metrics like the test positive rate .
Along those lines , the number of daily new cases may give a delayed snapshot of a Covid-19 outbreak .
If test results take a week to get reported to the state , then the count for daily new cases will really reflect the state of the outbreak for the previous week .
If testing is adequate in a state , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps the best snapshot of how big a state ’ s Covid-19 outbreak is .
2 ) The coronavirus is spreading too quickly in many states What ’ s the goal ?
An effective reproduction number , or Rt , below 1 , based on data from Rt.live , a site created by two Instagram founders and a data analyst .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Idaho , Indiana , Kentucky , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Michigan , Mississippi , Nebraska , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , Ohio , Oregon , Pennsylvania , South Carolina , Tennessee , Utah , Vermont , West Virginia , Wisconsin , and Wyoming — a total of 35 states .
Why is this important ?
The Rt measures how many people are infected by each person with Covid-19 .
If the Rt is 1 , then an infected person will , on average , spread the coronavirus to one other person .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an infected person will spread it to two on average .
And so on .
It ’ s an attempt , then , to gauge how quickly a virus is spreading .
One way to think about it : Unlike the count for daily new cases , this doesn ’ t give you a snapshot of a state ’ s Covid-19 outbreak today , but where the outbreak is heading in the near future .
The goal is to get the Rt below 1 .
If each infection doesn ’ t lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to zero new Covid-19 cases .
The estimated Rt can be very imprecise — with margins of error that make it hard to know for certain in any state if it ’ s really above or below 1 .
Different modelers can also come up with different estimates .
That ’ s , unfortunately , just the reality of using limited data to come up with a rough estimate of a disease ’ s overall spread .
The Rt also reflects an average .
If 10 people are infected with Covid-19 , nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and one spreads it to 10 , that adds up to an Rt of one .
But it masks the fact that individuals , for whatever reason , can still cause superspreading events — which seem of particular concern with the coronavirus .
Still , the Rt is one of the better measures we have for tracking a pathogen ’ s spread across the whole population .
When paired with the other metrics on this list , it can give us a sense of each state ’ s outbreak now and in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive rates for tests are too high What ’ s the goal ?
Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Connecticut , Delaware , Illinois , Maine , Massachusetts , Michigan , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Vermont , and West Virginia — 13 states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
( Washington state is excluded due to recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why is this important ?
To properly track and contain coronavirus outbreaks , states need to have enough testing .
There are all sorts of proposals for how much testing is needed in the US , from 500,000 a day to tens of millions .
But one way to see if a state is testing enough to match its outbreak is the rate of tests that come back positive .
An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people , many of whom don ’ t have the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
High positive rates indicate that only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested , so there ’ s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak .
The goal for the positive rate is , in an ideal world , 0 percent , since that would suggest that Covid-19 is vanquished entirely .
More realistically , in a world going through a big pandemic , the positive rate should be below 5 percent .
But even if a state reaches 5 percent , experts argue it should continue trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to match nations like Germany , New Zealand , and South Korea that have gotten their positive rates below 3 percent and even 1 percent , in order to truly get a hold of their outbreaks .
As long as a state is above 5 percent , chances are it ’ s still missing a significant number of Covid-19 cases .
And the higher that number is , the more cases that are very likely getting missed .
So even if your state is reporting a low number of daily new cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause for alarm — a sign that there ’ s an outbreak that ’ s only hidden due to a lack of testing .
And if your state is reporting a high number of daily new cases and a high positive rate , that ’ s all the more reason for concern , suggesting that the epidemic is even worse than the total case count indicates .
4 ) Most states ’ hospitals don ’ t have much space for Covid-19 patients What ’ s the goal ?
Below 60 percent occupancy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data from the US Department of Health and Human Services .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Colorado , Connecticut , Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois , Iowa , Kansas , Massachusetts , Montana , Nebraska , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New York , North Dakota , Ohio , South Dakota , Utah , Vermont , Wisconsin , and Wyoming — 21 states .
Why is this important ?
One thing the world has seen , from China to Italy to New York , is that Covid-19 can very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this are dire : If any place is suffering a big coronavirus outbreak , and there isn ’ t enough room in a hospital to treat patients , that could lead to worse outcomes , including death .
The occupancy rate in states ’ intensive care units helps track how much space hospitals have to deal with more Covid-19 patients .
It also gives a snapshot of just how busy states ’ hospitals are on any given day .
Generally , the goal is to stay below 60 percent occupancy at ICU beds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point when hospitals have enough cushion , experts say , to more effectively treat patients as well as better handle a rush of patients should an outbreak get worse .
This is a bit of a lagging indicator for tracking an outbreak .
Since people can take as long as weeks to develop Covid-19 symptoms once they ’ re infected , hospitalizations also take a few weeks to start trending up as cases trend up .
ICU occupancy also isn ’ t the only metric for tracking hospital readiness .
The US Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the percent of people in inpatient beds who have Covid-19 and the percent of inpatient beds occupied in general .
The other benchmarks also give a view of how well a state ’ s hospitals are handling a coronavirus outbreak .
Still , for a general idea of how bad a state ’ s Covid-19 outbreak is and how ready the state is to handle a surge in cases , the ICU occupancy rate is a helpful indicator .
If a state ’ s ICUs are overwhelmed , the state is possibly suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not ready for one .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

America’s national Covid-19 epidemic continues, with the US’s daily new cases down from an early January peak but still higher than those of most developed nations — and the country recently surpassing 500,000 deaths due to the disease.
At the state level, things can look even worse than the national picture.
Public health experts look at a few markers to determine how bad things are in each state: the number of daily new cases; the infection rate, which can show how likely the virus is to spread; and the percentage of tests that come back positive, which should be low in a state with sufficient testing. Combined, these three benchmarks can tell you whether or not a state’s coronavirus outbreak is under control.
Vox’s analysis, updated weekly, shows the vast majority of states are reporting alarming trends for coronavirus cases based on these benchmarks. Only one state — Hawaii — fares well on all three metrics, suggesting the vast majority of states don’t have their outbreaks fully under control right now.
The US outbreaks are due to the failure of both the American public and the country’s leaders to take the virus seriously enough; to the extent they did, many let their guard down prematurely. With the support of former President Donald Trump, states moved to reopen — often before seeing sizable drops in daily new Covid-19 cases, and at times so quickly they weren’t able to tell whether each phase of their reopening plan was leading to too many new infections.
The public embraced the reopenings, resuming their usual day-to-day activities and often refusing to adhere to recommended precautions like physical distancing and mask-wearing.
Even as cases began to fall later in the summer, America’s overall caseload remained very high. Yet many states moved to reopen once more, with much of the public embracing the looser restrictions and subsequently going out.
It’s this mix of government withdrawal and public complacency that experts have cited in explaining why states continue to struggle with getting the coronavirus under control.
“It’s a situation that didn’t have to be,” Jaime Slaughter-Acey, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, previously told me, adding, “You had opportunities to be proactive with respect to mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic and to help normalize culture to adopt practices that would stem the tide of transmissions as well as the development of Covid-19 complications. … It was not prioritized over the economy.”
The effects are felt not just in terms of more infections, critical illnesses, new chronic conditions, and deaths, but in the long-term financial impact as the economy struggles, many people still refuse to go out, and businesses resist reopening during a pandemic.
“Dead people don’t shop. They don’t spend money. They don’t invest in things,” Jade Pagkas-Bather, an expert in infectious diseases and a doctor at the University of Chicago, previously told me. “When you fail to invest in the health of your population, then there are longitudinal downstream effects.”
With a Covid-19 vaccination campaign underway, a finish line to this crisis in finally visible. But until America reaches sufficient population protection — and, preferably, herd immunity — every day the coronavirus spreads means more illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths.
As the country works toward vaccinating everyone, the three benchmarks tracked by Vox give an idea of how each state is doing in its fight against Covid-19 in the meantime. Nationwide, it’s pretty grim.
1) Most states have too many daily new Covid-19 infections
What’s the goal? Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Just one — Hawaii.
Why is this important? The most straightforward way to measure whether any place is experiencing a big coronavirus outbreak is to look at the number of daily new Covid-19 cases.
There’s no widely accepted metric for how many cases, exactly, is too many. But experts told me that aiming for below four daily new cases per 100,000 is generally a good idea — a level low enough that a state can say it’s starting to get significant control over the virus.
A big caveat to this metric: It’s only as good as a state’s testing. Cases can only get picked up if states are actually testing people for the virus. So if a state doesn’t have enough tests, it’s probably going to miss a lot of cases, and the reported cases won’t tell the full story. That’s why it’s important not to use this benchmark by itself, but to use it alongside metrics like the test positive rate.
The number of daily new cases may also give a delayed snapshot of a Covid-19 outbreak. If test results take a week to get reported to the state, the count for daily new cases will really reflect the state of the outbreak for the previous week.
If testing is adequate in a state, though, the toll of daily new cases is perhaps the best insight as to how big a state’s Covid-19 outbreak is.
2) The coronavirus is spreading too quickly in some states
What’s the goal? An effective reproduction number, or Rt, below 1, based on data from the Centre for Mathematical Modeling of Infectious Diseases.
Which states meet the goal? All but Alaska, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming — 45 states, as well as Washington, DC.
Why is this important? The Rt measures how many people are infected by each person with Covid-19. If the Rt is 1, then an infected person will, on average, spread the coronavirus to one other person. If it’s 2, then an infected person will spread it to two on average. And so on.
It’s an attempt, then, to gauge how quickly a virus is spreading. One way to think about it: Unlike the count for daily new cases, this gives you a snapshot not of a state’s Covid-19 outbreak today, but of where the outbreak is heading in the near future.
The goal is to get the Rt below 1. If each infection doesn’t lead to another, that would over time lead to zero new Covid-19 cases.
The estimated Rt can be very imprecise, with margins of error that make it hard to know for certain in any state if it’s really above or below 1. Different modelers can also come up with different estimates. That’s, unfortunately, just the reality of using limited data to come up with a rough estimate of a disease’s overall spread.
The Rt also reflects an average. If 10 people are infected with Covid-19, nine spread it to no one else, and one spreads it to 10, that adds up to an Rt of 1. But it masks the fact that individuals, for whatever reason, can still cause superspreading events — which seem of particular concern with the coronavirus.
And the Rt is only as good as the data that goes into calculating it. If a state’s data is poor quality or inconsistent, it might skew the picture. That can help explain why some states with bad and continuing outbreaks may fare better on this benchmark than others.
Still, the Rt is one of the better measures we have for tracking a pathogen’s spread across the whole population. When paired with the other metrics on this list, it can give us a sense of each state’s outbreak now and in the future.
3) Most states’ positive rates for tests are too high
What’s the goal? Less than 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the previous week, based on data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center and the Covid Tracking Project.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — 24 states, as well as Washington, DC.
Why is this important? To properly track and contain coronavirus outbreaks, states need to have enough testing. There are all sorts of proposals for how much testing is needed in the US, up to the tens of millions.
But one way to see if a state is testing enough to match its outbreak is the rate of tests that come back positive. An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people, many of whom don’t have the disease or don’t show severe symptoms. High positive rates indicate that only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested, so there’s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak.
The goal for the positive rate is, in an ideal world, zero percent, since that would suggest that Covid-19 is vanquished entirely. More realistically, in a world going through a pandemic, the positive rate should be below 5 percent. But even if a state reaches 5 percent, experts argue it should continue trying to push that number further down — to match nations like Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, which have gotten their positive rates below 3 percent or even 1 percent — in order to truly get ahold of their outbreaks.
As long as a state is above 5 percent, chances are it’s still missing a significant number of Covid-19 cases. And the higher that number is, the more cases that are very likely getting missed.
So even if your state is reporting a low number of daily new cases, a high positive rate should be a cause for alarm — a sign that there’s an outbreak that’s only hidden due to a lack of testing. And if your state is reporting a high number of daily new cases and a high positive rate, that’s all the more reason for concern, suggesting the epidemic is even worse than the total case count indicates.
Sign up for the Weeds newsletter. Every Friday, you’ll get an explainer of a big policy story from the week, a look at important research that recently came out, and answers to reader questions — to guide you through the first 100 days of President Joe Biden’s administration.


vox--2020-08-12--Just 6 states meet these basic criteria to reopen and stay safe

All 50 states have moved to reopen their economies , at least partially , after shutting down businesses and gatherings in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
But a Vox analysis suggests that most states haven ’ t made the preparations needed to contain outbreaks — putting themselves at risk for a rise in Covid-19 cases and deaths should they continue to reopen , as many states have already seen .
Experts told me states need three things to be safe to open .
State leaders , from the governor to the legislature to health departments , need to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unabated .
They need the testing capacity to track and isolate the sick and their contacts .
And they need the hospital capacity to handle a potential surge in Covid-19 cases .
More specifically , states should meet at least five basic criteria .
They should see a two-week drop in coronavirus cases , indicating that the virus is actually abating .
They should have fewer than four daily new cases per 100,000 people per day — to show that cases aren ’ t just dropping but are also below dangerous levels .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ per 100,000 people per day , letting them quickly track and contain outbreaks .
They need an overall positive rate for tests below 5 percent — another critical indicator for testing capacity .
And states should have at least 40 percent of their ICU beds free to actually treat an influx of people stricken with Covid-19 should it be necessary .
These metrics line up with a range of expert recommendations , as well as the various policy plans put out by both independent groups and government officials to deal with the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean that a state is ready to safely reopen its economy — a process that describes a wide range of local and state actions .
And failing them doesn ’ t mean a state is in immediate danger of a coronavirus outbreak if it starts to reopen ; with Covid-19 , there ’ s always an element of luck and other factors .
But with these metrics , states can gauge if they have repressed the coronavirus while building the capacity to contain future outbreaks should they come .
In other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the next phase of the fight .
So far , most states are not there .
As of August 12 , just six states — Alaska , Connecticut , Maine , New Hampshire , New Jersey , and New York — met four or five of the goals , which demonstrates strong progress .
Twenty-eight states and Washington , DC , hit two or three of the benchmarks .
The other 15 achieved zero or one .
( Washington state is excluded due to recent errors in its test reporting . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most progress aren ’ t safe to fully reopen .
Without a vaccine or similar treatment , the threat of the coronavirus is still out there .
Especially in states that suffered big outbreaks , such as Arizona and New York , even a lot of progress or some progress doesn ’ t mean all the underlying problems that led to an epidemic are gone .
Nor do the metrics cover everything that states should do before they can safely reopen .
They don ’ t show , for example , if states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in which people who came into contact with someone who ’ s sick with Covid-19 are tracked down by “ disease detectives ” and quarantined .
Contact tracing is key to containing an epidemic , but states don ’ t track how many contact tracers they ’ ve hired in a standardized , readily available way .
States also don ’ t have ready data for health care workers ’ access to personal protective equipment , such as masks and gloves — a critical measure of the health care system ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the map gives an idea of how much progress states have made toward containing the coronavirus and keeping it contained .
States will have to follow these kinds of metrics as they reopen .
If the numbers — especially coronavirus cases — go in the wrong direction again , experts said governments should be ready to bring back restrictions .
If states move too quickly to reopen or respond too slowly to a turn for the worse , they could see a renewed surge in Covid-19 cases .
“ Planning for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Mark McClellan , a health policy expert at Duke , told me .
“ There will be outbreaks , and there will be needs for pauses and going back — hopefully not too much if we do this carefully.
” So this will be a work in progress , at least until we get a Covid-19 vaccine or the pandemic otherwise ends , whether by natural or human means .
But the metrics can at least help give states an idea of how far along they are in the fight against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal ?
A 10 percent drop in daily new coronavirus cases compared to two weeks ago and a 5 percent drop in cases compared to one week ago , based on data from the New York Times .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Mississippi , Missouri , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , North Carolina , Ohio , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , South Carolina , Tennessee , Texas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Wyoming — a total of 26 states .
Why is this important ?
Guidance from the White House and several independent groups emphasize that states need to see coronavirus cases drop consistently over two weeks before they can say they ’ re ready to begin reopening .
After all , nothing shows you ’ re out of an outbreak like a sustained reduction in infections .
“ The first and foremost [ metric ] is you want to have a continued decrease in cases , ” Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a huge piece.
” A simple reduction in cases compared to two weeks prior isn ’ t enough ; it has to be a significant drop , and it has to be sustained over the two weeks .
So for Vox ’ s map , states need at least a 10 percent drop in daily new cases compared to two weeks prior and at least a 5 percent drop compared to one week prior .
Reported cases can be a reflection of testing capacity : More testing will pick up more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up fewer .
So it ’ s important that the decrease occur while testing is either growing or already sufficient .
And since states have recently boosted their testing abilities , increases in Covid-19 cases can also reflect improvements in testing .
Even after meeting this benchmark , continued caution is warranted .
If a state meets the goal of a reduction in cases compared to one and two weeks ago but cases seemed to go up in recent days , then perhaps it ’ s not time to reopen just yet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a very high baseline of cases , then that ’ s less comforting than a drop from a lower baseline .
“ You have to use common sense , ” Cyrus Shahpar , a director at the public health policy group Resolve to Save Lives , told me .
What ’ s the goal ?
Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Connecticut , Maine , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Vermont — just six states .
Why is this important ?
One of the best ways to know you ’ re getting away from a disease outbreak is to no longer see a high number of daily new infections .
While there ’ s no universally accepted number , experts said that four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people is a decent ceiling .
“ If I go from one to two to three [ coronavirus cases a day ] , it ’ s different than going from 1,000 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent difference is the same , ” Shahpar said .
“ That ’ s why you have to take into account the overall level , too.
” To put it another way , it ’ s not enough for daily new Covid-19 cases to drop , even for weeks .
Cases also should fall below a certain level before a state can be deemed truly safe .
For example , Arizona has seen its daily new cases drop over the past two weeks .
But its daily new cases are still , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the country .
That indicates an epidemic that remains out of control .
At the same time , if your state is now below four daily new cases per 100,000 but it ’ s seen a recent uptick in cases , that ’ s a reason for caution .
Even the worst-hit states , after all , began with a handful of cases before they saw an exponential surge .
But if your state is below the threshold , it ’ s in a pretty solid place relative to most states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 150 tests per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and the Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alabama , Alaska , Arkansas , California , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska , Nevada , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , North Dakota , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina , Tennessee , Virginia , West Virginia , and Wisconsin — 38 states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
( Washington state is excluded due to recent errors in its test reporting . )
Why is this important ?
Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic , experts have argued that the US needs the capacity for at least 500,000 Covid-19 tests a day .
Controlling for population , that adds up to about 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day .
Testing is crucial to getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paired with contact tracing , testing lets officials track the scale of the outbreak , isolate the sick , quarantine those the sick came into contact with , and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary .
Testing and tracing are how other countries , like South Korea and Germany , have managed to control their outbreaks and started to reopen their economies .
The idea , experts said , is to have enough surveillance to detect embers before they turn into full wildfires .
“ States should be shoring up their testing capacity not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now while everyone ’ s in their homes , but as people start to move more , ” Jen Kates , the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me .
“ As people start doing more movement , you ’ ll have to test more , because people are going to come into contact with each other more.
” The 500,000-a-day goal is the minimum .
Some experts have recommended as many as millions of tests nationwide each day .
But 500,000 is the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at the very least , a good start .
It ’ s preferable if states report this number by how many people they ’ ve tested , not just the total number of tests .
For containing an outbreak , it ’ s generally more useful to test 500,000 people one time than to test one person 500,000 times .
But some states report the figures for total tests , not the number of tested individuals — counting tests for a single person multiple times .
That could skew the numbers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for diagnostic tests , not antibody tests .
Diagnostic tests gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is , therefore , sick right at the moment of the test .
Antibody tests check if someone ever developed antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been sick in the past .
Since diagnostic tests give a more recent gauge of the level of infection , they ’ re seen as much more reliable for evaluating the current state of the Covid-19 outbreak in a state .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diagnostic and antibody tests , which could skew the data collected by the Covid Tracking Project .
“ The virus isn ’ t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable ; it ’ s going to continue to spread , ” Crystal Watson , a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
“ It ’ s better to really understand what ’ s going on and report that accurately.
” For states honestly reporting these numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical measure of their ability to detect , control , and contain coronavirus outbreaks .
What ’ s the goal ?
Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Connecticut , Delaware , Illinois , Maine , Massachusetts , Michigan , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Vermont , and West Virginia — 13 states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent errors in its test reporting . )
Why is this important ?
The positive or positivity rate , which tracks how many tests come back positive for Covid-19 , is another way to measure testing capacity .
Generally , a higher positive rate suggests there ’ s not enough testing happening .
An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people , many of whom don ’ t have the disease or don ’ t show severe symptoms .
The positive testing rate in South Korea , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ High positive rates indicate only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested , so there ’ s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak .
Previously , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) recommended a maximum positive rate of 10 percent .
But the WHO more recently recommended 5 percent , which is in line with the rate for countries that have managed to better control their outbreaks , like Germany , New Zealand , and South Korea .
“ Even lower is better , ” Shahpar said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the same limitations as the overall testing data from the Covid Tracking Project .
So if a state includes antibody tests in its test count , it could skew the positive rate to look better than it is .
States only risk hurting themselves if they do this .
What ’ s the goal ?
Below 60 percent occupancy of ICU beds in hospitals , based on data from the US Department of Health and Human Services .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Colorado , Connecticut , Hawaii , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Massachusetts , Montana , Nebraska , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New York , North Dakota , Ohio , South Dakota , Utah , Vermont , Wisconsin , and Wyoming — 21 states .
Why is this important ?
If a pandemic hits , the health care system needs to be ready to treat the most severe cases and potentially save lives .
That ’ s the key goal of “ flattening the curve ” and “ raising the line , ” in which social distancing helps reduce the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can maintain and grow its capacity to treat an influx of Covid-19 patients .
“ There ’ s this idea that in six weeks we can open more things , ” Amesh Adalja , a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
“ But the virus is still there .
It ’ s all about making sure that the case count isn ’ t too immense for our hospital system to deal with.
” The aim is to avoid the nightmare scenario that Italy went through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its health care system could handle , leading to hospitals turning away even dangerously ill patients .
To gauge this , experts recommended looking at ICU capacity , with states aiming to have at most 60 percent occupancy in their ICUs .
Hitting the benchmarks is the beginning , not the end Vox ’ s map is just one way of tracking success against the coronavirus .
Other groups have come up with their own measures , including Covid Act Now , Covid Exit Strategy , and Test and Trace .
Vox ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of these other examples , while focusing not just on the state of the pandemic but also on states ’ readiness to contain Covid-19 outbreaks in the future .
Very few states hit all the marks recommended by experts .
But even those that do shouldn ’ t consider the pandemic over .
They should continue to improve — for example , getting the positive rate below 1 percent , as in New Zealand — and look at even more granular metrics , such as at the city or county level .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state is better equipped to contain future coronavirus outbreaks as it eases previous restrictions .
Experts emphasized that states have to keep hitting all these goals week after week and day after day — Covid-19 cases must remain low , testing ability needs to stay high , and hospital capacity should be good enough for an influx of patients — until the pandemic is truly over , whether thanks to a vaccine or other means .
Otherwise , a future wave of coronavirus cases , as seen in past pandemics , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to have all the metrics met , ” Popescu said .
“ This needs to be a very incremental , slow process to ensure success.
” And if the numbers do start trending in the wrong direction , states should be ready to shut down at least some parts of the economy again .
Maybe not as much as before , as we learn which places are truly at risk of increasing spread .
But experts caution that future shutdowns will likely be necessary to some extent .
“ I do worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cases and hot spots , ” Watson said .
“ We do need to keep pushing on building those capacities .
… Otherwise , we ’ re just rolling the dice on the spread of the virus .
It ’ s better if we have more control of the spread.
” That ’ s another reason these metrics , along with broader coronavirus surveillance , are so important : They not only help show how far along states are in dealing with their current Covid-19 outbreaks , but will help track progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

All 50 states have moved to reopen their economies, at least partially, after shutting down businesses and gatherings in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
But a Vox analysis suggests that most states haven’t made the preparations needed to contain outbreaks — putting themselves at risk for a rise in Covid-19 cases and deaths should they continue to reopen. Some states have already had to backtrack on reopening measures.
Experts told me states need three things to be safe to open. State leaders, from the governor to the legislature to health departments, need to ensure the SARS-CoV-2 virus is no longer spreading unabated. They need the testing capacity to track and isolate the sick and their contacts. And they need the hospital capacity to handle a potential surge in Covid-19 cases.
More specifically, states should meet at least five basic criteria. They should see a two-week drop in coronavirus cases, indicating that the virus is actually abating. They should have fewer than four daily new cases per 100,000 people per day — to show that cases aren’t just dropping but are also below dangerous levels. They need at least 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day, letting them quickly track and contain outbreaks. They need an overall positive rate for tests below 5 percent — another critical indicator for testing capacity. And states should have at least 40 percent of their ICU beds free to actually treat an influx of people stricken with Covid-19 should it be necessary.
These metrics line up with a range of expert recommendations, as well as the various policy plans put out by both independent groups and government officials to deal with the coronavirus.
Meeting these metrics doesn’t mean that a state is ready to safely reopen its economy — a process that describes a wide range of local and state actions. And failing them doesn’t mean a state is in immediate danger of a coronavirus outbreak if it starts to reopen; with Covid-19, there’s always an element of luck and other factors.
But with these metrics, states can gauge if they have repressed the coronavirus while building the capacity to contain future outbreaks should they come. In other words, the benchmarks show how ready states are for the next phase of the fight.
So far, most states are not there. Just four states — Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York — met four or five of the goals, which demonstrates strong progress. Twenty-five states and Washington, DC, hit two or three of the benchmarks. The remaining 19 achieved zero or one. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Even the states that have made the most progress aren’t safe to fully reopen. Without a vaccine or similar treatment, the threat of the coronavirus is still out there. Especially in states that suffered big outbreaks, such as Arizona and New York, even a lot of progress or some progress doesn’t mean all the underlying problems that led to an epidemic are gone.
Nor do the metrics cover everything that states should do before they can safely reopen. They don’t show, for example, if states have the capacity to do contact tracing, in which people who came into contact with someone who’s sick with Covid-19 are tracked down by “disease detectives” and quarantined. Contact tracing is key to containing an epidemic, but states don’t track how many contact tracers they’ve hired in a standardized, readily available way.
States also don’t have ready data for health care workers’ access to personal protective equipment, such as masks and gloves — a critical measure of the health care system’s readiness that’s difficult to track.
But the map gives an idea of how much progress states have made toward containing the coronavirus and keeping it contained.
States will have to follow these kinds of metrics as they reopen. If the numbers — especially coronavirus cases — go in the wrong direction again, experts said governments should be ready to bring back restrictions. If states move too quickly to reopen or respond too slowly to a turn for the worse, they could see a renewed surge in Covid-19 cases.
“Planning for reclosing is part of planning for reopening,” Mark McClellan, a health policy expert at Duke, told me. “There will be outbreaks, and there will be needs for pauses and going back — hopefully not too much if we do this carefully.”
So this will be a work in progress, at least until we get a Covid-19 vaccine or the pandemic otherwise ends, whether by natural or human means. But the metrics can at least help give states an idea of how far along they are in the fight against the coronavirus.
Goal 1: A sustained two-week drop in coronavirus cases
What’s the goal? A 10 percent drop in daily new coronavirus cases compared to two weeks ago and a 5 percent drop in cases compared to one week ago, based on data from the New York Times.
Which states meet the goal? Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, and Wyoming — a total of nine states.
Why is this important? Guidance from the White House and several independent groups emphasize that states need to see coronavirus cases drop consistently over two weeks before they can say they’re ready to begin reopening. After all, nothing shows you’re out of an outbreak like a sustained reduction in infections.
“The first and foremost [metric] is you want to have a continued decrease in cases,” Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, told me. “It’s a huge piece.”
A simple reduction in cases compared to two weeks prior isn’t enough; it has to be a significant drop, and it has to be sustained over the two weeks. So for Vox’s map, states need at least a 10 percent drop in daily new cases compared to two weeks prior and at least a 5 percent drop compared to one week prior.
Reported cases can be a reflection of testing capacity: More testing will pick up more cases, and less testing will pick up fewer. So it’s important that the decrease occur while testing is either growing or already sufficient. And since states have recently boosted their testing abilities, increases in Covid-19 cases can also reflect improvements in testing.
Even after meeting this benchmark, continued caution is warranted. If a state meets the goal of a reduction in cases compared to one and two weeks ago but cases seemed to go up in recent days, then perhaps it’s not time to reopen just yet. And if cases have dropped but only from a very high baseline of cases, then that’s less comforting than a drop from a lower baseline.
“You have to use common sense,” Cyrus Shahpar, a director at the public health policy group Resolve to Save Lives, told me.
Goal 2: A low number of daily new Covid-19 cases
What’s the goal? Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont — just six states.
Why is this important? One of the best ways to know you’re getting away from a disease outbreak is to no longer see a high number of daily new infections. While there’s no universally accepted number, experts said that four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people is a reasonable ceiling.
“If I go from one to two to three [coronavirus cases a day], it’s different than going from 1,000 to 2,000 to 3,000, even though the percent difference is the same,” Shahpar said. “That’s why you have to take into account the overall level, too.”
To put it another way, it’s not enough for daily new Covid-19 cases to drop, even for weeks. Cases also should fall below a certain level before a state can be deemed truly safe.
For example, Arizona has seen its daily new cases drop over the past two weeks. But its daily new cases are still, after controlling for population, the third-highest in the country. That indicates an epidemic that remains out of control.
At the same time, if your state is now below four daily new cases per 100,000 but it’s seen a recent uptick in cases, that’s a reason for caution. Even the worst-hit states, after all, began with a handful of cases before they saw an exponential surge.
But if your state is below the threshold, it’s in a pretty solid place relative to most states.
Goal 3: High coronavirus testing capacity
What’s the goal? At least 150 tests per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia — 37 states. Washington, DC, did as well. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Why is this important? Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, experts have argued that the US needs the capacity for at least 500,000 Covid-19 tests a day. Controlling for population, that adds up to about 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day.
Testing is crucial to getting the coronavirus outbreak under control. When paired with contact tracing, testing lets officials track the scale of the outbreak, isolate the sick, quarantine those the sick came into contact with, and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary. Testing and tracing are how other countries, like South Korea and Germany, have managed to control their outbreaks and started to reopen their economies.
The idea, experts said, is to have enough surveillance to detect embers before they turn into full wildfires.
“States should be shoring up their testing capacity not just for what it looks like right now while everyone’s in their homes, but as people start to move more,” Jen Kates, the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “As people start doing more movement, you’ll have to test more, because people are going to come into contact with each other more.”
The 500,000-a-day goal is the minimum. Some experts have recommended as many as millions of tests nationwide each day. But 500,000 is the most often-cited goal, and it’s, at the very least, a good start.
It’s preferable if states report this number by how many people they’ve tested, not just the total number of tests. For containing an outbreak, it’s generally more useful to test 500,000 people one time than to test one person 500,000 times. But some states report the figures for total tests, not the number of tested individuals — counting tests for a single person multiple times. That could skew the numbers.
This goal is also supposed to be for diagnostic tests, not antibody tests. Diagnostic tests gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is, therefore, sick right at the moment of the test. Antibody tests check if someone ever developed antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been sick in the past. Since diagnostic tests give a more recent gauge of the level of infection, they’re seen as much more reliable for evaluating the current state of the Covid-19 outbreak in a state.
But some states have mixed up numbers for diagnostic and antibody tests, which could skew the data collected by the Covid Tracking Project.
“The virus isn’t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable; it’s going to continue to spread,” Crystal Watson, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “It’s better to really understand what’s going on and report that accurately.”
For states honestly reporting these numbers, though, they’re a critical measure of their ability to detect, control, and contain coronavirus outbreaks.
Goal 4: A low test positive rate
What’s the goal? Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming — 23 states. Washington, DC, did as well. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Why is this important? The positive or positivity rate, which tracks how many tests come back positive for Covid-19, is another way to measure testing capacity.
Generally, a higher positive rate suggests there’s not enough testing happening. An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people, many of whom don’t have the disease or don’t show severe symptoms. The positive testing rate in South Korea, for example, is below 1 percent. High positive rates indicate only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested, so there’s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak.
Previously, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended a maximum positive rate of 10 percent. But the WHO more recently recommended 5 percent, which is in line with the rate for countries that have managed to better control their outbreaks, like Germany, New Zealand, and South Korea. “Even lower is better,” Shahpar said.
The positive rate data is subject to the same limitations as the overall testing data from the Covid Tracking Project. So if a state includes antibody tests in its test count, it could skew the positive rate to look better than it is. States only risk hurting themselves if they do this.
Goal 5: Availability of ICU beds
What’s the goal? Below 60 percent occupancy of ICU beds in hospitals, based on data from the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — 17 states.
Why is this important? If a pandemic hits, the health care system needs to be ready to treat the most severe cases and potentially save lives. That’s the key goal of “flattening the curve” and “raising the line,” in which social distancing helps reduce the spread of the disease so the health care system can maintain and grow its capacity to treat an influx of Covid-19 patients.
“There’s this idea that in six weeks we can open more things,” Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “But the virus is still there. It’s all about making sure that the case count isn’t too immense for our hospital system to deal with.”
The aim is to avoid the nightmare scenario that Italy went through when it had more Covid-19 cases than its health care system could handle, leading to hospitals turning away even dangerously ill patients.
To gauge this, experts recommended looking at ICU capacity, with states aiming to have at most 60 percent occupancy in their ICUs.
Hitting the benchmarks is the beginning, not the end
Vox’s map is just one way of tracking success against the coronavirus. Other groups have come up with their own measures, including Covid Act Now, Covid Exit Strategy, and Test and Trace. Vox’s model uses more up-to-date data than some of these other examples, while focusing not just on the state of the pandemic but also on states’ readiness to contain Covid-19 outbreaks in the future.
Very few states hit all the marks recommended by experts. But even those that do shouldn’t consider the pandemic over. They should continue to improve — for example, getting the positive rate below 1 percent, as in New Zealand — and look at even more granular metrics, such as at the city or county level.
Meeting the benchmarks, however, indicates a state is better equipped to contain future coronavirus outbreaks as it eases previous restrictions.
Experts emphasized that states have to keep hitting all these goals week after week and day after day — Covid-19 cases must remain low, testing ability needs to stay high, and hospital capacity should be good enough for an influx of patients — until the pandemic is truly over, whether thanks to a vaccine or other means. Otherwise, a future wave of coronavirus cases, as seen in past pandemics, could kill many more people.
“You need to have all the metrics met,” Popescu said. “This needs to be a very incremental, slow process to ensure success.”
And if the numbers do start trending in the wrong direction, states should be ready to shut down at least some parts of the economy again. Maybe not as much as before, as we learn which places are truly at risk of increasing spread. But experts caution that future shutdowns will likely be necessary to some extent.
“I do worry we’re going to see surges of cases and hot spots,” Watson said. “We do need to keep pushing on building those capacities. … Otherwise, we’re just rolling the dice on the spread of the virus. It’s better if we have more control of the spread.”
That’s another reason these metrics, along with broader coronavirus surveillance, are so important: They not only help show how far along states are in dealing with their current Covid-19 outbreaks, but will help track progress to stop and prevent future crises as well.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.