vox--2020-05-20--How exposing healthy volunteers to Covid-19 for vaccine testing would work

On March 31 , 2020 , three researchers proposed a big idea to speed up the development of a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus ( which causes Covid-19 ) : directly exposing human volunteers to the virus .
Bioethicist Nir Eyal and epidemiologists Marc Lipsitch and Peter Smith suggested conducting “ human challenge trials ” on willing volunteers .
In such trials , volunteers are dosed with either the candidate vaccine or a placebo and then directly exposed to the coronavirus .
That way , researchers would know that 100 percent of participants had been exposed , making it easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In normal vaccine trials , the treatment group is given the vaccine and the control group a placebo , and the volunteers in both groups go about their regular lives , where they may or may not encounter the virus in the wild .
Doctors are generally not in the business of purposefully exposing people to dangerous viruses , so the proposal was met with some controversy .
But Eyal , Lipsitch , and Smith are hardly alone in their thinking .
“ I proposed challenge trials to Dr. Fauci ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well before March 31 , ” says Matthew Memoli , director of the Laboratory of Infectious Diseases Clinical Studies Unit at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) .
In the subsequent two months , the research community and its regulators have begun serious discussions that move the world closer to actual challenge trials for the coronavirus .
A letter authored by Reps. Bill Foster ( D-IL ) , a former research physicist , and Donna Shalala ( D-FL ) , a former secretary of Health and Human Services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Congress from both parties , expressed support for the use of human challenge trials .
The World Health Organization has released a working paper titled “ Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies , ” and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins instructed a vaccine working group at the NIH to write a paper on the issue .
Collins and NIAID Director Anthony Fauci also co-authored a research paper in the journal Science with Lawrence Corey and John Mascola addressing the possibility of challenge studies .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has signed up more than 23,000 volunteers in 102 countries who have offered ( in a non-binding way ) to participate in such studies .
While there is momentum behind the idea , logistical hurdles remain , and preparatory work has yet to begin in earnest .
The main task that could be done right now is mass-production of the virus itself : actual SARS-CoV-2 viruses prepared for dosing into volunteers .
“ We should be working on making viruses that could be used for this , I think , ” Memoli says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies of influenza vaccines since 2011 .
He emphasizes that he speaks only for himself , not for NIH or NIAID as a whole .
“ If we can ’ t make [ the viruses ] then we know we can ’ t do this , and if we make them then we have them ” in case they ’ re needed , he explains .
Beyond that , preparatory work could be done to make sure a challenge trial is logistically doable .
This includes a preliminary study to determine the specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volunteers would be exposed .
Both the preliminary study and the wider challenge study require large medical facilities close to ( or part of ) hospitals .
They need nurses and other medical staff , personal protective equipment ( PPE ) for caretakers , and funding for all of the above .
There are also ethical and regulatory barriers .
A challenge trial would have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) and by the institutional review boards ( IRB ) of whatever institutions are involved in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually take place , there is a lot of preparatory work that needs to be done right now if trials are even hypothetically capable of saving time on the road to a vaccine .
Clinical trials of vaccines and other treatments usually proceed in four phases .
While the exact role of each phase differs subtly based on the lab or company , the division is usually something like this : • Phase I trials are the first step and involve safety testing to make sure the vaccine isn ’ t actively dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efficacy trial , meant to test if the vaccine is protective against infection ; • Phase III is an expanded , larger-scale efficacy trial including more varying groups of people , like the elderly or people with preexisting conditions , whose immune systems might operate differently ; and • Phase IV studies evaluate drugs after they ’ re officially on the market and being used .
In most Phase II and Phase III studies for vaccines , participants are exposed to the disease being targeted only in the course of their regular lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a situation like the Covid-19 outbreak .
If you ’ re a healthy person who ’ s practicing social distancing , you probably aren ’ t going to get infected — or if you are , it ’ ll probably take some time for the infection to occur .
That makes it hard to do a real comparison between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups .
Maybe they both end up the same because no one in either group was exposed to the pathogen .
If that ’ s the case , the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Alternatively , adequate exposure to the virus might happen only after many months or a year , slowing down the testing process .
That ’ s the case for using challenge trials , in which participants are immediately exposed to the virus , with no delays or uncertainty about the share of volunteers who have actually been exposed and thus have had their vaccinations tested adequately .
Eyal , Lipsitch , and Smith have argued for a challenge trial ( or trials ) to replace Phase III , the last step before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been clear that challenge trials can ’ t be used on the elderly or immunocompromised , which limits their value as a Phase III tool .
Advocates of human challenge trials for SARS-CoV-2 generally agree that only young , healthy participants with the lowest possible mortality risk from the virus should be purposefully infected ; it would be unacceptably risky to purposely infect an elderly person or someone with hypertension .
That ’ s why Memoli argues that a challenge trial might be more appropriate as a replacement for Phase II , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups .
Using challenge trials with only young , healthy people raises a problem that Fauci , Collins , Corey , and Mascola note in their Science paper : “ Partial efficacy in young healthy adults does not predict similar effectiveness among older adults with major cofactors associated with COVID-19 disease , nor would it prove reduction of transmissibility to major susceptibility groups.
” In other words , a vaccine that works on young adults may not work on everybody else , particularly people who are most vulnerable to infection .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge trial as a Phase II test , to be followed by a traditional Phase III that would include a broader set of research participants .
We would first see if the vaccine works on young people , then test it on everyone if it does .
“ It would be highly unlikely that it ’ s protective in old people and kids if it ’ s not protective in young healthy people , ” Memoli says .
The inverse — “ If it ’ s protective in young healthy adults , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — is not necessarily true , but if a vaccine works in young adults and not in other groups , that gives researchers valuable information that could help them alter the dose or add adjuvants so that it does work in those other populations .
A challenge study could also help enhance researchers ’ understanding of the underlying virus , even if the vaccine being tested doesn ’ t work .
“ You know exactly who these people were , everything about them , ” Memoli says .
“ You could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
… If the vaccine works or doesn ’ t work , you can actually get data that allows you to determine why the vaccine worked or didn ’ t work.
” Larger-scale traditional studies generally don ’ t produce data that granular or useful .
The nuts and bolts of a human challenge study Let ’ s say there ’ s a vaccine that ’ s made it out of Phase I testing .
It ’ s safe for human consumption , and now researchers have to figure out if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem near or at this point , so this is a likely scenario in the next few weeks or months .
What needs to happen , then , for a human challenge trial to work ?
As Memoli explains , you would first need to develop a model of the virus with which to expose volunteers .
The process of choosing the dose you want to use and building a model of what to expect in a challenge trial is a bit like conducting a challenge trial in miniature .
First , researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus to a small group ( say , five people ) .
If enough of them ( say , three out of five ) get sick , then researchers get 10 to 15 more people and dose them .
If enough of them get sick ( Memoli suggests 70 percent as a threshold ) , then researchers know they ’ ve picked a strong enough dose .
But the lowest dose sometimes doesn ’ t get enough people sick to be useful .
So then researchers up the dose a bit and dose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get sick .
This process continues until they eventually have a sample of 20 people who ’ ve all gotten the same dose — and enough of whom have subsequently fallen ill — to clear the threshold for how potent the dose has to be .
This whole process typically takes about 50 people , Memoli says .
A riskier , sped-up version would involve testing multiple doses simultaneously or closely staggered : a very low dose to five people , a higher dose to five more , a yet-higher dose to five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weakest dose to pass the threshold then gets ramped up to another 10 to 15 people until you get the sample of 20 necessary to proceed .
Once that ’ s all done and a dose is determined , researchers need enough of the virus to expose a full study ( 40 to 50 people per “ arm ” of the study : 40 to 50 for the control , and 40 to 50 for each candidate vaccine ) .
They ’ ll also need enough medical staff , with PPE and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people .
And they ’ ll need a secured biosafety facility that can house all those participants for about a month , with sufficient distance between them that unnecessary , unplanned infections don ’ t occur ; indeed , there might not be enough existing facilities at biosafety level-3 or above to support a trial , necessitating new construction .
The facility should ideally be close to or part of a hospital complex so that participants whose condition deteriorates get the care they need .
That all requires significant funding , be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business or philanthropy , and a lot of manpower and facilities .
In practice , Memoli says , NIH or foreign equivalent agencies are probably the only ones with the resources and money necessary to get it done .
“ I don ’ t know what Fauci or Collins think about this or what they want to do , but I absolutely think we ’ re capable of it , ” Memoli says .
“ We can do it ourselves , or with universities or contract research organizations.
” The ethical and regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes that these resource and monetary barriers are only half the battle .
Researchers would also need to satisfy regulators and bioethicists who are monitoring to make sure the trial is done safely .
The main legal barrier in the United States is the approval of the FDA , to which vaccine testers/developers must apply before any trial , including human challenge trials ( the European Drug Administration does not require the same ) .
Specifically , the FDA usually has said that proposals to expose participants to a virus for challenge trials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drug ( IND ) application process .
That can be time-consuming , but Memoli notes there are ways around it .
And the IND process has the advantage that once producing the virus has been approved , approval can come much quicker for each subsequent challenge trial because the FDA already has background information on the virus .
But the FDA ’ s approval isn ’ t the only requirement .
Basically all biomedical research institutions use institutional review boards ( IRBs ) to evaluate research proposals involving human subjects to make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The NIH ’ s IRB , and those of drug companies or universities involved in a challenge trial , would have to approve moving forward .
The NIH also has a dedicated bioethics faculty , and many hospitals have staff bioethicists or academics they consult on tricky bioethical issues .
“ When I first started doing challenge studies over 10 years ago now , before we started to do any of them we did a full bioethics review with the whole NIH bioethics faculty , ” Memoli recalls .
And the bioethics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadly , hardly have a consensus on the acceptability of challenge trials for SARS-CoV-2 .
Some people have expressed the view that without a reliable treatment for Covid-19 , a challenge study of the underlying virus is inappropriate .
Myron Levine , a professor and veteran conductor of challenge studies at the University of Maryland , told Stat ’ s Helen Branswell , “ I think one needs to have [ a treatment ] before one would undertake a challenge .
That ’ s my personal view.
” Others disagree .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a challenge study you must have a specific treatment for the disease , ” says Seema Shah , professor of medical ethics at Northwestern University Medical School and a practicing medical ethicist at Lurie Children ’ s Hospital of Chicago who has written about the ethics of human challenge trials .
“ Challenge studies are conducted with dengue and influenza , where enough is known about the disease or the strain that was selected that the risks to participants are lower and can be managed.
” Josh Morrison , founder of the volunteer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision ultimately has to be up to volunteers .
Bioethicists and researchers should be clear with volunteers about what the risks are , and that those risks are serious .
“ Deciding to participate in a study like this is not something anyone should take lightly , ” Memoli notes .
But Morrison argues , “ If challenge trials are likely to benefit society , and well-informed people want to participate , we should respect their freedom to do so .
Ethicists have an important role in laying out the process and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately the decision should be up to those volunteers .
It would be paternalistic to stifle such acts of public service and perverse to do so when the benefits are so potentially enormous.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

On March 31, 2020, three researchers proposed a big idea to speed up the development of a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (which causes Covid-19): directly exposing human volunteers to the virus.
Bioethicist Nir Eyal and epidemiologists Marc Lipsitch and Peter Smith suggested conducting “human challenge trials” on willing volunteers. In such trials, volunteers are dosed with either the candidate vaccine or a placebo and then directly exposed to the coronavirus. That way, researchers would know that 100 percent of participants had been exposed, making it easier to judge the vaccine’s effectiveness. In normal vaccine trials, the treatment group is given the vaccine and the control group a placebo, and the volunteers in both groups go about their regular lives, where they may or may not encounter the virus in the wild.
Doctors are generally not in the business of purposefully exposing people to dangerous viruses, so the proposal was met with some controversy. But Eyal, Lipsitch, and Smith are hardly alone in their thinking. “I proposed challenge trials to Dr. Fauci’s office in early March for SARS-CoV-2, well before March 31,” says Matthew Memoli, director of the Laboratory of Infectious Diseases Clinical Studies Unit at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). In the subsequent two months, the research community and its regulators have begun serious discussions that move the world closer to actual challenge trials for the coronavirus.
A letter authored by Reps. Bill Foster (D-IL), a former research physicist, and Donna Shalala (D-FL), a former secretary of Health and Human Services, and signed by 33 other members of Congress from both parties, expressed support for the use of human challenge trials. The World Health Organization has released a working paper titled “Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies,” and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins instructed a vaccine working group at the NIH to write a paper on the issue.
Collins and NIAID Director Anthony Fauci also co-authored a research paper in the journal Science with Lawrence Corey and John Mascola addressing the possibility of challenge studies.
Meanwhile, the advocacy group 1 Day Sooner has signed up more than 23,000 volunteers in 102 countries who have offered (in a non-binding way) to participate in such studies.
While there is momentum behind the idea, logistical hurdles remain, and preparatory work has yet to begin in earnest. The main task that could be done right now is mass-production of the virus itself: actual SARS-CoV-2 viruses prepared for dosing into volunteers. “We should be working on making viruses that could be used for this, I think,” Memoli says.
Memoli has been conducting human challenge studies of influenza vaccines since 2011. He emphasizes that he speaks only for himself, not for NIH or NIAID as a whole. “If we can’t make [the viruses] then we know we can’t do this, and if we make them then we have them” in case they’re needed, he explains.
Beyond that, preparatory work could be done to make sure a challenge trial is logistically doable. This includes a preliminary study to determine the specific dose of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to which volunteers would be exposed. Both the preliminary study and the wider challenge study require large medical facilities close to (or part of) hospitals. They need nurses and other medical staff, personal protective equipment (PPE) for caretakers, and funding for all of the above.
There are also ethical and regulatory barriers. A challenge trial would have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by the institutional review boards (IRB) of whatever institutions are involved in the study.
Whether or not challenge trials actually take place, there is a lot of preparatory work that needs to be done right now if trials are even hypothetically capable of saving time on the road to a vaccine.
Why conduct a human challenge study?
Clinical trials of vaccines and other treatments usually proceed in four phases. While the exact role of each phase differs subtly based on the lab or company, the division is usually something like this:
Phase I trials are the first step and involve safety testing to make sure the vaccine isn’t actively dangerous;
Phase II is a small-scale efficacy trial, meant to test if the vaccine is protective against infection;
Phase III is an expanded, larger-scale efficacy trial including more varying groups of people, like the elderly or people with preexisting conditions, whose immune systems might operate differently; and
Phase IV studies evaluate drugs after they’re officially on the market and being used.
In most Phase II and Phase III studies for vaccines, participants are exposed to the disease being targeted only in the course of their regular lives. That creates a potential problem in a situation like the Covid-19 outbreak.
If you’re a healthy person who’s practicing social distancing, you probably aren’t going to get infected — or if you are, it’ll probably take some time for the infection to occur. That makes it hard to do a real comparison between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Maybe they both end up the same because no one in either group was exposed to the pathogen. If that’s the case, the trial hasn’t told us anything useful. Alternatively, adequate exposure to the virus might happen only after many months or a year, slowing down the testing process.
That’s the case for using challenge trials, in which participants are immediately exposed to the virus, with no delays or uncertainty about the share of volunteers who have actually been exposed and thus have had their vaccinations tested adequately. Eyal, Lipsitch, and Smith have argued for a challenge trial (or trials) to replace Phase III, the last step before deployment. But they’ve also been clear that challenge trials can’t be used on the elderly or immunocompromised, which limits their value as a Phase III tool.
Advocates of human challenge trials for SARS-CoV-2 generally agree that only young, healthy participants with the lowest possible mortality risk from the virus should be purposefully infected; it would be unacceptably risky to purposely infect an elderly person or someone with hypertension. That’s why Memoli argues that a challenge trial might be more appropriate as a replacement for Phase II, with Phase III involving normal trials among various groups.
Using challenge trials with only young, healthy people raises a problem that Fauci, Collins, Corey, and Mascola note in their Science paper: “Partial efficacy in young healthy adults does not predict similar effectiveness among older adults with major cofactors associated with COVID-19 disease, nor would it prove reduction of transmissibility to major susceptibility groups.”
In other words, a vaccine that works on young adults may not work on everybody else, particularly people who are most vulnerable to infection. That’s another reason Memoli suggests using a challenge trial as a Phase II test, to be followed by a traditional Phase III that would include a broader set of research participants. We would first see if the vaccine works on young people, then test it on everyone if it does. “It would be highly unlikely that it’s protective in old people and kids if it’s not protective in young healthy people,” Memoli says.
The inverse — “If it’s protective in young healthy adults, it’s protective in kids and seniors” — is not necessarily true, but if a vaccine works in young adults and not in other groups, that gives researchers valuable information that could help them alter the dose or add adjuvants so that it does work in those other populations.
A challenge study could also help enhance researchers’ understanding of the underlying virus, even if the vaccine being tested doesn’t work. “You know exactly who these people were, everything about them,” Memoli says. “You could be measuring gene response hours after giving the virus. … If the vaccine works or doesn’t work, you can actually get data that allows you to determine why the vaccine worked or didn’t work.” Larger-scale traditional studies generally don’t produce data that granular or useful.
The nuts and bolts of a human challenge study
Let’s say there’s a vaccine that’s made it out of Phase I testing. It’s safe for human consumption, and now researchers have to figure out if it works. A couple of vaccine candidates seem near or at this point, so this is a likely scenario in the next few weeks or months. What needs to happen, then, for a human challenge trial to work?
As Memoli explains, you would first need to develop a model of the virus with which to expose volunteers. The process of choosing the dose you want to use and building a model of what to expect in a challenge trial is a bit like conducting a challenge trial in miniature.
First, researchers give a very weak dose of the virus to a small group (say, five people). If enough of them (say, three out of five) get sick, then researchers get 10 to 15 more people and dose them. If enough of them get sick (Memoli suggests 70 percent as a threshold), then researchers know they’ve picked a strong enough dose.
But the lowest dose sometimes doesn’t get enough people sick to be useful. So then researchers up the dose a bit and dose five more people to see if enough get sick. This process continues until they eventually have a sample of 20 people who’ve all gotten the same dose — and enough of whom have subsequently fallen ill — to clear the threshold for how potent the dose has to be.
This whole process typically takes about 50 people, Memoli says. A riskier, sped-up version would involve testing multiple doses simultaneously or closely staggered: a very low dose to five people, a higher dose to five more, a yet-higher dose to five more, and so on. The weakest dose to pass the threshold then gets ramped up to another 10 to 15 people until you get the sample of 20 necessary to proceed.
Once that’s all done and a dose is determined, researchers need enough of the virus to expose a full study (40 to 50 people per “arm” of the study: 40 to 50 for the control, and 40 to 50 for each candidate vaccine). They’ll also need enough medical staff, with PPE and other necessary gear, to care for that many people.
And they’ll need a secured biosafety facility that can house all those participants for about a month, with sufficient distance between them that unnecessary, unplanned infections don’t occur; indeed, there might not be enough existing facilities at biosafety level-3 or above to support a trial, necessitating new construction. The facility should ideally be close to or part of a hospital complex so that participants whose condition deteriorates get the care they need.
That all requires significant funding, be it from the federal government or private business or philanthropy, and a lot of manpower and facilities. In practice, Memoli says, NIH or foreign equivalent agencies are probably the only ones with the resources and money necessary to get it done. “I don’t know what Fauci or Collins think about this or what they want to do, but I absolutely think we’re capable of it,” Memoli says. “We can do it ourselves, or with universities or contract research organizations.”
The ethical and regulatory barriers to a human challenge trial
Memoli notes that these resource and monetary barriers are only half the battle. Researchers would also need to satisfy regulators and bioethicists who are monitoring to make sure the trial is done safely.
The main legal barrier in the United States is the approval of the FDA, to which vaccine testers/developers must apply before any trial, including human challenge trials (the European Drug Administration does not require the same). Specifically, the FDA usually has said that proposals to expose participants to a virus for challenge trials have to go through the Investigational New Drug (IND) application process. That can be time-consuming, but Memoli notes there are ways around it. And the IND process has the advantage that once producing the virus has been approved, approval can come much quicker for each subsequent challenge trial because the FDA already has background information on the virus.
But the FDA’s approval isn’t the only requirement. Basically all biomedical research institutions use institutional review boards (IRBs) to evaluate research proposals involving human subjects to make sure they’re methodologically and ethically sound. The NIH’s IRB, and those of drug companies or universities involved in a challenge trial, would have to approve moving forward.
The NIH also has a dedicated bioethics faculty, and many hospitals have staff bioethicists or academics they consult on tricky bioethical issues. “When I first started doing challenge studies over 10 years ago now, before we started to do any of them we did a full bioethics review with the whole NIH bioethics faculty,” Memoli recalls.
And the bioethics community, and biomedical research community more broadly, hardly have a consensus on the acceptability of challenge trials for SARS-CoV-2. Some people have expressed the view that without a reliable treatment for Covid-19, a challenge study of the underlying virus is inappropriate. Myron Levine, a professor and veteran conductor of challenge studies at the University of Maryland, told Stat’s Helen Branswell, “I think one needs to have [a treatment] before one would undertake a challenge. That’s my personal view.”
Others disagree. “It is a common misconception that to do a challenge study you must have a specific treatment for the disease,” says Seema Shah, professor of medical ethics at Northwestern University Medical School and a practicing medical ethicist at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago who has written about the ethics of human challenge trials. “Challenge studies are conducted with dengue and influenza, where enough is known about the disease or the strain that was selected that the risks to participants are lower and can be managed.”
Josh Morrison, founder of the volunteer group 1 Day Sooner, argues that the decision ultimately has to be up to volunteers. Bioethicists and researchers should be clear with volunteers about what the risks are, and that those risks are serious. “Deciding to participate in a study like this is not something anyone should take lightly,” Memoli notes.
But Morrison argues, “If challenge trials are likely to benefit society, and well-informed people want to participate, we should respect their freedom to do so. Ethicists have an important role in laying out the process and the criteria volunteers should consider, but ultimately the decision should be up to those volunteers. It would be paternalistic to stifle such acts of public service and perverse to do so when the benefits are so potentially enormous.”


vox--2020-05-20--Paid sick leave could be a deciding issue in November’s key House races

Paid sick leave has such strong support from voters that it could prompt some to vote Democrat over Republican in key House and Senate races this fall , according to a new poll .
The results of the survey , commissioned by Paid Leave for All , a group advocating in favor of such policies , suggest that voters would more likely favor the Democratic candidate in battleground House and Senate races if that person supported paid sick leave and the Republican candidate did not .
In 42 front-line House districts — districts that have been swing seats in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were more likely to choose the Democratic candidate by 14 points on the generic ballot , on average .
When voters were informed about the Democrat ’ s support for paid sick leave for essential workers and the Republican ’ s opposition , undecided voters picked the Democrat by 48 points .
The survey , which was conducted between April 30 and May 4 , found that paid sick leave has overwhelming voter support in general .
The poll included 1,000 interviews with voters in 11 Senate battleground states and 1,004 separate interviews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Its results have a 3.1 percent margin of error .
The results of this poll echo a trend that ’ s been documented by other surveys in the past .
According to a 2016 poll from Pew Research Center , 85 percent of people supported leave programs that enable workers to address health conditions .
The dearth of paid sick leave protections has become especially apparent during this pandemic .
Just 12 states and Washington , DC , have enacted laws requiring companies to offer full-time workers paid sick leave , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to have access to such programs .
There is currently no federal law that mandates paid sick leave for all workers .
“ All of us that they say are essential are working the hourly jobs that don ’ t have the paid leave .
Why is that ?
” asks Kris Garcia , a Colorado resident who currently works for an airline and a package-handling company , who helps advise Paid Leave for All .
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act made some progress in addressing this gap , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As part of the measure , which Congress passed in March , a segment of workers is guaranteed two weeks paid sick leave at their full salary if they need to be quarantined for coronavirus or are experiencing symptoms .
Costs for the program are covered by the federal government and paid out to companies via a tax credit .
As Vox ’ s Anna North reported , however , millions of workers were excluded : The provisions in this law only applied to some public employers and private companies that had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many employees still don ’ t have mandated protections — including workers at several larger corporations : According to an analysis by New America , companies including Applebees , Dunkin ’ , and Kmart have not put out public statements about paid sick leave options in response to the pandemic .
Democrats sought to close these loopholes in the Heroes Act , their latest stimulus proposal , though this measure is not expected to gain any traction in the Republican-controlled Senate .
As a result , thousands of essential workers are forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with no guarantee of paid leave were they to fall ill. “ There are restaurant workers , there are people who work for fortune 500s who don ’ t have a paid sick day , there ’ s home health workers , ” says Paid Leave for All Director Dawn Huckelbridge .
“ If we ’ re not giving people these protections , we ’ re going to be forcing them to choose between their life and their livelihoods.
” The poll finds that paid sick leave is a top issue for voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with broad support .
When given a slate of potential relief measures that lawmakers could implement in response to the coronavirus , voters overwhelmingly backed paid sick days .
Ninety-four percent of voters in Senate battleground states backed this policy , compared to 80 percent who supported an extension for unemployment insurance programs , for example .
Democrats that support paid sick days are also more likely to garner voter support overall .
When initially polled , 46 percent of voters in battleground Senate states and 49 percent of those in front-line House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic candidate , versus 46 percent and 44 percent who were leaning Republican , respectively .
After voters were told that the Democratic candidate supported paid leave , particularly for essential workers , and the Republican candidate did not , 66 percent of voters backed the Democrat for Senate and 65 percent backed the Democrat for a House seat , compared to 34 and 35 percent who said they ’ d vote for the Republican .
This shift is apparent among both independent and undecided voters as well .
Their margin of support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 36 and 34 points when the differences in policy positions were raised .
And their margin of support for the Democratic Senate candidate went up by 46 and 32 points .
Historically , the implementation of paid leave programs has faced Republican opposition due to concerns about the additional taxes needed to pay for them and the potential burden they could pose to businesses .
As the pandemic has further emphasized , however , the adoption of such programs isn ’ t just critical for economic stimulus , it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ findings of the poll strongly suggest that paid sick leave is an important issue for many voters , and could be a critical one for electoral success in November .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Paid sick leave has such strong support from voters that it could prompt some to vote Democrat over Republican in key House and Senate races this fall, according to a new poll.
The results of the survey, commissioned by Paid Leave for All Action, a group advocating in favor of such policies, suggest that voters would more likely favor the Democratic candidate in battleground House and Senate races if that person supported paid sick leave and the Republican candidate did not.
In 42 front-line House districts — districts that have been swing seats in the past — people identifying as undecided voters were more likely to choose the Democratic candidate by 14 points on the generic ballot, on average. When voters were informed about the Democrat’s support for paid sick leave for essential workers and the Republican’s opposition, undecided voters picked the Democrat by 48 points.
The survey, which was conducted between April 30 and May 4, found that paid sick leave has overwhelming voter support in general. The poll included 1,000 interviews with voters in 11 Senate battleground states and 1,004 separate interviews with voters in 42 front-line House districts. Its results have a 3.1 percent margin of error.
The results of this poll echo a trend that’s been documented by other surveys in the past. According to a 2016 poll from Pew Research Center, 85 percent of people supported leave programs that enable workers to address health conditions.
The dearth of paid sick leave protections has become especially apparent during this pandemic. Just 12 states and Washington, DC, have enacted laws requiring companies to offer full-time workers paid sick leave, and employees in lower-wage jobs are the least likely to have access to such programs. There is currently no federal law that mandates paid sick leave for all workers.
“All of us that they say are essential are working the hourly jobs that don’t have the paid leave. Why is that?” asks Kris Garcia, a Colorado resident who currently works for an airline and a package-handling company, who helps advise Paid Leave for All Action.
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act made some progress in addressing this gap, but it doesn’t apply to many workers. As part of the measure, which Congress passed in March, a segment of workers is guaranteed two weeks paid sick leave at their full salary if they need to be quarantined for coronavirus or are experiencing symptoms. Costs for the program are covered by the federal government and paid out to companies via a tax credit.
As Vox’s Anna North reported, however, millions of workers were excluded: The provisions in this law only applied to some public employers and private companies that had fewer than 500 employees. That means many employees still don’t have mandated protections — including workers at several larger corporations: According to an analysis by New America, companies including Applebees, Dunkin’, and Kmart have not put out public statements about paid sick leave options in response to the pandemic.
Democrats sought to close these loopholes in the Heroes Act, their latest stimulus proposal, though this measure is not expected to gain any traction in the Republican-controlled Senate. As a result, thousands of essential workers are forced to continue to show up at their jobs with no guarantee of paid leave were they to fall ill.
“There are restaurant workers, there are people who work for fortune 500s who don’t have a paid sick day, there’s home health workers,” says Paid Leave for All Action Director Dawn Huckelbridge. “If we’re not giving people these protections, we’re going to be forcing them to choose between their life and their livelihoods.”
The poll finds that paid sick leave is a top issue for voters
Offering paid sick days is a policy with broad support. When given a slate of potential relief measures that lawmakers could implement in response to the coronavirus, voters overwhelmingly backed paid sick days.
Ninety-four percent of voters in Senate battleground states backed this policy, compared to 80 percent who supported an extension for unemployment insurance programs, for example.
Democrats that support paid sick days are also more likely to garner voter support overall. When initially polled, 46 percent of voters in battleground Senate states and 49 percent of those in front-line House districts said they were leaning toward the Democratic candidate, versus 46 percent and 44 percent who were leaning Republican, respectively.
After voters were told that the Democratic candidate supported paid leave, particularly for essential workers, and the Republican candidate did not, 66 percent of voters backed the Democrat for Senate and 65 percent backed the Democrat for a House seat, compared to 34 and 35 percent who said they’d vote for the Republican.
This shift is apparent among both independent and undecided voters as well. Their margin of support for the Democratic House candidate went up by 36 and 34 points when the differences in policy positions were raised. And their margin of support for the Democratic Senate candidate went up by 46 and 32 points.
Historically, the implementation of paid leave programs has faced Republican opposition due to concerns about the additional taxes needed to pay for them and the potential burden they could pose to businesses. As the pandemic has further emphasized, however, the adoption of such programs isn’t just critical for economic stimulus, it’s a public health imperative.
Ultimately, the findings of the poll strongly suggest that paid sick leave is an important issue for many voters, and could be a critical one for electoral success in November.


vox--2020-05-20--Plastic bags were finally being banned. Then came the pandemic.

In a back room at his home in Santa Cruz , California , George Leonard is amassing a stockpile of plastic bags .
Most of the time he eschews the things .
As chief scientist at Ocean Conservancy , an environmental nonprofit based in Washington , DC , Leonard spends his time advocating against single-use plastics that can clog up waterways , suffocate wildlife , and take centuries to decompose in landfills .
But that was in the Before Times .
Since the Covid-19 pandemic upended life across the globe , ravaging economies and bringing entire health care systems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to compromise .
Retailers are banning consumers from bringing in their own reusable bags , cities and states are rolling back or delaying single-use plastic bans , and municipalities are scaling back recycling operations , with hygiene fears underlying it all .
With plastic production already projected to increase by 40 percent over the next decade , campaigners like Leonard fear the pandemic could unravel hard-fought measures to pare back the 8 million metric tons of plastic that enters our oceans every year .
The signs so far haven ’ t been reassuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are no longer able to bring in their own bags “ out of an abundance of caution , and until further notice , ” a spokesperson told The Goods , using an oft-repeated phrase .
The retailer ’ s in-store recycling kiosks are similarly on hiatus .
In early March , coffee juggernaut Starbucks announced that its baristas would no longer accept customer-proffered mugs .
Dunkin ’ ( née Donuts ) quickly followed suit .
One by one , the coronavirus knocked long-planned measures off course .
In April , New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was poised to take effect May 15 , would be postponed to mid-June at the earliest .
Massachusetts , Maine , and Oregon are deferring similar state laws .
New Hampshire has required all grocers to “ temporarily transition ” to single-use paper or plastic bags only .
Even San Francisco , one of the first US cities to outlaw disposable plastic bags in 2007 , issued an edict at the end of March preventing businesses from “ permitting customers to bring their own bags , mugs , or other reusable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Golden State are no longer required to charge the previously mandatory 10 cents per disposable bag .
And if stores want to stop accepting recyclable bottles , they ’ re free to do so .
“ I think they ’ re the appropriate thing to do .
But we ’ re also really worried about whether this pushes us back 10 years.
” Many of these actions are necessary to protect the health of front-line workers who continue to check out groceries , collect trash , and sort through mounds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I think they ’ re the appropriate thing to do , ” Leonard says .
“ But we ’ re also really worried about whether this pushes us back 10 years in terms of the real progress that has been made to reduce plastic consumption and use , particularly in grocery stores.
” Polystyrene , a.k.a .
Styrofoam , the non-recyclable plastic that was being phased out pre-pandemic , is having a resurgence as manufacturers such as Ineos Styrolution in Germany and Trinseo in the US see “ double-digit percentage sales increases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care sectors , Bloomberg Green reports .
The pandemic could even reshape long-term behavior .
In a 17-page draft document currently under review , the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that reopening restaurants switch to disposable menus , plates , and utensils , and swap in single-portion condiments .
Who knows how long these and other policies will stick ?
Environmentalists also claim that the plastics industry is exploiting Covid-19 fears to demonize reusables as potential vectors for the virus , despite scientific evidence that the contagion can survive for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not any safer than your cotton NPR tote or stainless-steel Yeti tumbler .
In a letter dated March 18 to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar , Tony Radoszewski , CEO of the Plastics Industry Association , asked the department to “ speak out against bans on these products as a public safety risk and help stop the rush to ban these products by environmentalists and elected officials that puts consumers and workers at risk.
” Indeed , the plastics industry is currently waging a “ PR war ” through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misrepresented medical studies in an effort to repeal existing and upcoming bans , says John Hocevar , director of Greenpeace ’ s oceans campaign .
Cratering oil prices , which makes virgin plastic cheaper to churn out than ever , aren ’ t helping .
“ The plastic industry has really treated the Covid-19 emergency as an opportunity and is preying on people ’ s fear to scare them into believing that single-use plastic is the best way to stay safe , ” Hocevar says .
“ And so far , there isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supports that.
” “ The plastic industry has really treated the Covid-19 emergency as an opportunity ” Unlike disposable plastics , reusable bags and cups , he says , can be easily disinfected by washing with regular soap and hot water or throwing them in the dishwasher .
Grocers might consider letting shoppers bag their own groceries or placing checked-out produce back in the cart so shoppers can load them straight into bins or bags in their cars .
For Hocevar , personal protective equipment ( like disposable face masks and gloves ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left to flutter around the environment , pose the bigger threat to public health ( not to mention generate even more plastic pollution . )
“ I also have concerns about the sanitation workers having to handle so much of this single-use plastic , including PPE , but also food and beverage packaging and bags , ” he says .
Because we ’ re staying at home more , we ’ re generating more trash Disposable plastic bags are only the tip of the landfill , though without comprehensive audits it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if plastic consumption in the country is going up , headed down , or canceling itself out as reduced plastic employment by idling businesses makes up for increasing residential use .
But we can extrapolate some trends .
With most restaurants shuttered and Americans hunkered down at home amid widespread lockdowns , takeout and food-delivery services — which often employ disposable plastic containers — have skyrocketed in popularity .
In the first quarter of 2020 , delivery marketplace Grubhub netted $ 363 million , a 12 percent jump in revenue over the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active diners currently hovers at around 23.9 million , a 24 percent increase from the 19.3 million who placed orders in the first quarter of 2019 .
Amazon , which shipped more than 3 billion packages a year pre-pandemic , saw its revenue spike by 26 percent to $ 75.5 billion in the first three months of 2020 after it became a lifeline for shelter-at-homers scrambling for essential goods ( toilet paper , Clorox wipes , hand sanitizer ) and not-so-essential ones ( dildos , apparently ) .
Most of those deliveries will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shrink wrap , and polybags .
Working and schooling from home has produced other consequences .
Americans are now generating up to 30 percent more trash on a regular basis , says David Biderman , executive director and CEO of Solid Waste Association of North America , a Maryland-based trade group of private- and public-sector professionals .
Some communities — between 60 and 80 , by Bideman ’ s count — across the country have placed their curbside recycling programs on hold because they ’ re struggling to devote more manpower to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Several material-recovery facilities ( or MRFs , pronounced “ merfs ” in industry parlance ) have frozen their operations because it wasn ’ t possible to keep workers 6 feet apart along the conveyor belts where recyclables are manually picked through and sorted .
The problem is , Americans weren ’ t all that great at recycling to begin with .
( And that was before China put the kibosh on most of our recyclables . )
Of the 35.4 million tons of plastic we generated in 2017 , only 8.4 percent was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agency .
As waste generation shifts from businesses to homes , Ray Hatch , CEO of Quest Resource Management Group , a sustainability management company in Texas , expects that number to tumble even further .
“ The businesses we serve are quite disciplined , and they have processes to separate materials , whether it ’ s plastics or cardboard , correctly , ” Hatch says .
“ Households are less dependable , frankly , than businesses .
There ’ s a lot of contamination , there ’ s misunderstanding about what goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a whole lot more going into the landfill , I ’ m afraid.
” Eric Goldstein , senior attorney and New York City environment director at the Natural Resources Defense Council , for one , says he ’ s hopeful that these adjustments in behavior , whether on the personal , state , or federal level , are temporary .
The environment may be taking a hit now , but what matters more is how we respond in the long run .
“ We are in distress conditions now , ” Goldstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of the war , and so sometimes you ’ ve got to jury-rig temporary solutions to address concerns , even if they later proved unfounded .
But when you ’ re talking about sustainability , it ’ s long-term trends and the direction of policy that ’ s important.
” Environmentalists say we need to keep our eye on the bigger picture : Climate change Before Covid-19 reared its head , consumer opinion about the need to reduce our single-use plastic consumption was at an “ all-time high ” and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gordon , program director at Upstream Solutions , a California environmental nonprofit that helped spearhead Berkeley ’ s Single-Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance , which does not go into effect until next year .
“ People do not have to choose one crisis over another , ” Gordon says .
“ The plastic pollution and climate crises are much more long-term threats to our health , wealth , and environmental sustainability than the Covid-19 crisis.
” Not only does plastic have a cradle-to-grave impact on climate change , as the Guardian reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also full of hazardous chemicals that can migrate into the items we consume .
More important , we only have a matter of years to pump the breaks on carbon emissions , limit temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels , and avert the worst effects of a climate catastrophe — think oppressive drought , severe storms , calamitous wildfires , and other hallmarks of extreme weather .
“ People do not have to choose one crisis over another ” There are glimmers of positivity , however .
In 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment , a worldwide initiative of more than 400 businesses — including Apple , Burberry , Coca-Cola , PepsiCo , Starbucks , Target , and H & M — that aims to eliminate all “ problematic and unnecessary ” plastic items by 2025 .
But despite the fiscal squeeze from roiled supply chains and reduced consumer spending , the foundation hasn ’ t seen any backtracking from signatories since the pandemic began .
“ There might be some delay in progress , but not to the extent that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be withdrawn , ” says Sander Defruyt , lead of the New Plastics Economy initiative .
“ I think they all realize that if we emerged from this crisis , the plastic pollution and waste issue will still be there.
” Certainly , for all we harp on individual responsibility , corporate action and government policy are necessary to pull us from the brink of environmental disaster .
We ’ re not going to solve climate change by changing light bulbs in our house , Leonard says .
Rather , we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our energy systems.
” That ’ s not to say that what we do doesn ’ t matter , though .
“ Individual choices do send signals ; they send signals into the market , and they send signals into the political arena , ” he adds .
“ And obviously , elected officials are responding to the collective will of their constituents.
” Still , Leonard points out that nobody should feel guilty about their personal choices as they adjust to this new abnormal .
He isn ’ t happy about having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supermarket either , but he recognizes that they help reassure frontline workers .
“ Everybody should kind of do their part to live a sustainable lifestyle , but also recognize that their choices are limited by the larger society and governance structure in which we live , ” Leonard says .
“ So we ’ re not big fans of civil disobedience in this regard.
” The platitude that we ’ re all in this together may be trite and maudlin , but never has a sentiment been truer .
“ We need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the other side , ” he says .
Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

In a back room at his home in Santa Cruz, California, George Leonard is amassing a stockpile of plastic bags.
Most of the time, he eschews the things. As chief scientist at Ocean Conservancy, an environmental nonprofit based in Washington, DC, Leonard spends his time campaigning against single-use plastics that can clog up waterways, suffocate wildlife, and take centuries to decompose in landfills.
But that was in the Before Times. Since the Covid-19 pandemic upended life across the globe, ravaging economies and bringing entire health care systems to their knees, everyone is being forced to compromise. Retailers are banning consumers from bringing in their own reusable bags, cities and states are rolling back or delaying single-use plastic bans, and municipalities are scaling back recycling operations, with hygiene fears underlying it all.
With plastic production already projected to increase by 40 percent over the next decade, campaigners like Leonard fear the pandemic could unravel hard-fought measures to pare back the 8 million metric tons of plastic that enters our oceans every year.
The signs so far haven’t been reassuring: Customers at Target, for instance, are no longer able to bring in their own bags “out of an abundance of caution, and until further notice,” a spokesperson told The Goods, using an oft-repeated phrase. The retailer’s in-store recycling kiosks are similarly on hiatus. In early March, the coffee juggernaut Starbucks announced that its baristas would no longer accept customer-proffered mugs. Dunkin’ (née Donuts) quickly followed suit.
One by one, the coronavirus knocked long-planned measures off course. In April, New York state announced that its plastic bag ban, which was poised to take effect May 15, would be postponed to mid-June at the earliest. Massachusetts, Maine, and Oregon are deferring similar state laws. New Hampshire has required all grocers to “temporarily transition” to single-use paper or plastic bags only. Even San Francisco, one of the first US cities to outlaw disposable plastic bags in 2007, issued an edict at the end of March preventing businesses from “permitting customers to bring their own bags, mugs, or other reusable items from home.” Grocers and retailers in the Golden State are no longer required to charge the previously mandatory 10 cents per disposable bag. And if stores want to stop accepting recyclable bottles, they’re free to do so.
“I think they’re the appropriate thing to do. But we’re also really worried about whether this pushes us back 10 years.”
Many of these actions are necessary to protect the health of front-line workers who continue to check out groceries, collect trash, and sort through mounds of recycling despite the threat of infection.
“I think they’re the appropriate thing to do,” Leonard says. “But we’re also really worried about whether this pushes us back 10 years in terms of the real progress that has been made to reduce plastic consumption and use, particularly in grocery stores.”
Polystyrene, a.k.a. Styrofoam, the non-recyclable plastic that was being phased out pre-pandemic, is having a resurgence as manufacturers such as Ineos Styrolution in Germany and Trinseo in the US see “double-digit percentage sales increases” in the food packaging and health care sectors, Bloomberg Green reports.
The pandemic could even reshape long-term behavior. In a 17-page draft document currently under review, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that reopening restaurants switch to disposable menus, plates, and utensils, and swap in single-portion condiments. Who knows how long these and other policies will stick?
Environmentalists also claim that the plastics industry is exploiting Covid-19 fears to demonize reusables as potential vectors for the virus, despite scientific evidence that the contagion can survive for days on plastic surfaces, meaning they’re not any safer than your cotton NPR tote or stainless steel Yeti tumbler.
In a letter dated March 18 to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, Tony Radoszewski, CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, asked the department to “speak out against bans on these products as a public safety risk and help stop the rush to ban these products by environmentalists and elected officials that puts consumers and workers at risk.”
Indeed, the plastics industry is currently waging a “PR war” through front groups, corporate-funded research, and misrepresented medical studies in an effort to repeal existing and upcoming bans, says John Hocevar, director of Greenpeace’s oceans campaign. Cratering oil prices, which makes virgin plastic cheaper to churn out than ever, aren’t helping.
“The plastic industry has really treated the Covid-19 emergency as an opportunity and is preying on people’s fear to scare them into believing that single-use plastic is the best way to stay safe,” Hocevar says. “And so far, there isn’t any independent scientific research that supports that.”
“The plastic industry has really treated the Covid-19 emergency as an opportunity”
Unlike disposable plastics, reusable bags and cups, he says, can be easily disinfected by washing with regular soap and hot water or throwing them in the dishwasher. Grocers might consider letting shoppers bag their own groceries or placing checked-out produce back in the cart so shoppers can load them straight into bins or bags in their cars.
For Hocevar, personal protective equipment (like disposable face masks and gloves) and single-use packaging, discarded carelessly and left to flutter around the environment, pose the bigger threat to public health (not to mention generate even more plastic pollution.)
“I also have concerns about the sanitation workers having to handle so much of this single-use plastic, including PPE, but also food and beverage packaging and bags,” he says.
Because we’re staying at home more, we’re generating more trash
Disposable plastic bags are only the tip of the landfill, though without comprehensive audits it’s impossible to suss out with any certainty if plastic consumption in the country is going up, headed down, or canceling itself out as reduced plastic employment by idling businesses makes up for increasing residential use. But we can extrapolate some trends.
With most restaurants shuttered and Americans hunkered down at home amid widespread lockdowns, takeout and food delivery services — which often employ disposable plastic containers — have skyrocketed in popularity. In the first quarter of 2020, the delivery marketplace Grubhub netted $363 million, a 12 percent jump in revenue over the same period last year. Its number of active diners currently hovers at around 23.9 million, a 24 percent increase from the 19.3 million who placed orders in the first quarter of 2019.
Amazon, which shipped more than 3 billion packages a year pre-pandemic, saw its revenue spike by 26 percent to $75.5 billion in the first three months of 2020 after it became a lifeline for shelter-at-homers scrambling for essential goods (toilet paper, Clorox wipes, hand sanitizer) and not-so-essential ones (sex toys, apparently). Most of those deliveries will come swaddled in plastic air pillows, shrink wrap, and polybags.
Working and schooling from home has produced other consequences. Americans are now generating up to 30 percent more trash on a regular basis, says David Biderman, executive director and CEO of Solid Waste Association of North America, a Maryland-based trade group of private and public sector professionals. Some communities — between 60 and 80, by Bideman’s count — across the country have placed their curbside recycling programs on hold because they’re struggling to devote more staffing power to keep up with the increased residential tonnage. Several material-recovery facilities (or MRFs, pronounced “merfs” in industry parlance) have frozen their operations because it wasn’t possible to keep workers 6 feet apart along the conveyor belts where recyclables are manually picked through and sorted.
The problem is, Americans weren’t all that great at recycling to begin with. (And that was before China put the kibosh on most of our recyclables.) Of the 35.4 million tons of plastic the US generated in 2017, only 8.4 percent was recycled, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. As waste generation shifts from businesses to homes, Ray Hatch, CEO of Quest Resource Management Group, a sustainability management company in Texas, expects that number to tumble even further.
“The businesses we serve are quite disciplined, and they have processes to separate materials, whether it’s plastics or cardboard, correctly,” Hatch says. “Households are less dependable, frankly, than businesses. There’s a lot of contamination, there’s misunderstanding about what goes where. We’re going to have a whole lot more going into the landfill, I’m afraid.”
Eric Goldstein, senior attorney and New York City environment director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, for one, says he’s hopeful that these adjustments in behavior, whether on the personal, state, or federal level, are temporary. The environment may be taking a hit now, but what matters more is how we respond in the long run.
“We are in distress conditions now,” Goldstein said. “We’re in the middle of the war, and so sometimes you’ve got to jury-rig temporary solutions to address concerns, even if they later proved unfounded. But when you’re talking about sustainability, it’s long-term trends and the direction of policy that’s important.”
Environmentalists say we need to keep our eye on the bigger picture: Climate change
Before Covid-19 reared its head, consumer opinion about the need to reduce single-use plastic consumption was at an “all-time high” and is unlikely to have changed, says Miriam Gordon, program director at Upstream Solutions, a California environmental nonprofit that helped spearhead Berkeley’s Single-Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance, which does not go into effect until next year.
“People do not have to choose one crisis over another,” Gordon says. “The plastic pollution and climate crises are much more long-term threats to our health, wealth, and environmental sustainability than the Covid-19 crisis.”
Not only does plastic have a cradle-to-grave impact on climate change, as the Guardian reported in 2019, but disposable food-and-beverage packaging is also full of hazardous chemicals that can migrate into the items we consume. More important, we only have a matter of years to pump the brakes on carbon emissions, limit temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, and avert the worst effects of a climate catastrophe — think oppressive drought, severe storms, calamitous wildfires, and other hallmarks of extreme weather.
“People do not have to choose one crisis over another”
There are glimmers of positivity, however.
In 2018, the UK-based Ellen MacArthur Foundation launched the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, a worldwide initiative of more than 400 businesses — including Apple, Burberry, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Starbucks, Target, and H&M — that aims to eliminate all “problematic and unnecessary” plastic items by 2025. But despite the fiscal squeeze from roiled supply chains and reduced consumer spending, the foundation hasn’t seen any backtracking from signatories since the pandemic began.
“There might be some delay in progress, but not to the extent that the targets will be changed or targets will be withdrawn,” says Sander Defruyt, lead of the New Plastics Economy initiative. “I think they all realize that if we emerge from this crisis, the plastic pollution and waste issue will still be there.”
Certainly, for all we harp on individual responsibility, corporate action and government policy are necessary to pull us from the brink of environmental disaster. We’re not going to solve climate change by changing light bulbs in our house, Leonard says. Rather, we need a “fundamental rethinking and restructuring of our energy systems.”
That’s not to say that what we do doesn’t matter, though. “Individual choices do send signals; they send signals into the market, and they send signals into the political arena,” he adds. “And obviously, elected officials are responding to the collective will of their constituents.”
Still, Leonard points out that nobody should feel guilty about their personal choices as they adjust to this new abnormal. He isn’t happy about having to use disposable plastic bags at the supermarket either, but he recognizes that they help reassure front-line workers.
“Everybody should kind of do their part to live a sustainable lifestyle, but also recognize that their choices are limited by the larger society and governance structure in which we live,” Leonard says. “So we’re not big fans of civil disobedience in this regard.”
The platitude that we’re all in this together may be trite and maudlin, but never has a sentiment been truer. “We need to think collectively about how we get to the other side,” he says.
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-05-20--A QAnon supporter just won a Republican primary for US Senate

In winning the Oregon GOP primary for the US Senate Tuesday , Jo Rae Perkins became the seventh Republican congressional candidate who openly supports QAnon , a pro-Trump conspiracy theory that maintains the president is secretly fighting “ deep state ” operatives and Democratic pedophiles .
Perkins won a four-way race for the party ’ s Senate nomination , earning just short of 50 percent of the vote .
Former naval officer Paul Romero finished second with 30 percent .
Perkins will face off with incumbent Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley in the general election on November 3 , which Merkley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her victory — which came by a significant margin — is emblematic of the conspiracy theory ’ s influence among conservative voters , as is the way Perkins highlighted it in her victory speech .
In the speech , Perkins pointedly repeats the group ’ s most used catchphrase before thanking fellow supporters .
“ Where we go one , we go all , ” she said .
“ I stand with President Trump , I stand with Q and the team .
Thank you , Anons , and thank you , patriots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ republic.
” At its heart , QAnon supporters believe that a secretive network of government officials , Democratic politicians , and liberal elites are running an international pedophile ring and conspiring to bring down the president because he ’ s close to bringing them to justice .
The theory began circulating in October 2017 , as Vox ’ s Jane Coaston explained : President Trump has not publicly embraced the conspiracy theory , but he hasn ’ t been shy about retweeting its supporters .
And other conservative politicians like Rep. Paul Gosar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the group through dog-whistle statements ( Gosar later said he unwittingly retweeted the QAnon message , though he never deleted the tweet ) .
Support for “ Q ” has become a staple in crowds at Trump rallies around the US over the past few years .
Celebrities like actress Roseanne Barr and former athlete turned conservative activist Curt Schilling have also shown support for the theory , as have right-wing media figures Alex Jones and Sean Hannity .
It ’ s clear that the conspiracy theory has taken root within strains of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Perkins shouldn ’ t come as a surprise — especially in blue states like Oregon , where GOP organizers tend to view winning a statewide election as an uphill battle and invest less , allowing candidates with fringe views to emerge as nominees .
Perkins made her support for QAnon part of her campaign , saying in a January video that there is a “ very strong probability/possibility that Q is a real group of people , military intelligence , working with President Trump.
” In a New Year ’ s Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , the conspiracy theory has been a regular topic in the candidate ’ s social media postings .
In being anointed the GOP nominee to take on incumbent Sen. Merkley , Perkins became the first known Senate candidate to openly support the conspiracy theory .
But she has stressed she believes there are many more candidates who believe in QAnon than are willing to admit to it .
While it is difficult to say whether Perkins is correct on this point , there is a growing list of conservative candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support the theory .
According to Media Matters , there are at least five other QAnon-supporting congressional candidates on the federal ballot this fall , including four in California and another in Ohio .
And US House candidate Samuel Williams is in a runoff election to settle a Texas primary later this summer .
It ’ s unclear how likely it is we ’ ll see an open supporter of Q elected to Congress this fall , but the mere presence of multiple candidates for federal office who support the theory suggests what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be gaining a stronger foothold in the Republican party .
Support for Q has grown as Trump has consolidated control over the Republican Party At its core , Q is about supporting Trump ’ s power over the federal government .
And it allows its adherents to create order out of a chaotic administration that has been plagued with scandal .
Under this conspiracy theory , instead of Trump being incompetent , he becomes beleaguered in his fight against evil , monstrous people .
It ’ s a mass self-soothing exercise .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be self-sealing , meaning that they can not be battled with facts because they are not based on facts to begin with .
Trying to reason with a Q supporter using facts tends to end with the supporter only withdrawing deeper into the supposed conspiracy — and Trump ’ s governing style continually provides new ways to do this .
For instance , Trump has of late embarked on a series of attacks on government oversight and operational norms .
Wednesday morning , he threatened to withhold funding to Democratic-controlled battleground states attempting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus pandemic .
And over recent weeks , Trump has purged inspectors general he perceives as disloyal , many of whom were simply doing their jobs by investigating the administration ’ s actions .
To many outside observers , such actions look like authoritarian power grabs .
But to Q supporters , these actions are emblematic of the ways the president is fighting the “ deep state.
” Essentially , everything Trump does easily fits into this conspiracy theory , meaning there ’ s no need for its adherents to question his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many ways , belief in QAnon is the ultimate show of loyalty , something Trump has made clear he values greatly .
The president has never been afraid to use the bully pulpit — and Twitter — to call out those whom he perceived to be disloyal Republican lawmakers .
Utah Sen. Mitt Romney , North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr , and even occasional close confidant Rep. Matt Gaetz ( R-FL ) have found themselves on the receiving end of Trump ’ s wrath .
In highlighting their support for QAnon , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president that he does not need to worry about them raising his ire as Romney so often does .
Instead , he can trust them to be allies and to support his governing style , even if it includes brazen power grabs .
But candidates don ’ t just win through osmosis or because they are loyal to Trump .
It ’ s important to keep in mind that the candidates espousing these beliefs are appealing to a big enough cross section of Republican voters in Oregon and in districts in California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win party primaries .
That such candidates are finding even a little success within the Republican election apparatus should be a worrying sign to party officials about the health and direction of the party going forward — particularly as it tries to deal with Covid-19 and advance more mainstream priorities like appointing conservative judges .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

In winning the Oregon GOP primary for the US Senate Tuesday, Jo Rae Perkins became the seventh Republican congressional candidate who openly supports QAnon, a pro-Trump conspiracy theory that maintains the president is secretly fighting “deep state” operatives and Democratic pedophiles.
Perkins won a four-way race for the party’s Senate nomination, earning just short of 50 percent of the vote. Former naval officer Paul Romero finished second with 30 percent. Perkins will face off with incumbent Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley in the general election on November 3, which Merkley is expected to win.
Nevertheless, her victory — which came by a significant margin — is emblematic of the conspiracy theory’s influence among conservative voters, as is the way Perkins highlighted it in her victory speech.
In the speech, Perkins pointedly repeats the group’s most used catchphrase before thanking fellow supporters. “Where we go one, we go all,” she said. “I stand with President Trump, I stand with Q and the team. Thank you, Anons, and thank you, patriots. Together, we can save our republic.”
At its heart, QAnon supporters believe that a secretive network of government officials, Democratic politicians, and liberal elites are running an international pedophile ring and conspiring to bring down the president because he’s close to bringing them to justice.
The theory began circulating in October 2017, as Vox’s Jane Coaston explained:
QAnon is a conspiracy theory based around an anonymous online poster known as “Q” — a pseudonym that comes from the Q-level security clearance, the Department of Energy equivalent of “Top Secret.” Beginning on October 28, 2017, Q began posting on the 4chan message board /pol/ about Hillary Clinton’s imminent arrest. Followers of Q became known as QAnon, and they began awaiting “The Storm,” during which all of Trump’s enemies, including Rep. Adam Schiff and others, would be arrested and executed for being murderous child-eating pedophiles.
President Trump has not publicly embraced the conspiracy theory, but he hasn’t been shy about retweeting its supporters. And other conservative politicians like Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) have occasionally winked at the group through dog-whistle statements (Gosar later said he unwittingly retweeted the QAnon message, though he never deleted the tweet). Support for “Q” has become a staple in crowds at Trump rallies around the US over the past few years.
just some extremely normal people at an extremely normal political rally for an extremely normal president https://t.co/0Gxa9sa81B pic.twitter.com/9Z2pDX9zCg — Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) July 31, 2018
Celebrities like actress Roseanne Barr and former athlete turned conservative activist Curt Schilling have also shown support for the theory, as have right-wing media figures Alex Jones and Sean Hannity.
It’s clear that the conspiracy theory has taken root within strains of the conservative movement, so Q-supporting candidates like Perkins shouldn’t come as a surprise — especially in blue states like Oregon, where GOP organizers tend to view winning a statewide election as an uphill battle and invest less, allowing candidates with fringe views to emerge as nominees.
Perkins made her support for QAnon part of her campaign, saying in a January video that there is a “very strong probability/possibility that Q is a real group of people, military intelligence, working with President Trump.” In a New Year’s Day tweet, she also tweeted about Q. In fact, the conspiracy theory has been a regular topic in the candidate’s social media postings.
In being anointed the GOP nominee to take on incumbent Sen. Merkley, Perkins became the first known Senate candidate to openly support the conspiracy theory. But she has stressed she believes there are many more candidates who believe in QAnon than are willing to admit to it.
One of those candidates, Jo Rae Perkins, has said that she believes that "there's a lot more people that are running for political office that follow Q than are admitting to it.” pic.twitter.com/1BYfyypgOb — Alex Kaplan (@AlKapDC) January 7, 2020
While it is difficult to say whether Perkins is correct on this point, there is a growing list of conservative candidates for federal office in 2020 who actively support the theory. According to Media Matters, there are at least five other QAnon-supporting congressional candidates on the federal ballot this fall, including four in California and another in Ohio. And US House candidate Samuel Williams is in a runoff election to settle a Texas primary later this summer.
It’s unclear how likely it is we’ll see an open supporter of Q elected to Congress this fall, but the mere presence of multiple candidates for federal office who support the theory suggests what has essentially been a fringe movement may be gaining a stronger foothold in the Republican party.
Support for Q has grown as Trump has consolidated control over the Republican Party
At its core, Q is about supporting Trump’s power over the federal government. And it allows its adherents to create order out of a chaotic administration that has been plagued with scandal. Under this conspiracy theory, instead of Trump being incompetent, he becomes beleaguered in his fight against evil, monstrous people. It’s a mass self-soothing exercise.
As Coaston explained, conspiracy theories tend to be self-sealing, meaning that they cannot be battled with facts because they are not based on facts to begin with. Trying to reason with a Q supporter using facts tends to end with the supporter only withdrawing deeper into the supposed conspiracy — and Trump’s governing style continually provides new ways to do this.
For instance, Trump has of late embarked on a series of attacks on government oversight and operational norms. Wednesday morning, he threatened to withhold funding to Democratic-controlled battleground states attempting to facilitate vote-by-mail in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. And over recent weeks, Trump has purged inspectors general he perceives as disloyal, many of whom were simply doing their jobs by investigating the administration’s actions.
To many outside observers, such actions look like authoritarian power grabs. But to Q supporters, these actions are emblematic of the ways the president is fighting the “deep state.” Essentially, everything Trump does easily fits into this conspiracy theory, meaning there’s no need for its adherents to question his actions.
This means that, in many ways, belief in QAnon is the ultimate show of loyalty, something Trump has made clear he values greatly. The president has never been afraid to use the bully pulpit — and Twitter — to call out those whom he perceived to be disloyal Republican lawmakers. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, and even occasional close confidant Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) have found themselves on the receiving end of Trump’s wrath.
In highlighting their support for QAnon, then, candidates like Perkins are signaling to the president that he does not need to worry about them raising his ire as Romney so often does. Instead, he can trust them to be allies and to support his governing style, even if it includes brazen power grabs.
But candidates don’t just win through osmosis or because they are loyal to Trump. It’s important to keep in mind that the candidates espousing these beliefs are appealing to a big enough cross section of Republican voters in Oregon and in districts in California and Ohio that they’re starting to win party primaries.
That such candidates are finding even a little success within the Republican election apparatus should be a worrying sign to party officials about the health and direction of the party going forward — particularly as it tries to deal with Covid-19 and advance more mainstream priorities like appointing conservative judges.