vox--2020-03-09--Why the WHO won’t call the coronavirus a pandemic

As of Monday , March 9 , cases of the novel coronavirus have passed 110,000 worldwide , with outbreaks worsening in the US , Italy , and Iran ( though easing in China and South Korea ) — and more countries around the world announcing cases .
In the US , there are now more than 600 confirmed cases , with numbers rising in Washington state , California , Boston , New York , and elsewhere as more and more states report cases within their borders .
The head of the World Health Organization said that the world is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rapidly spreading disease that has caused serious outbreaks around the world .
But there ’ s one word the World Health Organization has yet to use to describe the outbreak : “ pandemic.
” “ The threat of a pandemic has become very real , ” WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a briefing Monday — but still stopped just short of calling the situation an actual pandemic .
The WHO says that since there ’ s still uncertainty about the disease ’ s impact , most countries still have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not yet hopeless , the word “ pandemic ” isn ’ t appropriate yet .
But many observers have disagreed with the WHO ’ s decision , believing that what we ’ re seeing unfold now fits the definition of the word .
As the novel coronavirus continues its global spread , with cases in more than 100 countries and regions , and 20 countries reporting more than 100 cases , experts have drawn comparisons — some of them reassuring , some of them alarming — to past major disease outbreaks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from SARS and MERS to the 1918- ’ 19 Spanish influenza that was one of the biggest catastrophes of the past 200 years .
So : What makes a pandemic ?
Or an epidemic ?
And what ’ s the difference ?
This explainer will catch you up on the terminology and the history behind global disease scares .
To define a pandemic , we need to first define a few other terms .
First , when a disease infects a lot of people in one area in a short period of time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , the US has experienced a series of measles outbreaks over the past few years , with 2019 the worst year for measles since 1992 .
The measles outbreaks were quite different from a global public health perspective than the coronavirus outbreak .
Measles was introduced by travelers from other countries and spread in populations with low vaccination rates , instead of jumping from animals .
Since there is a vaccine , and since some people have had exposure and immunity , the measles outbreaks — while a serious public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk on the scale of the coronavirus outbreak .
The novel coronavirus crisis began with an outbreak of 41 identified cases in Wuhan , China , in December that began spreading rapidly in January .
That brings us to a term you might have seen thrown around : epidemic .
The World Health Organization defines an epidemic as “ the occurrence in a community or region of cases of an illness ... clearly in excess of normal expectancy.
” The CDC defines it as “ an increase , often sudden , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is normally expected ” in a region .
You may have heard the term used to refer to the “ opioid epidemic , ” or other instances of a long-existing harm becoming rapidly more deadly or more widespread .
By that definition , the coronavirus outbreak has certainly reached “ epidemic ” status in a number of regions , most notably China , South Korea , Iran , and Italy .
In a briefing last week , Ghebreyesus referred to it in those terms .
“ This epidemic is a threat for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said , calling on governments around the world to respond with the strongest measures available .
When it comes to defining a pandemic , things get a little more complicated .
According to A Dictionary of Epidemiology , the standard reference for epidemiologists , a pandemic is “ an epidemic occurring worldwide , or over a very wide area , crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people.
” A “ pandemic ” disease sounds much scarier than a mere “ outbreak.
” But it ’ s important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to how many parts of the world are dealing with an elevated rate of the disease — and , in theory , says nothing about how serious the disease is .
In 2009 , the H1N1 influenza was deemed a pandemic .
One in five people worldwide caught the disease .
But it was not very deadly , with an overall mortality rate estimated at 0.02 percent , so the societal disruption was limited and the loss of lives , while tragic , didn ’ t overwhelm medical systems .
Past coronaviruses have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone pandemic around the globe .
The 2002- ’ 03 SARS outbreak — primarily in China and Hong Kong , though with cases around the world — had about a 10 percent mortality rate .
But as the disease was swiftly contained , it was never a pandemic , and no cases have been reported anywhere in the world since 2004 .
Similarly , the even deadlier MERS coronavirus — with an approximately 35 percent mortality rate — was not very contagious and circulated only slowly .
MERS originated in Saudi Arabia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though a traveler from the Middle East spurred a 2015 outbreak in South Korea .
It has not been entirely eliminated , but it has never been a pandemic .
Sometimes , though , diseases have both a high mortality rate and enough transmissibility to become a pandemic .
That ’ s the worst-case scenario for public health .
The best example is the 1918- ’ 19 influenza pandemic , which — aided by the troop movements of World War I — travelled all around the world and struck an estimated 500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that represented 25 percent of the population of the world .
There are varying estimates for its lethality , but it was likely lower than that of SARS or MERS and may even have been as low as a few percentage points .
That ’ s still high enough to have had a devastating effect on society .
The death toll is estimated to have been 40 million to 50 million , though some estimates are higher .
When public health experts talk about their fear of another global pandemic , they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1918- ’ 19 influenza .
That said , it ’ s worth noting that even a “ mild ” pandemic like H1N1 in 2009 is estimated to have caused up to 575,000 deaths , because when a disease infects the whole world the death toll will be very high even if the disease is fairly mild .
So is the new coronavirus a pandemic ?
By that standard , the novel coronavirus outbreak seems at first glance like it really ought to be considered a pandemic .
It is an epidemic in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Iran , and it is occurring in more than 80 countries , with some devastating effects .
More than 100,000 people have been affected so far ( and millions more have been affected by travel restrictions and quarantines ) .
Indeed , many global health experts have called it a pandemic .
The outbreak “ has become a global pandemic , ” German health minister Jens Spahn said Wednesday .
“ Personally , I think we ’ re doing everyone a disservice by continuing this debate [ over whether it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] , ” Lauren Sauer , director of operations for the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness , told the Washington Post .
“ It is creating more panic than just declaring it and moving on.
” But the World Health Organization has still not used the word “ pandemic ” for the outbreak .
Ghebreyesus , the WHO ’ s director general , has said the decision will be based on “ an ongoing assessment ” of how widely the virus has spread and how badly it is affecting people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been in China and that case counts have been very limited in most countries .
“ Although a few countries are reporting large numbers of cases , 115 countries have not reported any cases .
Twenty-one countries have reported only one case .
And five countries that had reported cases have not reported new cases in the past 14 days , ” Ghebreyesus argued Thursday , although those numbers have since changed .
So according to the WHO , the coronavirus spread isn ’ t a pandemic yet — though it may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The WHO has held off before on using the word “ pandemic , ” even once it was applicable .
In 2009 , with the spread of H1N1 , the WHO was reluctant to declare the situation a global pandemic , despite the fact that the disease ended up infecting between 10 percent and 20 percent of the world in both hemispheres , which clearly qualifies it as an “ epidemic occurring worldwide , or over a very wide area.
” Experts observed at the time that the WHO ’ s guidance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The “ complicated pandemic definitions ” that the WHO and the CDC had deployed seemed crafted “ in a deliberate attempt to garner political attention and financial support for pandemic preparedness , ” researcher Heath Kelly argued in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization .
In other words , rather than using the classic definition of a pandemic , the WHO found itself leaning on its a definition that mixed severity and spread .
The WHO was aware that people associated the word with disease severity , and wanted to be using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be taken seriously in requests for pandemic preparedness .
It seems likely that there ’ s something similar is going on right now .
The word “ pandemic ” has profound implications for how we think about a disaster , and the World Health Organization is wary of them .
“ Using the word pandemic carelessly has no tangible benefit , but it does have significant risk in terms of amplifying unnecessary and unjustified fear and stigma , and paralyzing systems , ” Ghebreyesus argued last week .
Other organizations have mostly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In some cases , the situation has been further complicated by local political constraints on how to talk about the virus .
Earlier this week , Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said the virus would reach “ likely pandemic proportions , ” reportedly angering the White House .
Why it matters that something is called a pandemic So if the distinction between a pandemic and an epidemic isn ’ t how severe they are or how scared we should be , what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by how many countries are affected ?
One answer is that pandemics must be battled , at the international level , significantly differently than epidemics .
When one region of the world experiences an epidemic , the rest of the world is on the sidelines .
They may shut their borders to the affected region , or send help , or both .
They may start making preparations in case the disease affects their own country .
When coronavirus broke out in Wuhan , many of China ’ s neighbors sent masks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers in Wuhan asked if they ’ d consider sending volunteer nurses and doctors , too .
When there ’ s a global pandemic , there largely are no sidelines .
It no longer makes sense for countries to shut their borders against the affected countries , as the disease is present everywhere .
Public health officials might recommend shifting to social distancing measures — which reduce spread within a country — instead of screening efforts that try to keep the disease out of the country at all .
Countries still must share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but directing supplies to affected areas is more complicated when affected areas are everywhere .
A world fighting a pandemic is not focused on containment to a distant elsewhere but on harm-reduction at home .
By that definition of a pandemic , we ’ re at a tipping point .
Some experts say it ’ s already too late for containment , but not all experts agree .
The WHO does not , arguing in Monday ’ s press conference that “ the threat of a pandemic has become very real .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in history that could be controlled .
The bottom line is : we are not at the mercy of this virus.
” This is why we ’ re seeing disagreement on whether we ’ ve now reached pandemic stage with the novel coronavirus .
The first two months of the coronavirus ’ s spread have been full of surprises .
It makes sense the World Health Organization wants to choose its words carefully — and that it ’ s still holding out hope that containment can be achieved .
Sign up for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

Share All sharing options for: Why the WHO waited to call the coronavirus a pandemic
Update: On Wednesday, March 11, the World Health Organization officially declared the coronavirus a global pandemic. Read about it here.
As of Monday, March 9, cases of the novel coronavirus have passed 110,000 worldwide, with outbreaks worsening in the US, Italy, and Iran (though easing in China and South Korea) — and more countries around the world announcing cases. In the US, there are now more than 600 confirmed cases, with numbers rising in Washington state, California, Boston, New York, and elsewhere as more and more states report cases within their borders.
The head of the World Health Organization said that the world is in “uncharted territory” with a dangerous and rapidly spreading disease that has caused serious outbreaks around the world. But there’s one word the World Health Organization has yet to use to describe the outbreak: “pandemic.”
“The threat of a pandemic has become very real,” WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a briefing Monday — but still stopped just short of calling the situation an actual pandemic.
The WHO says that since there’s still uncertainty about the disease’s impact, most countries still have only a few cases, and containment is not yet hopeless, the word “pandemic” isn’t appropriate yet. But many observers have disagreed with the WHO’s decision, believing that what we’re seeing unfold now fits the definition of the word.
As the novel coronavirus continues its global spread, with cases in more than 100 countries and regions, and 20 countries reporting more than 100 cases, experts have drawn comparisons — some of them reassuring, some of them alarming — to past major disease outbreaks, public health emergencies, and pandemics, from SARS and MERS to the 1918-’19 Spanish influenza that was one of the biggest catastrophes of the past 200 years.
So: What makes a pandemic? Or an epidemic? And what’s the difference? This explainer will catch you up on the terminology and the history behind global disease scares.
What is a pandemic?
To define a pandemic, we need to first define a few other terms.
First, when a disease infects a lot of people in one area in a short period of time, that’s an outbreak. For example, the US has experienced a series of measles outbreaks over the past few years, with 2019 the worst year for measles since 1992.
The measles outbreaks were quite different from a global public health perspective than the coronavirus outbreak. Measles was introduced by travelers from other countries and spread in populations with low vaccination rates, instead of jumping from animals. Since there is a vaccine, and since some people have had exposure and immunity, the measles outbreaks — while a serious public health crisis — didn’t present a risk on the scale of the coronavirus outbreak.
The novel coronavirus crisis began with an outbreak of 41 identified cases in Wuhan, China, in December that began spreading rapidly in January.
That brings us to a term you might have seen thrown around: epidemic. The World Health Organization defines an epidemic as “the occurrence in a community or region of cases of an illness ... clearly in excess of normal expectancy.” The CDC defines it as “an increase, often sudden, in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected” in a region. You may have heard the term used to refer to the “opioid epidemic,” or other instances of a long-existing harm becoming rapidly more deadly or more widespread.
By that definition, the coronavirus outbreak has certainly reached “epidemic” status in a number of regions, most notably China, South Korea, Iran, and Italy. In a briefing last week, Ghebreyesus referred to it in those terms. “This epidemic is a threat for every country, rich and poor,” he said, calling on governments around the world to respond with the strongest measures available.
When it comes to defining a pandemic, things get a little more complicated.
According to A Dictionary of Epidemiology, the standard reference for epidemiologists, a pandemic is “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people.”
A “pandemic” disease sounds much scarier than a mere “outbreak.” But it’s important to remember that “pandemic” refers to how many parts of the world are dealing with an elevated rate of the disease — and, in theory, says nothing about how serious the disease is.
In 2009, the H1N1 influenza was deemed a pandemic. One in five people worldwide caught the disease. But it was not very deadly, with an overall mortality rate estimated at 0.02 percent, so the societal disruption was limited and the loss of lives, while tragic, didn’t overwhelm medical systems.
Past coronaviruses have been dangerous, but they have not gone pandemic around the globe. The 2002-’03 SARS outbreak — primarily in China and Hong Kong, though with cases around the world — had about a 10 percent mortality rate. But as the disease was swiftly contained, it was never a pandemic, and no cases have been reported anywhere in the world since 2004.
Similarly, the even deadlier MERS coronavirus — with an approximately 35 percent mortality rate — was not very contagious and circulated only slowly. MERS originated in Saudi Arabia, and nearly all transmission has been there, though a traveler from the Middle East spurred a 2015 outbreak in South Korea. It has not been entirely eliminated, but it has never been a pandemic.
Sometimes, though, diseases have both a high mortality rate and enough transmissibility to become a pandemic. That’s the worst-case scenario for public health. The best example is the 1918-’19 influenza pandemic, which — aided by the troop movements of World War I — travelled all around the world and struck an estimated 500 million people.
At the time, that represented 25 percent of the population of the world. There are varying estimates for its lethality, but it was likely lower than that of SARS or MERS and may even have been as low as a few percentage points. That’s still high enough to have had a devastating effect on society. The death toll is estimated to have been 40 million to 50 million, though some estimates are higher.
When public health experts talk about their fear of another global pandemic, they have in mind the possibility of something like the 1918-’19 influenza. That said, it’s worth noting that even a “mild” pandemic like H1N1 in 2009 is estimated to have caused up to 575,000 deaths, because when a disease infects the whole world the death toll will be very high even if the disease is fairly mild.
So is the new coronavirus a pandemic?
By that standard, the novel coronavirus outbreak seems at first glance like it really ought to be considered a pandemic. It is an epidemic in China, Italy, South Korea, and Iran, and it is occurring in more than 80 countries, with some devastating effects. More than 100,000 people have been affected so far (and millions more have been affected by travel restrictions and quarantines).
Indeed, many global health experts have called it a pandemic. The outbreak “has become a global pandemic,” German health minister Jens Spahn said Wednesday.
“Personally, I think we’re doing everyone a disservice by continuing this debate [over whether it’s time to call the situation a pandemic],” Lauren Sauer, director of operations for the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness, told the Washington Post. “It is creating more panic than just declaring it and moving on.”
But the World Health Organization has still not used the word “pandemic” for the outbreak. Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s director general, has said the decision will be based on “an ongoing assessment” of how widely the virus has spread and how badly it is affecting people. He cited the fact that most cases have been in China and that case counts have been very limited in most countries.
“Although a few countries are reporting large numbers of cases, 115 countries have not reported any cases. Twenty-one countries have reported only one case. And five countries that had reported cases have not reported new cases in the past 14 days,” Ghebreyesus argued Thursday, although those numbers have since changed.
So according to the WHO, the coronavirus spread isn’t a pandemic yet — though it may become one if things get worse.
The WHO has held off before on using the word “pandemic,” even once it was applicable. In 2009, with the spread of H1N1, the WHO was reluctant to declare the situation a global pandemic, despite the fact that the disease ended up infecting between 10 percent and 20 percent of the world in both hemispheres, which clearly qualifies it as an “epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area.”
Experts observed at the time that the WHO’s guidance on categorizing epidemics seemingly had political considerations. The “complicated pandemic definitions” that the WHO and the CDC had deployed seemed crafted “in a deliberate attempt to garner political attention and financial support for pandemic preparedness,” researcher Heath Kelly argued in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
In other words, rather than using the classic definition of a pandemic, the WHO found itself leaning on its a definition that mixed severity and spread. The WHO was aware that people associated the word with disease severity, and wanted to be using language that reflected that so the WHO would be taken seriously in requests for pandemic preparedness.
It seems likely that there’s something similar is going on right now. The word “pandemic” has profound implications for how we think about a disaster, and the World Health Organization is wary of them.
“Using the word pandemic carelessly has no tangible benefit, but it does have significant risk in terms of amplifying unnecessary and unjustified fear and stigma, and paralyzing systems,” Ghebreyesus argued last week.
Other organizations have mostly followed the WHO’s lead. In some cases, the situation has been further complicated by local political constraints on how to talk about the virus. Earlier this week, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the virus would reach “likely pandemic proportions,” reportedly angering the White House.
Why it matters that something is called a pandemic
So if the distinction between a pandemic and an epidemic isn’t how severe they are or how scared we should be, what is the distinction? Why bother categorizing diseases by how many countries are affected?
One answer is that pandemics must be battled, at the international level, significantly differently than epidemics.
When one region of the world experiences an epidemic, the rest of the world is on the sidelines. They may shut their borders to the affected region, or send help, or both. They may start making preparations in case the disease affects their own country. When coronavirus broke out in Wuhan, many of China’s neighbors sent masks. In a now-retracted Lancet paper, health workers in Wuhan asked if they’d consider sending volunteer nurses and doctors, too.
When there’s a global pandemic, there largely are no sidelines. It no longer makes sense for countries to shut their borders against the affected countries, as the disease is present everywhere. Public health officials might recommend shifting to social distancing measures — which reduce spread within a country — instead of screening efforts that try to keep the disease out of the country at all. Countries still must share medical knowledge and expertise with one another, but directing supplies to affected areas is more complicated when affected areas are everywhere. A world fighting a pandemic is not focused on containment to a distant elsewhere but on harm-reduction at home.
By that definition of a pandemic, we’re at a tipping point. Some experts say it’s already too late for containment, but not all experts agree. The WHO does not, arguing in Monday’s press conference that “the threat of a pandemic has become very real. But it would be the first pandemic in history that could be controlled. The bottom line is: we are not at the mercy of this virus.”
This is why we’re seeing disagreement on whether we’ve now reached pandemic stage with the novel coronavirus.
The first two months of the coronavirus’s spread have been full of surprises. It makes sense the World Health Organization wants to choose its words carefully — and that it’s still holding out hope that containment can be achieved.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-03-10--When polls close on March 10 — and when we might get results

The slate of primary contests scheduled for this Tuesday , March 10 , isn ’ t quite as extensive as last week ’ s Super Tuesday extravaganza , but it could still have a big impact on the Democratic presidential race .
Six states — Idaho , Michigan , Mississippi , Missouri , North Dakota , and Washington — will vote , and there ’ s a total of 352 delegates up for grabs .
Voters in those states will have a much-reduced Democratic field to weigh in on : Only three candidates are still in the race , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders have a real shot at the Democratic nomination for president .
( At this point , Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is kind of just hanging out . )
Here are the poll closing times , in Eastern time and local , listed alphabetically by state : • North Dakota : 8 pm ET , 7 pm local ( North Dakota ’ s caucuses function more like a primary ) • Washington : 11 pm ET , 8 pm local ( Washington is a mail-in only state ; ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time ) Some states , such as Mississippi , where Biden holds a substantial lead , could be called right as polls close at 8 pm on Tuesday ; other states with more competitive primaries could take longer .
And while none of the states voting on Tuesday should take as long to report results as California , that doesn ’ t mean they ’ ll all be quick , either .
Washington ’ s vote-by-mail system means that valid votes could still be coming in for days after the primary , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential its Democratic Party ) indicated on Monday that results might not be available until Wednesday .
Michigan is the state to watch Of the six states scheduled to hold their contests on Tuesday , Michigan is positioned to be the most important .
Not only does it have the most delegates on offer — 125 , better than a third of the night ’ s total count — but it carries major symbolic importance .
In 2016 , Michigan was the site of Sanders ’ s signature win : He came back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to beat the eventual Democratic nominee , former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton .
If Biden can beat Sanders there — and the FiveThirtyEight polling average for Michigan indicates that he can — then it ’ s not just a narrative win for the former VP .
The Vermont senator ’ s path to the nomination begins to close rapidly in the face of the rest of the primary calendar , with delegate-heavy , Biden-friendly states like Florida and Georgia still to come .
Sanders came back from a 30-point deficit in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race closer than that this time around , so it ’ s anyone ’ s guess how Michigan might shake out .
The New York Times also points out that the state will offer a preview of how candidates perform with what could be key demographic groups in the November election : Looking beyond Michigan , Biden has the closet thing there is in politics to a sure win in the form of Mississippi — he leads Sanders there by more than 45 points in the FiveThirtyEight polling average .
Things look slightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Biden is still up by more than 20 points .
In Washington state , however , which Sanders won comfortably in 2016 , it ’ s a truly close race : Biden leads by just over a point in the FiveThirtyEight polling average .
In any case , while Tuesday — and Michigan in particular — could prove to be an inflection point in the race , the primary doesn ’ t end there .
The first two-candidate debate of the race is coming up on Sunday , March 15 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to four more important states , including Florida , on March 17 .

The slate of primary contests scheduled for this Tuesday, March 10, isn’t quite as extensive as last week’s Super Tuesday extravaganza, but it could still have a big impact on the Democratic presidential race. Six states — Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Washington — will vote, and there’s a total of 352 delegates up for grabs.
Voters in those states will have a much-reduced Democratic field to weigh in on: Only three candidates are still in the race, and of those, only former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders have a real shot at the Democratic nomination for president. (At this point, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is kind of just hanging out.)
Here are the poll closing times, in Eastern time and local, listed alphabetically by state:
Idaho: 11 pm ET, 8/9 pm local
11 pm ET, 8/9 pm local Michigan: 8/9 pm ET, 8 pm local (multiple time zones)
8/9 pm ET, 8 pm local (multiple time zones) Mississippi: 8 pm ET, 7 pm local
8 pm ET, 7 pm local Missouri: 8 pm ET, 7 pm local
8 pm ET, 7 pm local North Dakota: 8 pm ET, 7 pm local (North Dakota’s caucuses function more like a primary)
8 pm ET, 7 pm local (North Dakota’s caucuses function more like a primary) Washington: 11 pm ET, 8 pm local (Washington is a mail-in only state; ballots must be deposited by 8 pm local time)
Some states, such as Mississippi, where Biden holds a substantial lead, could be called right as polls close at 8 pm on Tuesday; other states with more competitive primaries could take longer.
And while none of the states voting on Tuesday should take as long to report results as California, that doesn’t mean they’ll all be quick, either. Washington’s vote-by-mail system means that valid votes could still be coming in for days after the primary, and the North Dakota Democratic–Nonpartisan League Party (essential its Democratic Party) indicated on Monday that results might not be available until Wednesday.
Results from Michigan could also be delayed: More than 800,000 voters have submitted absentee ballots in the state, and counting those votes could take additional time.
Michigan is the state to watch
Of the six states scheduled to hold their contests on Tuesday, Michigan is positioned to be the most important. Not only does it have the most delegates on offer — 125, better than a third of the night’s total count — but it carries major symbolic importance.
In 2016, Michigan was the site of Sanders’s signature win: He came back from a massive deficit in the polls to beat the eventual Democratic nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. If Biden can beat Sanders there — and the FiveThirtyEight polling average for Michigan indicates that he can — then it’s not just a narrative win for the former VP. The Vermont senator’s path to the nomination begins to close rapidly in the face of the rest of the primary calendar, with delegate-heavy, Biden-friendly states like Florida and Georgia still to come.
Sanders came back from a 30-point deficit in 2016, and he’s kept the race closer than that this time around, so it’s anyone’s guess how Michigan might shake out.
The New York Times also points out that the state will offer a preview of how candidates perform with what could be key demographic groups in the November election:
Midwestern powerhouses like Michigan will test the candidates’ appeal among suburbanites, African-Americans and working-class white voters. If the race is not decided on Super Tuesday, this could be a line of demarcation.
Looking beyond Michigan, Biden has the closet thing there is in politics to a sure win in the form of Mississippi — he leads Sanders there by more than 45 points in the FiveThirtyEight polling average.
Things look slightly less dire for Sanders in Missouri, but Biden is still up by more than 20 points. In Washington state, however, which Sanders won comfortably in 2016, it’s a truly close race: Biden leads by just over a point in the FiveThirtyEight polling average.
In any case, while Tuesday — and Michigan in particular — could prove to be an inflection point in the race, the primary doesn’t end there. The first two-candidate debate of the race is coming up on Sunday, March 15, and from there, the race is on to four more important states, including Florida, on March 17.


vox--2020-03-10--Plane ticket prices are dropping because of the coronavirus

As more and more people grow hesitant to travel by plane because of concerns about the coronavirus , domestic and international fares have plummeted .
Expedia is marketing a New York to Los Angeles round-trip flight for $ 142 , which costs , on average , about $ 300 one-way .
A Miami to Chicago flight is usually about $ 193 , but Frontier Airlines is advertising a $ 67 round-trip ticket .
Prices for international flights are also shockingly low : A round-trip fare from Boston to Barcelona is $ 196 , compared to an average of $ 681 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up these deals , if not for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s warning to avoid nonessential travel , especially long plane trips , and crowded spaces , which is pretty much the definition of every airport .
These precautions are extremely important to heed , especially for older and sick people as the outbreak continues , and the CDC has travel alerts for South Korea , China , Italy , Iran , and Japan — places Americans are advised to avoid .
So why the bargain-basement prices ?
Travelers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meaning airlines have to scramble to fill those seats .
According to Austin Horowitz , senior aviation management consultant at the global consulting firm ICF , cheap airfare is a result of multiple factors , namely the drop in flight demand .
“ It ’ s almost a negative price that airlines will have to pay to get people to fly , ” he told me .
“ But there are some takers , and right now , they ’ ll have to keep prices down until people start traveling again.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve booked within the past month the opportunity to change or cancel flights without fees , something that has angered customers who scheduled their trips months ahead of time .
Airlines aren ’ t likely to promote discounts during a disease outbreak , Horowitz said , so offering cancellation and change fees is another way to incentivize people to purchase a plane ticket .
Since people are flying less , airlines need to keep operating so they don ’ t lose even more revenue or coveted airport slots for future flights .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ operating an airline , such as aircraft insurance , fuel , and labor , that a carrier has already paid for .
“ From that perspective , as long as you can cover these costs , you might as well fly because you end up bringing in more cash than you would not operating , ” Horowitz added .
In Europe , airlines are flying empty “ ghost ” flights to avoid losing their airport landing slots , the British newspaper the Times reported .
In more than 200 airports worldwide , airlines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take-off and landing times , which ideally prevents airport overcrowding by creating an organized system for planes to arrive and depart .
For example , Reagan National Airport in Washington , DC , is limited to 60 slots ( arrivals and departures ) an hour .
European carriers and ports abide by the “ use it or lose it ” slot policy , which means an airline is required to fly at least 80 percent of its slots or risk having that time reallocated to a competitor .
Grant Shapps , the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for British slot regulators to reconsider this rule last week , as did the International Air Transport Association , but no changes have been made .
People are motivated to travel or stay at home based on a variety of perceived risks .
“ This risk-averse nature is not unusual during times of crisis , ” Rian Mehta , an assistant professor of aviation at the Florida Institute of Technology , told me .
The lack of control and knowledge of the virus ’ s spread is a “ psychological driving factor ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he added .
“ Every new piece of negative news has the ability to negatively impact perceptions , ” Mehta said , but if there ’ s positive news of the outbreak ’ s containment , he predicts that people will start traveling again .
Horowitz said the “ recovery time ” for travelers to feel comfortable flying again is dependent on the “ period of disruption.
” In the case of the 2003 SARS crisis , which lasted about six months , it took a few months for travel to pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the outbreak , he told me .
On social media , some people are openly weighing the risks and benefits of traveling while others are stocking up on household goods .
“ Flights are so cheap rn I might risk coronavirus , ” one Bachelor contestant recently tweeted .
“ WE ’ RE HERE FOR A GOOD TIME NOT A LONG TIME , ” wrote another .
As Vox ’ s Brian Resnick reported , health experts have said that containment in the US so far isn ’ t working .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus by taking measures like staying home , washing hands , and avoiding large crowds of people , but Resnick wrote that “ the outbreak might be further along — and therefore harder to contain — than authorities currently realize.
” That means there ’ s a lot of uncertainty as to where and how aggressively the virus might spread next , and it seems like many travelers aren ’ t willing to take the risk of boarding a plane .
So long as the outbreak continues , aviation experts predict that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least for a few weeks after the disease ’ s eventual containment .
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 .

As more and more people grow hesitant to travel by plane because of concerns about the coronavirus, domestic and international fares have plummeted. Expedia is marketing a New York to Los Angeles round-trip flight for $142, which costs, on average, about $300 one-way. A Miami to Chicago flight is usually about $193, but Frontier Airlines is advertising a $67 round-trip ticket. Prices for international flights are also shockingly low: A round-trip fare from Boston to Barcelona is $196, compared to an average of $681.
It might seem tempting to snatch up these deals, if not for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s warning to avoid nonessential travel for certain vulnerable populations, especially long plane trips, and crowded spaces, which is pretty much the definition of every airport. These precautions are extremely important to heed, especially for older and sick people as the outbreak continues, and the CDC has travel alerts for South Korea, China, Italy, Iran, and Japan — places Americans are advised to avoid.
So why the bargain-basement prices? Travelers are postponing if not outright canceling plans, meaning airlines have to scramble to fill those seats. According to Austin Horowitz, senior aviation management consultant at the global consulting firm ICF, cheap airfare is a result of multiple factors, namely the drop in flight demand. “It’s almost a negative price that airlines will have to pay to get people to fly,” he told me. “But there are some takers, and right now, they’ll have to keep prices down until people start traveling again.”
Most US airlines are offering travelers who’ve booked within the past month the opportunity to change or cancel flights without fees, something that has angered customers who scheduled their trips months ahead of time. Airlines aren’t likely to promote discounts during a disease outbreak, Horowitz said, so offering cancellation and change fees is another way to incentivize people to purchase a plane ticket.
Since people are flying less, airlines need to keep operating so they don’t lose even more revenue or coveted airport slots for future flights. There are certain costs that come with operating an airline, such as aircraft insurance, fuel, and labor, that a carrier has already paid for. “From that perspective, as long as you can cover these costs, you might as well fly because you end up bringing in more cash than you would not operating,” Horowitz added.
In Europe, airlines are flying empty “ghost” flights to avoid losing their airport landing slots, the British newspaper the Times reported. In more than 200 airports worldwide, airlines operate under a slot system with assigned take-off and landing times, which ideally prevents airport overcrowding by creating an organized system for planes to arrive and depart. For example, Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC, is limited to 60 slots (arrivals and departures) an hour.
European carriers and ports abide by the “use it or lose it” slot policy, which means an airline is required to fly at least 80 percent of its slots or risk having that time reallocated to a competitor. Grant Shapps, the UK secretary of state for transport, called for British slot regulators to reconsider this rule last week, as did the International Air Transport Association, but no changes have been made.
People are motivated to travel or stay at home based on a variety of perceived risks. “This risk-averse nature is not unusual during times of crisis,” Rian Mehta, an assistant professor of aviation at the Florida Institute of Technology, told me. The lack of control and knowledge of the virus’s spread is a “psychological driving factor” that might lead people to cancel plans, he added. “Every new piece of negative news has the ability to negatively impact perceptions,” Mehta said, but if there’s positive news of the outbreak’s containment, he predicts that people will start traveling again.
Horowitz said the “recovery time” for travelers to feel comfortable flying again is dependent on the “period of disruption.” In the case of the 2003 SARS crisis, which lasted about six months, it took a few months for travel to pick back up to the level it was before the outbreak, he told me.
On social media, some people are openly weighing the risks and benefits of traveling while others are stocking up on household goods. “Flights are so cheap rn I might risk coronavirus,” one Bachelor contestant recently tweeted. “WE’RE HERE FOR A GOOD TIME NOT A LONG TIME,” wrote another.
The media: “CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC IS GETTING WORSE EVERYONE PLS WASH UR HANDS AND QUARANTINE URSELVES DON’T MOVE WE’RE GETTING CLOSER TO THE END“
Millennials on our way to the airport cuz flight prices dropped: pic.twitter.com/WKtfnWEwJW — air (@ayoair) March 6, 2020
As Vox’s Brian Resnick reported, health experts have said that containment in the US so far isn’t working. People can ideally help slow the spread of the virus by taking measures like staying home, washing hands, and avoiding large crowds of people, but Resnick wrote that “the outbreak might be further along — and therefore harder to contain — than authorities currently realize.”
That means there’s a lot of uncertainty as to where and how aggressively the virus might spread next, and it seems like many travelers aren’t willing to take the risk of boarding a plane. So long as the outbreak continues, aviation experts predict that airfare will probably stay low — at least for a few weeks after the disease’s eventual containment.
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--2020-03-10--China’s puppet in Hong Kong

China’s puppet in Hong Kong

In the mid-1970s , a bright young girl became head prefect of a Catholic girls ’ school near the lush foothills of Hong Kong .
She approached a teacher for advice on how to manage her naughtier classmates .
That girl would go on to become the first woman to lead Hong Kong — but to say she ’ s failed to inspire is an understatement .
Instead , she ’ s become one of the most hated figures there since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997 .
Carrie Lam , Hong Kong ’ s chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest political crises in the territory in decades and antagonized generations of people who feel profoundly disenfranchised .
She pushed a bill that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China , fueling fears that anyone in Hong Kong could be directly exposed to China ’ s notorious criminal justice system .
The movement against the bill turned into a broader struggle for democracy and police accountability , and presented one of the greatest challenges yet to Chinese President Xi Jinping .
The unrest spiraled into an orgy of clashes between police officers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed with bricks and Molotov cocktails , many of whom believed this was their last chance to fight back against Hong Kong ’ s disappearing autonomy .
Large swaths of its Bladerunner-like landscape became covered in exasperated political graffiti — and , less visibly , tear gas residue .
Now , the coronavirus thought to have originated in central China and currently circulating around communities in Hong Kong has further fueled panic .
Lam had the opportunity to salvage her legacy by skillfully responding to the viral outbreak .
But her administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ward off a public health crisis in Hong Kong , which is already scarred by the SARS outbreak in 2003 , left many further convinced that she is incapable of acting in the public interest .
Under Lam ’ s watch , trust in the government has been shattered by the double whammy of historic protests and the epidemic .
The consequences of her miscalculations are far-reaching .
On January 11 , as Beijing ’ s perceived authoritarian overreach in Hong Kong hung over Taiwan , the self-ruled island reelected Tsai Ing-wen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese Communist Party .
And now , by early March , Hong Kong has recorded more than 100 confirmed cases of the coronavirus as its battered economy takes another hit and jobs are put in peril .
The story of Carrie Lam is the story of a leader who once set out to inspire through hard work and loyalty , but has instead helped unravel Hong Kong ’ s social contract and sharpen its deepest contradictions .
Once upon a time , Carrie Lam was idealistic and even took part in social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to power shows how her strength might have ultimately become a weakness that resulted in her spectacular downfall .
Lam was the fourth of five children , and her family shared a flat with several other households when she was young .
That apartment was so cramped , she used her bunk bed as a standing desk .
She was an overachiever : One time , in high school , she was so distraught over placing fourth in class that she was reduced to tears .
Soon , though , she snapped back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , tasked with disciplining her fellow students .
Her early aspiration to become a social worker — inspired by a character in a television series — led her to enroll at the prestigious University of Hong Kong .
She was a well-known student activist in her undergraduate years , showing a special interest in poverty-related issues .
Lee Wing-tat , a former pro-democracy lawmaker and classmate in the year above who knew her through their student activism , described her as idealistic but also dead serious : He said he ’ d never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 40 years .
She came close to being arrested once , Lee recalled , when she was part of a group that was trying to fight for better housing rights for a community of Hongkongers residing on boats that was especially vulnerable to deadly typhoons .
Around 10 of her fellow student activists were arrested for unlawful assembly while she waited for them to reach Hong Kong ’ s main island on a bus to present a petition , Lee said .
That charge — unlawful assembly — is now leveled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year ’ s unrest , while hundreds faced the more serious charge of rioting .
“ When she was a student , she sided with people with no power , ” Lee said .
“ Now she ’ s siding with people with the most power.
” Lam decided to join the government instead of pursuing a career in social work after graduation .
“ In order to influence the lives of many , you still need to rely on the functions of a government , ” she told the pro-Beijing newspaper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her postgraduate studies at Cambridge , where she met her husband , a retired mathematician .
He and her two sons reportedly have UK citizenship , but she renounced hers in 2007 when she took up the senior post of development secretary .
Her humble origins did not save her from the elitist air that has made her so unlikable to many .
In what she probably thought would be humanizing gaffes during her election campaign in 2017 , she let out that she didn ’ t know where to buy toilet paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton-esque moment , she was caught struggling to get through a subway turnstile .
Lee , who was able to observe her trajectory throughout the years , said she became increasingly arrogant and “ supercilious ” as she climbed up the bureaucracy .
She saw herself as a know-all technocrat , he said , and was dismissive of other people ’ s opinions , including the more junior legislators .
“ She has become overconfident .
In fact , this is what made her think she could pass the extradition bill ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it that I can not do in my decades-long career as a civil servant ?
’ ” Lee observed .
In late 2016 , Lam was serving as the No .
2 official in Hong Kong , a post she had held for more than four years .
She was planning to retire soon and was looking forward to spending more time with her family .
But then her boss , the polarizing and fervently pro-Beijing incumbent chief executive Leung Chun-ying , announced he wouldn ’ t seek reelection after failing to secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upending Lam ’ s retirement plans .
Beijing needed someone who was going to win not just marginally , according to observers , and support for Leung appeared thin even within the establishment .
Lam , on the other hand , was seen as a “ smiling tiger ” : a softer face that would still take a hard line .
Lam scrambled to put together a campaign and formally announced she would run just two months before the election , a challenge even for somebody known within the government as an efficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made an ambitious pitch to voters : She promised to improve the economy and people ’ s livelihood , including fixing the dire housing situation and creating greater upward mobility for young people .
When she announced her campaign in January 2017 , she told a fresh college graduate who had written to her : “ Should I decide to accept the challenge , you can be sure that I am doing it for the younger generation like you.
” But her promise of a bright future for Hong Kong ’ s youth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hong Kong ’ s leader is selected by a 1,200-member nomination committee stacked with Beijing loyalists .
As someone who is handpicked by Beijing and nominally serves both the Chinese Communist Party and Hong Kong ’ s people , she has limited power over the land she runs .
It is not exactly a coveted job — having to be faithful to Beijing and appease local pro-Beijing hardliners while also dealing with a furious opposition and a sophisticated public — but it ’ s among the highest-paid government roles in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US $ 568,400 a year .
Unlike the men who previously held the job , though , Lam wasn ’ t a member of the business elite , nor was she mired in corruption scandals .
Her predecessor was investigated over undeclared multimillion-dollar payments from an Australian firm ( Beijing eventually backed him over the former frontrunner , a billionaire ’ s son who had extramarital affairs and an illicitly constructed basement allegedly furnished with a wine cellar and a Japanese bath that caused a stir in space-starved Hong Kong ) .
Before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , longtime civil servant who was jailed for misconduct over undeclared dealings with a business tycoon ( the conviction was ultimately quashed ) .
Preceding him , the first Hong Kong-Chinese leader after colonial rule ended was the son of a shipping magnate .
Carrie Lam , by comparison , was born into a low-income family and still doesn ’ t own a home in Hong Kong — unusual for a government heavyweight in the world ’ s most expensive housing market .
But perhaps she never really had to : She joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ university in 1980 , which came with housing benefits , and she never left government .
Lam rose through the ranks quickly and earned a reputation for being ho da duk , or a “ good fighter.
” Today , she is reportedly still a workaholic .
Inside her private quarters at her official residence , the Government House , she has a room that painstakingly replicates her real office .
In a rare interview , she told the Financial Times the best thing about living there is that “ you can combine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarian streak was apparent even when she was still serving as chief secretary , the second-most-powerful position in government .
Unlike other top officials — including the leader himself — who apologized for a lead water scandal that gripped Hong Kong in 2015 , Lam refused to say sorry .
She said at the time that officials “ do not have to bear personal responsibility ” because , while the scandal reflected flaws within the government , it did not necessarily mean that they were neglecting duties or flouting laws .
In 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Tsang , the former finance minister nicknamed “ Mr .
Pringles ” after his resemblance to the potato chip mascot .
He was supported even by some members of the pro-democracy voting bloc as a practical choice .
A more moderate establishment figure , he was different from Lam in key ways : affable , too Westernized in Beijing ’ s view ( went to MIT and Harvard , likes French movies ) , too laid-back and conciliatory ( Beijing needs a tougher proxy ) .
If correspondence with spouses offers a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider that on Valentine ’ s Day in 2017 , as the election candidates were campaigning at full steam , Lam ’ s husband wrote a public letter that wished her luck in “ contributing to the implementation of ‘ one country , two systems , ’ ” referring to the deal under which semi-autonomous Hong Kong is governed .
Lam may have a reputation as being humorless and not much of a crowd-pleaser , but her supporters liked to laud her for getting things done and not being afraid to crack the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bureaucrat to run Hong Kong and further subsume it into Beijing ’ s orbit through policymaking and economic integration .
Most important to Beijing , she is loyal .
It is Chinese President Xi Jinping ’ s personal ambition to develop Hong Kong ’ s Greater Bay Area — by linking Hong Kong and its semi-autonomous neighbor Macao with a cluster of southern Chinese cities — into a technological and economic powerhouse that rivals the San Francisco Bay Area and the New York metropolitan area .
This requires the fealty of Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year which political leader she admired the most , Lam named Xi , around the same time he was abolishing term limits on the presidency and was poised to stay in power for life .
She called him “ charismatic.
” Some analysts , meanwhile , have warned about the cult of personality , outlawed after the death of Mao Zedong , that Xi appeared to be cultivating .
Lam enjoyed higher approval ratings than her predecessor when she first took office , but they slipped steadily as she oversaw welfare cuts for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kong ’ s freedoms and norms — including the banning of a small pro-independence political party , the effective expulsion of a senior Financial Times journalist , and an agreement that ceded land inside a train station to mainland Chinese jurisdiction .
Following the extradition saga and the viral outbreak , her rating is now lower than any previous Hong Kong leader by a large margin .
Lam insists that the controversial extradition bill that sparked the protest movement was her initiative to seek justice for a murder victim ; other reports , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impetus for the bill came not from Lam but from the Chinese government in Beijing , which has long pushed for such a law .
Either way , when a Hong Kong citizen fled back there in 2018 after killing his pregnant girlfriend in neighboring Taiwan , Lam saw a rare opportunity that would fulfill Beijing ’ s wishes : to overhaul Hong Kong ’ s laws so that suspects can be transferred to other jurisdictions around the world , including Taiwan and mainland China .
Hong Kong has historically balked at that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part to grave concerns about China ’ s judicial system .
As Vox ’ s Jen Kirby explains : The proposed bill triggered massive street protests , but Lam steadfastly refused to back down .
Even after an estimated 1 million people marched against it in June , Lam refused to withdraw the bill .
Later that week , Lam announced that she was “ suspending ” — but not formally withdrawing — the bill .
It wasn ’ t enough : An estimated 1.7 million people , a quarter of Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets the following day , angered by Lam ’ s half-measure and what they saw as heavy-handed police tactics during clashes outside the parliament building days earlier .
The protest movement only continued to grow , and Hong Kong ultimately saw its most sustained protests in decades , including a series of creative , peaceful protests and labor strikes along with violent street battles with riot police who were accused of acting with impunity and breaking their own rules .
In September , Lam finally announced the bill would be formally withdrawn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too little , too late .
In a leaked audio recording made public the night before she would announce the bill ’ s ultimate fate , Lam was heard chiding herself in unusually frank remarks during a private meeting with a group of businesspeople a week earlier .
“ For a chief executive to have caused this huge havoc to Hong Kong is unforgivable , ” she said in the recording , obtained by Reuters .
“ If I have a choice , the first thing is to quit , having made a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” These private comments stood in stark contrast with her public posturing , setting off speculation that Beijing was not allowing her to step down with no suitable successor immediately available .
“ She definitely feels very responsible for this mess , ” one of Lam ’ s top aides , speaking on condition of anonymity , told me in November .
“ She ’ s committed to fixing it .
If needed for her to fix the issue , she will stay on .
But I can assure you , she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the aide said .
“ For a chief executive to have caused this huge havoc to Hong Kong is unforgivable ” But in reality , what she ’ s done is repeatedly condemn violence on the part of the protesters and throw her unconditional support behind the police — in lockstep with Beijing ’ s rhetoric .
She has written off political solutions , including setting up an independent probe into the police ’ s handling of the protests , a key demand of the movement that is also widely supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures .
Lam ’ s response to the protests not only exposed but also defined the limits of her authority and independence from Beijing .
“ If she wasn ’ t completely clueless , ” Suzanne Pepper , an expert on Hong Kong politics , told me , Lam might have been able to “ convey Beijing ’ s meaning without simply memorizing Beijing ’ s words like a catechism and repeating them whenever asked ... and without insulting the intelligence of the Hong Kong public.
” But , Pepper continued , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an established colonial bureaucracy .
Her mindset has not evolved beyond that world she first mastered when she joined the colonial service.
” Instead of firing Lam over the unrest , Beijing recently announced a major leadership reshuffle for Hong Kong and appointed two known hardliners who had no experience dealing with the former British colony but are both trusted by President Xi , signaling a fresh chapter of even tighter control .
Xia Baolong , who served as Xi ’ s deputy in the mid-2000s and later became known for his crackdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office in China ’ s cabinet .
Luo Huining , who in recent years enforced Xi ’ s campaign to purge corruption in a graft-ridden province , was chosen to direct Beijing ’ s liaison office based in Hong Kong and to act as Xia ’ s deputy .
By replacing the two most senior Chinese officials overseeing Hong Kong affairs as the first order of business while leaving Lam in place , the shake-up showed “ where the real power lies in Hong Kong , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author .
“ Beijing chose to replace the puppet masters , rather than the puppet.
” The coronavirus outbreak presented an opportunity for Lam .
She squandered it .
In late November , millions of Hongkongers channeled their rage against Lam ’ s administration by turning out in historic numbers and voting overwhelmingly for pro-democracy candidates in local district elections .
Yet beyond scrapping the bill , Lam has repeatedly said she will not respond to the protest movement ’ s other core demands , including investigating police actions and pursuing democratic reforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest for months after the bill was killed in September .
But then the coronavirus outbreak hit Hong Kong and largely brought society to a standstill .
The protests that had become a regular feature of daily life there have for now devolved into much smaller flare-ups .
In some ways , the coronavirus could ’ ve offered Lam a chance to win back some of the public ’ s trust and goodwill .
With the street protests entering a relative lull , she could have shown the public she was willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Lam only gradually closed border crossings , fueling speculation among her critics that she was acting out of political considerations and taking care not to offend her bosses in Beijing .
She rejected growing demands to temporarily bar arrivals from mainland China and called the move “ discriminatory , ” though it was backed by leading medical experts and even some influential pro-Beijing politicians .
Only after Hong Kong reported its first death from the virus and thousands of medical workers risked retribution to go on an unprecedented strike in early February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order a mandatory 14-day quarantine on all travelers entering through the mainland .
Once again , like the axing of the extradition bill , it may have come too late .
Many saw her administration ’ s slow and incremental response to the outbreak as more evidence that Lam is putting politics above public safety and interest .
The public ’ s deepening distrust of the authorities manifested in unexpected ways .
Trying to take ownership of their own safety and falling victim to rumors , many Hongkongers turned to panic-buying , sparking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at one point — and even heists on such coveted commodities .
With the ongoing coronavirus crisis , Lam is now facing yet another serious challenge to her ability to lead Hong Kong .
Its existential problems existed long before she became chief executive and will continue after she leaves office , either prematurely or when her term finishes in 2022 .
And as of right now , there ’ s no sign she plans to step down early .
But after a lifetime of carrying out orders and mastering routines , her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of credibility .
Elaine Yu is a journalist based in Hong Kong .
She has written for publications including the New York Times , NewYorker.com , Dissent Magazine , and the Intercept .
Find her on Twitter @ yuenok .

In the mid-1970s, a bright young girl became head prefect of a Catholic girls’ school near the lush foothills of Hong Kong. She approached a teacher for advice on how to manage her naughtier classmates.
“You don’t control; you inspire,” the teacher replied.
That girl would go on to become the first woman to lead Hong Kong — but to say she’s failed to inspire is an understatement. Instead, she’s become one of the most hated figures there since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997.
Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, has sparked one of the biggest political crises in the territory in decades and antagonized generations of people who feel profoundly disenfranchised. She pushed a bill that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China, fueling fears that anyone in Hong Kong could be directly exposed to China’s notorious criminal justice system.
The movement against the bill turned into a broader struggle for democracy and police accountability, and presented one of the greatest challenges yet to Chinese President Xi Jinping.
The unrest spiraled into an orgy of clashes between police officers who called protesters “cockroaches” and activists armed with bricks and Molotov cocktails, many of whom believed this was their last chance to fight back against Hong Kong’s disappearing autonomy. Large swaths of its Bladerunner-like landscape became covered in exasperated political graffiti — and, less visibly, tear gas residue.
Now, the coronavirus thought to have originated in central China and currently circulating around communities in Hong Kong has further fueled panic.
Lam had the opportunity to salvage her legacy by skillfully responding to the viral outbreak. But her administration’s relatively lax approach and its inability to ward off a public health crisis in Hong Kong, which is already scarred by the SARS outbreak in 2003, left many further convinced that she is incapable of acting in the public interest.
Under Lam’s watch, trust in the government has been shattered by the double whammy of historic protests and the epidemic.
The consequences of her miscalculations are far-reaching. On January 11, as Beijing’s perceived authoritarian overreach in Hong Kong hung over Taiwan, the self-ruled island reelected Tsai Ing-wen as president, dealing another blow to the Chinese Communist Party. And now, by early March, Hong Kong has recorded more than 100 confirmed cases of the coronavirus as its battered economy takes another hit and jobs are put in peril.
The story of Carrie Lam is the story of a leader who once set out to inspire through hard work and loyalty, but has instead helped unravel Hong Kong’s social contract and sharpen its deepest contradictions.
From activist to authoritarian puppet
Once upon a time, Carrie Lam was idealistic and even took part in social activism. A look at her rise to power shows how her strength might have ultimately become a weakness that resulted in her spectacular downfall.
Lam was the fourth of five children, and her family shared a flat with several other households when she was young. That apartment was so cramped, she used her bunk bed as a standing desk. She was an overachiever: One time, in high school, she was so distraught over placing fourth in class that she was reduced to tears.
Soon, though, she snapped back to the top and became head prefect, tasked with disciplining her fellow students.
Her early aspiration to become a social worker — inspired by a character in a television series — led her to enroll at the prestigious University of Hong Kong. She was a well-known student activist in her undergraduate years, showing a special interest in poverty-related issues. Lee Wing-tat, a former pro-democracy lawmaker and classmate in the year above who knew her through their student activism, described her as idealistic but also dead serious: He said he’d never seen her laugh more than five times in 40 years.
She came close to being arrested once, Lee recalled, when she was part of a group that was trying to fight for better housing rights for a community of Hongkongers residing on boats that was especially vulnerable to deadly typhoons.
Around 10 of her fellow student activists were arrested for unlawful assembly while she waited for them to reach Hong Kong’s main island on a bus to present a petition, Lee said. That charge — unlawful assembly — is now leveled by her government at dozens of protesters from last year’s unrest, while hundreds faced the more serious charge of rioting.
“When she was a student, she sided with people with no power,” Lee said. “Now she’s siding with people with the most power.”
Lam decided to join the government instead of pursuing a career in social work after graduation. “In order to influence the lives of many, you still need to rely on the functions of a government,” she told the pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po. The government funded her postgraduate studies at Cambridge, where she met her husband, a retired mathematician. He and her two sons reportedly have UK citizenship, but she renounced hers in 2007 when she took up the senior post of development secretary.
Her humble origins did not save her from the elitist air that has made her so unlikable to many. In what she probably thought would be humanizing gaffes during her election campaign in 2017, she let out that she didn’t know where to buy toilet paper, which predictably backfired. In another Hillary Clinton-esque moment, she was caught struggling to get through a subway turnstile.
Lee, who was able to observe her trajectory throughout the years, said she became increasingly arrogant and “supercilious” as she climbed up the bureaucracy. She saw herself as a know-all technocrat, he said, and was dismissive of other people’s opinions, including the more junior legislators.
“She has become overconfident. In fact, this is what made her think she could pass the extradition bill (last year): ‘What is it that I cannot do in my decades-long career as a civil servant?’” Lee observed.
The smiling tiger
In late 2016, Lam was serving as the No. 2 official in Hong Kong, a post she had held for more than four years. She was planning to retire soon and was looking forward to spending more time with her family.
But then her boss, the polarizing and fervently pro-Beijing incumbent chief executive Leung Chun-ying, announced he wouldn’t seek reelection after failing to secure the Chinese government’s blessing, upending Lam’s retirement plans.
Beijing needed someone who was going to win not just marginally, according to observers, and support for Leung appeared thin even within the establishment. Lam, on the other hand, was seen as a “smiling tiger”: a softer face that would still take a hard line.
Lam scrambled to put together a campaign and formally announced she would run just two months before the election, a challenge even for somebody known within the government as an efficient workhorse.
In her manifesto, she made an ambitious pitch to voters: She promised to improve the economy and people’s livelihood, including fixing the dire housing situation and creating greater upward mobility for young people. When she announced her campaign in January 2017, she told a fresh college graduate who had written to her: “Should I decide to accept the challenge, you can be sure that I am doing it for the younger generation like you.”
But her promise of a bright future for Hong Kong’s youth came with a major, unspoken caveat. Hong Kong’s leader is selected by a 1,200-member nomination committee stacked with Beijing loyalists. As someone who is handpicked by Beijing and nominally serves both the Chinese Communist Party and Hong Kong’s people, she has limited power over the land she runs.
It is not exactly a coveted job — having to be faithful to Beijing and appease local pro-Beijing hardliners while also dealing with a furious opposition and a sophisticated public — but it’s among the highest-paid government roles in the world. Lam, now 62, makes US$568,400 a year.
Unlike the men who previously held the job, though, Lam wasn’t a member of the business elite, nor was she mired in corruption scandals.
Her predecessor was investigated over undeclared multimillion-dollar payments from an Australian firm (Beijing eventually backed him over the former frontrunner, a billionaire’s son who had extramarital affairs and an illicitly constructed basement allegedly furnished with a wine cellar and a Japanese bath that caused a stir in space-starved Hong Kong).
Before that came a more popular, well-connected, longtime civil servant who was jailed for misconduct over undeclared dealings with a business tycoon (the conviction was ultimately quashed). Preceding him, the first Hong Kong-Chinese leader after colonial rule ended was the son of a shipping magnate.
Carrie Lam, by comparison, was born into a low-income family and still doesn’t own a home in Hong Kong — unusual for a government heavyweight in the world’s most expensive housing market. But perhaps she never really had to: She joined the colonial civil service straight out of university in 1980, which came with housing benefits, and she never left government.
Lam rose through the ranks quickly and earned a reputation for being ho da duk, or a “good fighter.” Today, she is reportedly still a workaholic. Inside her private quarters at her official residence, the Government House, she has a room that painstakingly replicates her real office. In a rare interview, she told the Financial Times the best thing about living there is that “you can combine work and private life.”
But her authoritarian streak was apparent even when she was still serving as chief secretary, the second-most-powerful position in government. Unlike other top officials — including the leader himself — who apologized for a lead water scandal that gripped Hong Kong in 2015, Lam refused to say sorry.
She said at the time that officials “do not have to bear personal responsibility” because, while the scandal reflected flaws within the government, it did not necessarily mean that they were neglecting duties or flouting laws.
In 2017, Beijing favored her over main rival John Tsang, the former finance minister nicknamed “Mr. Pringles” after his resemblance to the potato chip mascot. He was supported even by some members of the pro-democracy voting bloc as a practical choice. A more moderate establishment figure, he was different from Lam in key ways: affable, too Westernized in Beijing’s view (went to MIT and Harvard, likes French movies), too laid-back and conciliatory (Beijing needs a tougher proxy).
If correspondence with spouses offers a glimpse into one’s personality, consider that on Valentine’s Day in 2017, as the election candidates were campaigning at full steam, Lam’s husband wrote a public letter that wished her luck in “contributing to the implementation of ‘one country, two systems,’” referring to the deal under which semi-autonomous Hong Kong is governed.
Lam may have a reputation as being humorless and not much of a crowd-pleaser, but her supporters liked to laud her for getting things done and not being afraid to crack the whip. Chinese leaders need a capable bureaucrat to run Hong Kong and further subsume it into Beijing’s orbit through policymaking and economic integration.
Most important to Beijing, she is loyal. It is Chinese President Xi Jinping’s personal ambition to develop Hong Kong’s Greater Bay Area — by linking Hong Kong and its semi-autonomous neighbor Macao with a cluster of southern Chinese cities — into a technological and economic powerhouse that rivals the San Francisco Bay Area and the New York metropolitan area. This requires the fealty of Hong Kong’s elite.
When asked last year which political leader she admired the most, Lam named Xi, around the same time he was abolishing term limits on the presidency and was poised to stay in power for life. She called him “charismatic.” Some analysts, meanwhile, have warned about the cult of personality, outlawed after the death of Mao Zedong, that Xi appeared to be cultivating.
Lam enjoyed higher approval ratings than her predecessor when she first took office, but they slipped steadily as she oversaw welfare cuts for older people and serious deteriorations in Hong Kong’s freedoms and norms — including the banning of a small pro-independence political party, the effective expulsion of a senior Financial Times journalist, and an agreement that ceded land inside a train station to mainland Chinese jurisdiction.
Following the extradition saga and the viral outbreak, her rating is now lower than any previous Hong Kong leader by a large margin.
Here’s how that happened.
How Lam accidentally sparked an uprising
Lam insists that the controversial extradition bill that sparked the protest movement was her initiative to seek justice for a murder victim; other reports, however, have suggested that the true impetus for the bill came not from Lam but from the Chinese government in Beijing, which has long pushed for such a law.
Either way, when a Hong Kong citizen fled back there in 2018 after killing his pregnant girlfriend in neighboring Taiwan, Lam saw a rare opportunity that would fulfill Beijing’s wishes: to overhaul Hong Kong’s laws so that suspects can be transferred to other jurisdictions around the world, including Taiwan and mainland China.
Hong Kong has historically balked at that idea, though, due in large part to grave concerns about China’s judicial system. As Vox’s Jen Kirby explains:
Critics worried that China would take advantage of this law to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers — such as those who openly dissent against the Chinese government or advocate for human rights. One pro-democracy lawmaker called it a “dragnet over all of Hong Kong.” The amendments would apply retroactively, meaning thousands of people who may have angered mainland China with a supposed past crime could be at risk of facing trial there. The extradition rule changes were particularly fraught because China is accused of kidnapping people from outside its borders — including from Hong Kong, where it isn’t supposed to have jurisdiction — and essentially disappearing them to China. That would normally violate international law. But this bill would give China legal cover to do so.
The proposed bill triggered massive street protests, but Lam steadfastly refused to back down. Even after an estimated 1 million people marched against it in June, Lam refused to withdraw the bill.
Later that week, Lam announced that she was “suspending” — but not formally withdrawing — the bill. It wasn’t enough: An estimated 1.7 million people, a quarter of Hong Kong’s population, took to the streets the following day, angered by Lam’s half-measure and what they saw as heavy-handed police tactics during clashes outside the parliament building days earlier.
The protest movement only continued to grow, and Hong Kong ultimately saw its most sustained protests in decades, including a series of creative, peaceful protests and labor strikes along with violent street battles with riot police who were accused of acting with impunity and breaking their own rules.
In September, Lam finally announced the bill would be formally withdrawn, but that move was widely decried as too little, too late.
In a leaked audio recording made public the night before she would announce the bill’s ultimate fate, Lam was heard chiding herself in unusually frank remarks during a private meeting with a group of businesspeople a week earlier. “For a chief executive to have caused this huge havoc to Hong Kong is unforgivable,” she said in the recording, obtained by Reuters. “If I have a choice, the first thing is to quit, having made a deep apology, is to step down.”
These private comments stood in stark contrast with her public posturing, setting off speculation that Beijing was not allowing her to step down with no suitable successor immediately available.
“She definitely feels very responsible for this mess,” one of Lam’s top aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me in November. “She’s committed to fixing it. If needed for her to fix the issue, she will stay on. But I can assure you, she’s prepared to step down immediately too,” the aide said.
“For a chief executive to have caused this huge havoc to Hong Kong is unforgivable”
But in reality, what she’s done is repeatedly condemn violence on the part of the protesters and throw her unconditional support behind the police — in lockstep with Beijing’s rhetoric. She has written off political solutions, including setting up an independent probe into the police’s handling of the protests, a key demand of the movement that is also widely supported by the public, including some pro-Beijing figures.
Lam’s response to the protests not only exposed but also defined the limits of her authority and independence from Beijing.
“If she wasn’t completely clueless,” Suzanne Pepper, an expert on Hong Kong politics, told me, Lam might have been able to “convey Beijing’s meaning without simply memorizing Beijing’s words like a catechism and repeating them whenever asked ... and without insulting the intelligence of the Hong Kong public.”
But, Pepper continued, “She was trained in the conventions of an established colonial bureaucracy. Her mindset has not evolved beyond that world she first mastered when she joined the colonial service.”
Instead of firing Lam over the unrest, Beijing recently announced a major leadership reshuffle for Hong Kong and appointed two known hardliners who had no experience dealing with the former British colony but are both trusted by President Xi, signaling a fresh chapter of even tighter control.
Xia Baolong, who served as Xi’s deputy in the mid-2000s and later became known for his crackdown on Christian churches, will now lead the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office in China’s cabinet. Luo Huining, who in recent years enforced Xi’s campaign to purge corruption in a graft-ridden province, was chosen to direct Beijing’s liaison office based in Hong Kong and to act as Xia’s deputy.
By replacing the two most senior Chinese officials overseeing Hong Kong affairs as the first order of business while leaving Lam in place, the shake-up showed “where the real power lies in Hong Kong,” writes Antony Dapiran, a Hong Kong-based author. “Beijing chose to replace the puppet masters, rather than the puppet.”
The coronavirus outbreak presented an opportunity for Lam. She squandered it.
In late November, millions of Hongkongers channeled their rage against Lam’s administration by turning out in historic numbers and voting overwhelmingly for pro-democracy candidates in local district elections.
Yet beyond scrapping the bill, Lam has repeatedly said she will not respond to the protest movement’s other core demands, including investigating police actions and pursuing democratic reforms — the very reasons people continued to protest for months after the bill was killed in September.
But then the coronavirus outbreak hit Hong Kong and largely brought society to a standstill. The protests that had become a regular feature of daily life there have for now devolved into much smaller flare-ups.
In some ways, the coronavirus could’ve offered Lam a chance to win back some of the public’s trust and goodwill. With the street protests entering a relative lull, she could have shown the public she was willing to listen humbly to her people.
Instead, Lam only gradually closed border crossings, fueling speculation among her critics that she was acting out of political considerations and taking care not to offend her bosses in Beijing.
She rejected growing demands to temporarily bar arrivals from mainland China and called the move “discriminatory,” though it was backed by leading medical experts and even some influential pro-Beijing politicians.
Only after Hong Kong reported its first death from the virus and thousands of medical workers risked retribution to go on an unprecedented strike in early February to pressure the government did Lam finally order a mandatory 14-day quarantine on all travelers entering through the mainland.
Once again, like the axing of the extradition bill, it may have come too late. Many saw her administration’s slow and incremental response to the outbreak as more evidence that Lam is putting politics above public safety and interest.
The public’s deepening distrust of the authorities manifested in unexpected ways. Trying to take ownership of their own safety and falling victim to rumors, many Hongkongers turned to panic-buying, sparking a run on toilet paper and rice at one point — and even heists on such coveted commodities.
With the ongoing coronavirus crisis, Lam is now facing yet another serious challenge to her ability to lead Hong Kong. Its existential problems existed long before she became chief executive and will continue after she leaves office, either prematurely or when her term finishes in 2022. And as of right now, there’s no sign she plans to step down early.
But after a lifetime of carrying out orders and mastering routines, her bid for control has ultimately stripped her of credibility.
Elaine Yu is a journalist based in Hong Kong. She has written for publications including the New York Times, NewYorker.com, Dissent Magazine, and the Intercept. Find her on Twitter @yuenok.


March 10 primaries

The Michigan primary could have a big impact on the two-man race for the nomination .
This Tuesday , March 10 , might not be quite as super as last Tuesday .
But it ’ s still important : Six states — including the potentially decisive Michigan — will have the chance to weigh in on a dramatically reshaped Democratic presidential primary .
Idaho , Mississippi , Missouri , North Dakota , and Washington will all join Michigan in voting March 10 , and voters will have a much-reduced Democratic field to choose from : Only former Vice President Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real shot at the Democratic nomination for president at this point .
( Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is technically still in the race ) .
Of those six , Michigan is the biggest prize , and not just because it has the most delegates on offer — though , with 125 delegates , that ’ s part of it .
The state gave Sanders his signature win over eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary .
And if Biden can beat out Sanders there — which the FiveThirtyEight polling average for Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the primary calendar , with states like Florida and Georgia , looks increasingly difficult for the Vermont senator .
The New York Times also points out that the state will offer a preview of how candidates perform with key demographics that will be important come November : Elsewhere , polling averages from FiveThirtyEight indicate Biden is in the lead in Mississippi and Missouri , and ( narrowly ) in Washington state .
Follow along below for Vox ’ s coverage of the March 10 primaries , including live results , breaking news @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The Michigan primary could have a big impact on the two-man race for the nomination.
This Tuesday, March 10, might not be quite as super as last Tuesday. But it’s still important: Six states — including the potentially decisive Michigan — will have the chance to weigh in on a dramatically reshaped Democratic presidential primary.
Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Washington will all join Michigan in voting March 10, and voters will have a much-reduced Democratic field to choose from: Only former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders have a real shot at the Democratic nomination for president at this point. (Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is technically still in the race).
Of those six, Michigan is the biggest prize, and not just because it has the most delegates on offer — though, with 125 delegates, that’s part of it. The state gave Sanders his signature win over eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary. And if Biden can beat out Sanders there — which the FiveThirtyEight polling average for Michigan indicates is likely — then the rest of the primary calendar, with states like Florida and Georgia, looks increasingly difficult for the Vermont senator.
The New York Times also points out that the state will offer a preview of how candidates perform with key demographics that will be important come November:
Midwestern powerhouses like Michigan will test the candidates’ appeal among suburbanites, African-Americans and working-class white voters. If the race is not decided on Super Tuesday, this could be a line of demarcation.
Elsewhere, polling averages from FiveThirtyEight indicate Biden is in the lead in Mississippi and Missouri, and (narrowly) in Washington state.
Follow along below for Vox’s coverage of the March 10 primaries, including live results, breaking news updates, analysis, and more.