vox--2020-04-28--What a climate change film Michael Moore helped make gets terribly wrong

Last week marked the 50th anniversary of Earth Day .
To celebrate the occasion , filmmaker Michael Moore dropped a new movie he produced , Planet of the Humans .
In less than a week , it has racked up over 3 million views on YouTube .
But the film , directed by Jeff Gibbs , a long-time Moore collaborator , is not the climate message we ’ ve all been waiting for — it ’ s a nihilistic take , riddled with errors about clean energy and climate activism .
With very little evidence , it claims that renewables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupt .
What ’ s more , it has nothing to say about fossil fuel corporations , who have pushed climate denial and blocked progress on climate policy for decades .
Given the film ’ s loose relationship to facts , I ’ m not even sure it should be classified as a documentary .
There are real tradeoffs in the clean energy transition .
As a scholar , I ’ ve done my fair share of research and writing on those exact issues over the past decade .
Renewables have downsides .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , batteries , and transmission .
There is no perfect solution to our energy challenges .
But this film does not grapple with these thorny questions ; it peddles falsehoods .
Films for Action , an online library of free progressive films , agrees with me .
It briefly pulled the movie from its site , after documentary filmmaker Josh Fox wrote an open letter , co-signed by climate scientists and energy experts .
“ We are disheartened and dismayed to report that the film is full of misinformation — so much so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the film from the site , ” Films for Action ’ s April 25 statement reads .
“ Ultimately , we decided to put it back up because we believe media literacy , critique and debate is the best solution to misinformation.
” Here , I will lay out the case for why this film should have stayed on the cutting room floor .
The film has several factual errors about clean energy It ’ s not surprising that the film gets basic energy facts wrong and that information included is out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or energy experts featured .
Early in the film , Gibbs goes to see an electric vehicle demonstration .
He concludes they are dirty because they probably run on coal .
Except it ’ s not true .
Two years ago , electric vehicles already had lower emissions than new gas-powered cars across the country .
This is because the US electricity system has been slowly getting cleaner over the past decade .
The film ’ s wind and solar facts are also old .
It quotes efficiency for solar PV from more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t mention the fact that solar costs have plummeted since then , and that we ’ ve learned how to get more wind and solar onto the grid .
The film instead acts like this is impossible to do .
The largest share of the movie ’ s scorn goes to biomass — generally , burning wood — which supplied less than 2 percent of the US electricity mix last year .
But the filmmakers obscure that fact , showing graphs that imply biomass is leading to forest destruction across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about biomass , they tell him it ’ s complicated .
Because , well , it is .
When we burn wood for electricity , we are using carbon that is already moving between our air , oceans , and land .
By contrast , when we dig up and burn fossil fuels , we ’ re bringing carbon up from underground .
That is how we got increasing carbon levels in our atmosphere and oceans .
Burning fossil fuels , not wood , is the main cause of climate change .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to my undergraduates .
But the filmmakers neglected to learn it .
That said , biomass can be — and often is — done poorly , with significant environmental harms .
Scientists have raised concerns over the European Union ’ s incentives for renewables leading to wood being shipped from North America .
Environmental groups , including the ones pilloried in the film , have criticized the industry .
But you wouldn ’ t learn any of these facts from watching Planet of the Humans .
A biased take on the environmental movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of environmental NGOs .
But the way activists are portrayed in this film is inaccurate .
One of the film ’ s main theses is that the climate movement is captured by corporations .
As Gibbs puts it , environmentalists are “ leading us off the cliff.
” The evidence for this assertion ?
The Union of Concerned Scientists ’ support for electric vehicles .
And Sierra Club ’ s promotion of solar .
And the fact that 350.org has received funding from environmental foundations .
I fail to see how any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ egregious attack is made against Bill McKibben , a dedicated and kind environmental leader .
As he has said , he has never taken any money for his environmental activism with 350.org .
Watching this film , you might mistake him for a robber baron .
McKibben wrote to the filmmakers , to clarify his views .
They did not write back .
As he put it : “ That seems like bad journalism , and bad faith.
” Unlike the uninformed contrarians behind this film , McKibben spent his Earth Day talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop funding fossil fuels .
On April 23 , one of those banks , Morgan Stanley committed to not provide financing for drilling in the Arctic refuge .
For a “ corporate hack , ” Bill McKibben sure spends a lot of time taking on corporations .
And those corporations in turn spend a lot of time harassing him .
If the corporate capture of the environmental movement is the problem , it ’ s puzzling why the film has almost nothing to say about corporations themselves .
You know , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lied about climate science for 30 years ?
The climate denial campaign is not mentioned .
Instead , the film denigrates the crucial work of the Sierra Club ’ s Beyond Coal campaign .
Led by Mary Anne Hitt , this program helped stop the construction of 200 coal plants , and successfully pushed for the retirement of 300 others .
Rather than recognizing the Sierra Club ’ s achievement , the filmmakers falsely attribute the growth in natural gas to Beyond Coal .
Alas , environmental groups are not in charge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , we would have a lot less fossil electricity .
Utilities propose power plants to regulators , who approve them .
Over the past decade , electric utilities have proposed an enormous amount of new gas facilities , which groups like the Sierra Club have opposed .
Perhaps the most insulting thing is that this film comes at a time when the youth climate movement is finally gaining momentum .
Young women like Greta Thunberg and Varshini Prakash have helped climate change break into the mainstream .
Rather than bolster the work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Future , or Zero Hour , it undermines these activists ’ achievements by sowing confusion and doubt .
Why is Michael Moore promoting misinformation on climate change ?
Throughout , the filmmakers twist basic facts , misleading the public about who is responsible for the climate crisis .
We are used to climate science misinformation campaigns from fossil fuel corporations .
But from progressive filmmakers ?
That ’ s new .
It ’ s difficult to understand Michael Moore ’ s motivations for blaming clean energy and environmental groups instead of fossil fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ films— like Roger & Me , Sicko , and Bowling for Columbine —were centered on holding corporations accountable .
More recently , he endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders at the same rally as climate champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
The Sanders campaign centered on an ambitious 100 percent renewable energy goal .
Yet , the film Moore backed concludes that population control , not clean energy , is the answer .
This is a highly questionable solution , which has more in common with anti-immigration hate groups than the progressive movement .
The fact is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the largest environmental footprints — and they also have the lowest birthrates .
When this message is promoted , it ’ s implying that poor , people of color should have fewer children .
Not to mention the fact that pushing population control is completely disrespectful of women ’ s reproductive autonomy .
Notably , almost all the “ experts ” featured in the film are white men .
It is sad to think of the world we are leaving for children .
Yet , if we embraced clean energy , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a world tied to dirty fossil fuels .
Unfortunately , many people are taking this film seriously .
It got 4 out of 5 stars from The Guardian , normally a paragon of climate reporting .
And The Late Show with Stephen Colbert gave Moore precious air time to promote it on Earth Day .
I would have rather seen Colbert interview a young climate activist .
She would have known more about the subject .
We have already warmed the planet by more than 1°C , and we are running out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Planet of the Humans has sowed confusion at a time when we need clarity on the climate crisis .
My only hope is that this film will be buried , and few will watch it or remember it .
Much like fossil fuels , it would be best left underground .
Leah C. Stokes is an assistant professor at the University of California Santa Barbara .
Her new book , Short Circuiting Policy , examines electric utilities ’ role in holding back progress on clean energy and climate policy .

Last week marked the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. To celebrate the occasion, filmmaker Michael Moore dropped a new movie he produced, Planet of the Humans. In less than a week, it has racked up over 3 million views on YouTube.
But the film, directed by Jeff Gibbs, a long-time Moore collaborator, is not the climate message we’ve all been waiting for — it’s a nihilistic take, riddled with errors about clean energy and climate activism. With very little evidence, it claims that renewables are disastrous and that environmental groups are corrupt.
What’s more, it has nothing to say about fossil fuel corporations, who have pushed climate denial and blocked progress on climate policy for decades. Given the film’s loose relationship to facts, I’m not even sure it should be classified as a documentary.
There are real tradeoffs in the clean energy transition. As a scholar, I’ve done my fair share of research and writing on those exact issues over the past decade. Renewables have downsides. As do biomass, nuclear, hydropower, batteries, and transmission. There is no perfect solution to our energy challenges.
But this film does not grapple with these thorny questions; it peddles falsehoods. Films for Action, an online library of free progressive films, agrees with me. It briefly pulled the movie from its site, after documentary filmmaker Josh Fox wrote an open letter, co-signed by climate scientists and energy experts.
“We are disheartened and dismayed to report that the film is full of misinformation — so much so that for half a day we removed the film from the site,” Films for Action’s April 25 statement reads. “Ultimately, we decided to put it back up because we believe media literacy, critique and debate is the best solution to misinformation.”
Here, I will lay out the case for why this film should have stayed on the cutting room floor.
The film has several factual errors about clean energy
It’s not surprising that the film gets basic energy facts wrong and that information included is out of date: There are hardly any climate or energy experts featured.
Early in the film, Gibbs goes to see an electric vehicle demonstration. He concludes they are dirty because they probably run on coal.
Except it’s not true. Two years ago, electric vehicles already had lower emissions than new gas-powered cars across the country. This is because the US electricity system has been slowly getting cleaner over the past decade.
The film’s wind and solar facts are also old. It quotes efficiency for solar PV from more than a decade ago. And it doesn’t mention the fact that solar costs have plummeted since then, and that we’ve learned how to get more wind and solar onto the grid. The film instead acts like this is impossible to do.
The largest share of the movie’s scorn goes to biomass — generally, burning wood — which supplied less than 2 percent of the US electricity mix last year. But the filmmakers obscure that fact, showing graphs that imply biomass is leading to forest destruction across the US.
When Gibbs questions environmental activists about biomass, they tell him it’s complicated. Because, well, it is.
When we burn wood for electricity, we are using carbon that is already moving between our air, oceans, and land. By contrast, when we dig up and burn fossil fuels, we’re bringing carbon up from underground. That is how we got increasing carbon levels in our atmosphere and oceans. Burning fossil fuels, not wood, is the main cause of climate change. It’s a basic fact I teach to my undergraduates. But the filmmakers neglected to learn it.
That said, biomass can be — and often is — done poorly, with significant environmental harms. Scientists have raised concerns over the European Union’s incentives for renewables leading to wood being shipped from North America. Environmental groups, including the ones pilloried in the film, have criticized the industry. But you wouldn’t learn any of these facts from watching Planet of the Humans.
A biased take on the environmental movement
There are critiques that can be made of environmental NGOs. But the way activists are portrayed in this film is inaccurate. One of the film’s main theses is that the climate movement is captured by corporations. As Gibbs puts it, environmentalists are “leading us off the cliff.”
The evidence for this assertion? The Union of Concerned Scientists’ support for electric vehicles. And Sierra Club’s promotion of solar. And the fact that 350.org has received funding from environmental foundations. I fail to see how any of these facts are problematic.
The most egregious attack is made against Bill McKibben, a dedicated and kind environmental leader. As he has said, he has never taken any money for his environmental activism with 350.org. Watching this film, you might mistake him for a robber baron.
McKibben wrote to the filmmakers, to clarify his views. They did not write back. As he put it: “That seems like bad journalism, and bad faith.”
Unlike the uninformed contrarians behind this film, McKibben spent his Earth Day talking with young activists, and pushing banks to stop funding fossil fuels. On April 23, one of those banks, Morgan Stanley committed to not provide financing for drilling in the Arctic refuge. For a “corporate hack,” Bill McKibben sure spends a lot of time taking on corporations. And those corporations in turn spend a lot of time harassing him.
If the corporate capture of the environmental movement is the problem, it’s puzzling why the film has almost nothing to say about corporations themselves. You know, the fossil fuel companies and electric utilities that lied about climate science for 30 years? The climate denial campaign is not mentioned.
Instead, the film denigrates the crucial work of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. Led by Mary Anne Hitt, this program helped stop the construction of 200 coal plants, and successfully pushed for the retirement of 300 others.
Rather than recognizing the Sierra Club’s achievement, the filmmakers falsely attribute the growth in natural gas to Beyond Coal. Alas, environmental groups are not in charge of planning new power plants: if they were, we would have a lot less fossil electricity. Utilities propose power plants to regulators, who approve them. Over the past decade, electric utilities have proposed an enormous amount of new gas facilities, which groups like the Sierra Club have opposed.
Perhaps the most insulting thing is that this film comes at a time when the youth climate movement is finally gaining momentum. Young women like Greta Thunberg and Varshini Prakash have helped climate change break into the mainstream. Rather than bolster the work of the Sunrise Movement, Fridays for Future, or Zero Hour, it undermines these activists’ achievements by sowing confusion and doubt.
Why is Michael Moore promoting misinformation on climate change?
Throughout, the filmmakers twist basic facts, misleading the public about who is responsible for the climate crisis. We are used to climate science misinformation campaigns from fossil fuel corporations. But from progressive filmmakers? That’s new.
It’s difficult to understand Michael Moore’s motivations for blaming clean energy and environmental groups instead of fossil fuel companies or electric utilities. His previous films— like Roger & Me, Sicko, and Bowling for Columbine —were centered on holding corporations accountable. More recently, he endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders at the same rally as climate champion Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The Sanders campaign centered on an ambitious 100 percent renewable energy goal.
Yet, the film Moore backed concludes that population control, not clean energy, is the answer. This is a highly questionable solution, which has more in common with anti-immigration hate groups than the progressive movement.
Related Having fewer kids will not save the climate
The fact is that wealthy people in the developed world have the largest environmental footprints — and they also have the lowest birthrates. When this message is promoted, it’s implying that poor, people of color should have fewer children.
Not to mention the fact that pushing population control is completely disrespectful of women’s reproductive autonomy. Notably, almost all the “experts” featured in the film are white men.
It is sad to think of the world we are leaving for children. Yet, if we embraced clean energy, then they would not have to grow up in a world tied to dirty fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, many people are taking this film seriously. It got 4 out of 5 stars from The Guardian, normally a paragon of climate reporting. And The Late Show with Stephen Colbert gave Moore precious air time to promote it on Earth Day. I would have rather seen Colbert interview a young climate activist. She would have known more about the subject.
We have already warmed the planet by more than 1°C, and we are running out of time to scale up clean energy. Planet of the Humans has sowed confusion at a time when we need clarity on the climate crisis.
My only hope is that this film will be buried, and few will watch it or remember it. Much like fossil fuels, it would be best left underground.
Leah C. Stokes is an assistant professor at the University of California Santa Barbara. Her new book, Short Circuiting Policy, examines electric utilities’ role in holding back progress on clean energy and climate policy.


vox--2020-04-28--Retail Covid-19 testing is a massive failure for black communities

Adarra Benjamin , a 26-year-old black social worker in Chicago , lacks the luxury of staying home during the Covid-19 pandemic .
She assists several elderly patients .
Her work demands travel by public transit .
Her duties — picking up groceries , running to the post office , counseling clients — have , amid the news of death and disease , devolved into a series of anxiety-inducing tasks .
“ I am afraid because my job consists of me not only going in and out of someone else ’ s home , but shopping for other people , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like panic.
” Adarra remains at risk as an essential worker .
Chicago stands flush with coronavirus .
Cook County , which surrounds Chicago , has the sixth-most cases of all counties in the country , according to a New York Times tracker , as of April 27 .
The virus continues to ravage the city ’ s predominantly black South Side , where Adarra lives with her mother .
Recently , when Adarra ’ s cousin exhibited symptoms of Covid-19 , particularly difficulty breathing , he struggled to obtain a test , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received one testing positive .
The situation rattled Adarra .
“ It has honestly , like , put me into fear , ” she said .
“ To know he went there and that they didn ’ t have a test to take immediately pushes me back , like , ‘ Okay , maybe I could do more harm by going to get tested than I would just staying away.
’ ” “ So now I am really confused as to should I get tested , ” she said .
“ Do they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists , politicians , and city data echo the concern about equitable access in Chicago .
According to the Chicago Department of Public Health , black people in Chicago make up a majority of Covid-19 deaths , at 56 percent , as of April 26 .
Yet for weeks , the black neighborhoods on the South Side of the city with the highest number of cases were tested at a lower rate than the whiter wealthy areas in the city center .
It is a problem reflected statewide , and increasingly nationwide .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that even though black residents make up 37 percent of the state ’ s Covid-19 deaths , they only received 13 percent of the state ’ s tests , as of April 23 .
It wasn ’ t supposed to be this way .
Chicago serves as the model city of what the White House christened a month ago as an “ extraordinary ” and “ historic ” public-private partnership to offer free , accessible coronavirus testing across the country at retail pharmacies and grocery stores .
With three current sites ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area is among cities with the most retail testing sites in the nation .
But a Type Investigations and Vox analysis shows the sites are largely inaccessible for residents in the hardest-hit areas : the city ’ s predominantly black neighborhoods .
The closest retail drive-through testing site to Adarra is at least 18 miles away .
At a press conference on Monday , President Trump touted the testing program , saying , “ These private sector leaders along with others have been exceptional partners in an unprecedented drive to expand the states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capabilities.
” But more than a month after the program ’ s debut , the sluggish rollout and locations of the retail drive-throughs participating in the White House ’ s partnership have left cities and states scrambling to find solutions for testing , especially in majority-minority neighborhoods , where residents of color have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic .
The Trump administration promised widespread , retail-based testing , but the rollout was slow .
Black communities have been devastated .
On March 13 , the Trump administration announced its partnership with Walgreens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide a portion of their parking lots across the nation for free drive-through testing .
The administration asserted that the plan would “ meet the needs of the American public , ” with Trump emphasizing that “ we have many , many locations ” and that “ we cover very , very strongly our country — stores in virtually every location.
” White House coronavirus response coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx said the plan was expected to be so efficient that after scaling across the United States , “ we want to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partner stores professed a focus on the hardest-hit communities .
Walgreens declared testing would focus on “ our most vulnerable citizens , ” and CVS said it would scale to quickly serve “ the most vulnerable members of our communities.
” The stock market rallied after the announcement .
Rite Aid and Kroger joined the effort soon after .
Yet the ambition of this project is overshadowed by its failures , as Covid-19 infections increased exponentially in America ’ s urban centers .
As of April 16 , there were only 17 retail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days prior , on the 13th , NPR characterized retail drive-through testing as “ largely nonexistent.
” ) All of those stores , save three , are located in predominantly white areas .
Between April 17 and 27 , 43 more retail testing sites opened , but only five of those are in predominantly black areas .
A Health and Human Services spokesperson said the department is working with pharmacy and retail companies to “ expand rapidly to areas that are under-tested and socially vulnerable ” and that the department is “ using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are under-tested and socially vulnerable , especially those with high populations of black , Hispanic and rural Americans.
” They noted that “ as of April 24 , 63 sites are testing Americans in 24 states.
” However , of the 63 testing sites operating , or announced to open as of April 24 , only eight — about 13 percent — are in predominantly black neighborhoods .
Black Americans make up 30 percent of Covid-19 patients , according to preliminary nationwide data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart of the city ’ s black community , the retail testing centers are essentially a nonfactor .
After watching the president ’ s store-based testing announcement , Illinois state Sen. Robert Peters said “ it came off like this is more about highlighting all these people in this business space with no real concrete plan — it ’ s a pipe dream.
” Peters is one of the many black politicians and activists who , in recent weeks , have pushed for a South Side testing center to fill the gaps .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Side , too .
This month , Illinois state representative and board member of Loretto Hospital LaShawn K. Ford joined in a press conference outside Loretto to decry the lack of testing in the West Side community of Austin , Chicago , where about 80 percent of residents are African American .
“ On the West Side of Chicago , the demand for testing is very high , and the supply is very minimal — that ’ s the problem , ” Ford said .
“ When we hear the governor of Illinois @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about bending the curve , what we ’ re going to find is we really can ’ t talk about raw numbers when we ’ re not testing a large segment of our population , and that ’ s the black community .
There are no major test sites in the black community.
” ( One initial retail site is in the city limits , in a neighborhood adjacent to Austin but not predominantly black . )
Ford said he ’ s been under pressure from his constituents , who are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these huge test sites set up by the government , and Walmart , and other facilities with big drive-ups .
Yet a large segment of the population is ignored .
And it ’ s been recently noted that the segment that has been ignored is the segment that ’ s been the hardest hit with deaths and positive cases.
” According to public data , black Chicago residents are dying of Covid-19 at four times the rate of white residents .
Statewide , black Illinoisans are testing positive at twice the rate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , black Illinoisans have received about half as many tests .
Assessing the White House retail testing plan from its inception , Rutgers professor Naa Oyo A. Kwate argues that centering stores as testing points compounds issues of access because of retailers ’ segregated location patterns , generally away from black neighborhoods .
Kwate said a more equitable option could have been chosen , such as post office parking lots or schools , which are more equally distributed throughout communities .
“ Trying to respond to the pandemic by partnering with private retail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sense , ” said Kwate , adding that the few testing centers in the Chicago area aren ’ t strategically located relative to the population density and the city ’ s hardest-hit communities .
With half of the Chicago region ’ s retail testing centers at a Walgreens and Walmart in far-flung suburbs , Kwate said , “ if you ’ re on either on the South Side or in a predominantly black suburb , you have to go a really long way — you ’ re driving on the expressway for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tolls to get there .
It ’ s nowhere close to where you are.
” Struggles with the White House ’ s rollout of its retail plan have been coupled with rhetorical efforts to shift responsibility and blame .
Initially , the White House took the lead .
On March 13 , standing in the Rose Garden alongside store CEOs , White House officials described retailers playing an integral role in the coronavirus task force ’ s “ new partnership with the private sector to vastly increase and accelerate our capacity to test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reinforced the White House and federal government ’ s leadership role .
CVS noted that “ we are partnering with the federal government to support this effort , ” and Walgreens announced that locations had been chosen “ in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
” According to reporting from the Chicago Tribune , Walmart ’ s testing centers in the Chicago area were “ privately managed under federal contracts.
” Yet despite the federal government announcing the retail plan , choosing the retail locations , and managing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onus of shortcomings on the states .
On April 14 , after reports of sputters in retail testing , Trump distanced himself from the plan .
He asserted that if states wanted retail testing centers , they should find a way to direct it themselves .
“ Washington shouldn ’ t be doing that , ” Trump said during a briefing .
“ We can ’ t be thinking about a Walmart parking lot that ’ s 2,000 miles away where we ’ re doing testing , but a governor of a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and right down the line.
” The next day , Trump once again framed the initiative as a responsibility of state governors and companies , and threatened to punish these local leaders if they poorly implemented it .
Asked when retail testing would be broadly available to more Americans , Trump replied that “ the companies will determine that , and the governors will determine that , ” adding , “ if we ’ re not happy , we ’ ll take very strong action against a state or a governor.
” Explaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wider scale , reports in Business Insider and the Washington Post cited retailers ’ struggle to gain access to enough tests and testing materials , and manage the large demand .
The White House addressed concerns of scale and equity in a recent press briefing .
“ I want you to know that we ’ re building on the public-private partnership that the president rolled out with pharmacy and retail companies like CVS , Walgreens , Rite Aid , and Kroger to accelerate testing for more Americans in more communities across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be increasing access to testing for undertested , underserved , and minority communities , ” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams last Wednesday , mentioning companies that have joined the effort since the initial announcement .
Amid federal dysfunction , under pressure from advocacy groups and politicians , and in light of emerging racial disparities , many governors have moved to fill the void of the president ’ s testing plan in minority neighborhoods .
This month , Illinois Gov .
J.B. Pritzker announced that he would be launching new testing centers in black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Edwards said he would be doing the same in rural areas .
New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo announced his administration would provide pop-up testing sites in “ minority communities downstate ” in New York City .
And partnering with the Urban League , Florida recently opened walk-up centers to reach black communities in Broward County .
The White House ’ s inability to facilitate widespread free public testing through private sector retailers fits within a broader critique of the administration ’ s market-based response to the coronavirus .
Earlier this month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticized the posture , tweeting , “ I never want to hear that the government should be run like a business .
This crisis has laid bare the dangers of gutting our public institutions & services , depending on companies dedicated to profit rather than government-mandated to work for the common good .
Death is the result.
” The Times editorial board expressed similar sentiments , describing the White House coronavirus response as an “ embrace of markets so extreme it might seem farcical if it wasn ’ t resulting in unnecessary deaths.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ black Americans , who have previously suffered under marquee failed federal public-private partnerships .
In her book Race for Profit , Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor explores how reliance on private sector solutions to provide access to services like housing has traditionally left black communities woefully underserved .
“ There is a reason why African American organizations , community groups , have always called for a greater role of the state , because of the ways that racism and discrimination run rampant and unchecked in the private sector , ” Taylor said last year in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , establishing a national coronavirus testing plan remains crucial for both managing spread and tracking inequity .
This month , medical professionals continue to criticize the racial disparities in testing , particularly among African Americans .
Though Trump has been reluctant to engage on testing failures , he has acknowledged Covid-19 ’ s impact on African Americans has “ been disproportional.
” Yet as retailers like CVS and Walmart continue to slowly scale up , they are facing problems in reaching people without access to cars , or who live in segregated neighborhoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Trump administration has long opposed the consideration of disparate impacts in policymaking .
It remains to be seen whether the federal government will be able to implement a testing system to fully address the racial inequities — and stymie the coronavirus ’ s disparate impact on black Americans .
This article was reported in partnership with Type Investigations .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Adarra Benjamin, a 26-year-old black home care worker in Chicago, lacks the luxury of staying home during the Covid-19 pandemic. She assists several elderly patients. Her work demands travel by public transit. Her duties — picking up groceries, running to the post office, counseling clients — have, amid the news of death and disease, devolved into a series of anxiety-inducing tasks.
“I am afraid because my job consists of me not only going in and out of someone else’s home, but shopping for other people,” she said. “It just feels like panic.”
Adarra remains at risk as an essential worker. Chicago stands flush with coronavirus. Cook County, which includes Chicago, has the sixth-most cases of all counties in the country, according to a New York Times tracker, as of April 27. The virus continues to ravage the city’s predominantly black South Side, where Adarra lives with her mother. Recently, when Adarra’s cousin exhibited symptoms of Covid-19, particularly difficulty breathing, he struggled to obtain a test, going to the hospital twice before he received one testing positive.
The situation rattled Adarra. “It has honestly, like, put me into fear,” she said. “To know he went there and that they didn’t have a test to take immediately pushes me back, like, ‘Okay, maybe I could do more harm by going to get tested than I would just staying away.’”
“So now I am really confused as to should I get tested,” she said. “Do they even have enough tests?”
Local activists, politicians, and city data echo the concern about equitable access in Chicago. According to the Chicago Department of Public Health, black people in Chicago make up a majority of Covid-19 deaths, at 56 percent, as of April 26.
Yet for weeks, some black neighborhoods on the South Side of the city with the highest number of cases were tested at a lower rate than the whiter wealthy areas in the city center. It is a problem reflected statewide, and increasingly nationwide. Available data from the state of Illinois shows that even though black residents make up 37 percent of the state’s Covid-19 deaths, they only received 13 percent of the state’s tests, as of April 23.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Chicago serves as the model city of what the White House christened a month ago as an “extraordinary” and “historic” public-private partnership to offer free, accessible coronavirus testing across the country at retail pharmacies and grocery stores.
With three current sites (one recently closed), the Chicago area is among cities with the most retail testing sites in the nation. But a Type Investigations and Vox analysis shows the sites are largely inaccessible for residents in the hardest-hit areas: the city’s predominantly black neighborhoods. The closest retail drive-through testing site to Adarra is at least 18 miles away.
At a press conference on Monday, President Trump touted the testing program, saying, “These private sector leaders along with others have been exceptional partners in an unprecedented drive to expand the states’ capabilities and our country’s capabilities.”
But more than a month after the program’s debut, the sluggish rollout and locations of the retail drive-throughs participating in the White House’s partnership have left cities and states scrambling to find solutions for testing, especially in majority-minority neighborhoods, where residents of color have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
The Trump administration promised widespread, retail-based testing, but the rollout was slow. Black communities have been devastated.
On March 13, the Trump administration announced its partnership with Walgreens, Walmart, Target, and CVS to provide a portion of their parking lots across the nation for free drive-through testing. The administration asserted that the plan would “meet the needs of the American public,” with Trump emphasizing that “we have many, many locations” and that “we cover very, very strongly our country — stores in virtually every location.”
White House coronavirus response coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx said the plan was expected to be so efficient that after scaling across the United States, “we want to bring this across the continent.” Moreover, partner stores professed a focus on the hardest-hit communities. Walgreens declared testing would focus on “our most vulnerable citizens,” and CVS said it would scale to quickly serve “the most vulnerable members of our communities.” The stock market rallied after the announcement. Rite Aid and Kroger joined the effort soon after.
Yet the ambition of this project is overshadowed by its failures, as Covid-19 infections increased exponentially in America’s urban centers. As of April 16, there were only 17 retail locations open. (Just a few days prior, on the 13th, NPR characterized retail drive-through testing as “largely nonexistent.” ) All of those stores, save three, are located in predominantly white areas. Between April 17 and 27, 43 more retail testing sites opened, but only five of those are in predominantly black areas.
A Health and Human Services spokesperson said the department is working with pharmacy and retail companies to “expand rapidly to areas that are under-tested and socially vulnerable” and that the department is “using data to locate sites in counties that are under-tested and socially vulnerable, especially those with high populations of black, Hispanic and rural Americans.” They noted that “as of April 24, 63 sites are testing Americans in 24 states.”
However, of the 63 testing sites operating, or announced to open as of April 24, only eight — about 13 percent — are in predominantly black neighborhoods. Black Americans make up 30 percent of Covid-19 patients, according to preliminary nationwide data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
On the South Side of Chicago, the heart of the city’s black community, the retail testing centers are essentially a nonfactor. After watching the president’s store-based testing announcement, Illinois state Sen. Robert Peters said “it came off like this is more about highlighting all these people in this business space with no real concrete plan — it’s a pipe dream.”
Peters is one of the many black politicians and activists who, in recent weeks, have pushed for a South Side testing center to fill the gaps. Accessible testing is needed on the West Side, too. This month, Illinois state representative and board member of Loretto Hospital LaShawn K. Ford joined in a press conference outside Loretto to decry the lack of testing in the West Side community of Austin, Chicago, where about 80 percent of residents are African American.
“On the West Side of Chicago, the demand for testing is very high, and the supply is very minimal — that’s the problem,” Ford said. “When we hear the governor of Illinois and the president of the United States talk about bending the curve, what we’re going to find is we really can’t talk about raw numbers when we’re not testing a large segment of our population, and that’s the black community. There are no major test sites in the black community.” (One initial retail site is in the city limits, in a neighborhood adjacent to Austin but not predominantly black.)
Ford said he’s been under pressure from his constituents, who are “frustrated because they see other communities with these huge test sites set up by the government, and Walmart, and other facilities with big drive-ups. Yet a large segment of the population is ignored. And it’s been recently noted that the segment that has been ignored is the segment that’s been the hardest hit with deaths and positive cases.”
According to public data, black Chicago residents are dying of Covid-19 at four times the rate of white residents. Statewide, black Illinoisans are testing positive at twice the rate of their white counterparts. All the while, black Illinoisans have received about half as many tests.
A retail-based testing plan leaves communities of color behind
Assessing the White House retail testing plan from its inception, Rutgers professor Naa Oyo A. Kwate argues that centering stores as testing points compounds issues of access because of retailers’ segregated location patterns, generally away from black neighborhoods.
Kwate said a more equitable option could have been chosen, such as post office parking lots or schools, which are more equally distributed throughout communities. “Trying to respond to the pandemic by partnering with private retail sites, that doesn’t really make sense,” said Kwate, adding that the few testing centers in the Chicago area aren’t strategically located relative to the population density and the city’s hardest-hit communities.
With half of the Chicago region’s retail testing centers at a Walgreens and Walmart in far-flung suburbs, Kwate said, “if you’re on either on the South Side or in a predominantly black suburb, you have to go a really long way — you’re driving on the expressway for at least half an hour, paying tolls to get there. It’s nowhere close to where you are.”
Struggles with the White House’s rollout of its retail plan have been coupled with rhetorical efforts to shift responsibility and blame. Initially, the White House took the lead. On March 13, standing in the Rose Garden alongside store CEOs, White House officials described retailers playing an integral role in the coronavirus task force’s “new partnership with the private sector to vastly increase and accelerate our capacity to test for the coronavirus.”
Later, stores reinforced the White House and federal government’s leadership role. CVS noted that “we are partnering with the federal government to support this effort,” and Walgreens announced that locations had been chosen “in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.”
According to reporting from the Chicago Tribune, Walmart’s testing centers in the Chicago area were “privately managed under federal contracts.” Yet despite the federal government announcing the retail plan, choosing the retail locations, and managing the retail contracts, the president placed the onus of shortcomings on the states.
On April 14, after reports of sputters in retail testing, Trump distanced himself from the plan. He asserted that if states wanted retail testing centers, they should find a way to direct it themselves. “Washington shouldn’t be doing that,” Trump said during a briefing. “We can’t be thinking about a Walmart parking lot that’s 2,000 miles away where we’re doing testing, but a governor of a state can, and a mayor can, and right down the line.”
The next day, Trump once again framed the initiative as a responsibility of state governors and companies, and threatened to punish these local leaders if they poorly implemented it. Asked when retail testing would be broadly available to more Americans, Trump replied that “the companies will determine that, and the governors will determine that,” adding, “if we’re not happy, we’ll take very strong action against a state or a governor.”
Explaining why the public-private partnership has not reached a wider scale, reports in Business Insider and the Washington Post cited retailers’ struggle to gain access to enough tests and testing materials, and manage the large demand.
The White House addressed concerns of scale and equity in a recent press briefing. “I want you to know that we’re building on the public-private partnership that the president rolled out with pharmacy and retail companies like CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid, and Kroger to accelerate testing for more Americans in more communities across the nation. We’re going to be increasing access to testing for undertested, underserved, and minority communities,” said Surgeon General Jerome Adams last Wednesday, mentioning companies that have joined the effort since the initial announcement.
Amid federal dysfunction, under pressure from advocacy groups and politicians, and in light of emerging racial disparities, many governors have moved to fill the void of the president’s testing plan in minority neighborhoods. This month, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker announced that he would be launching new testing centers in black communities. Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards said he would be doing the same in rural areas. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced his administration would provide pop-up testing sites in “minority communities downstate” in New York City. And partnering with the Urban League, Florida recently opened walk-up centers to reach black communities in Broward County.
The market-based failure resonates with black Americans
The White House’s inability to facilitate widespread free public testing through private sector retailers fits within a broader critique of the administration’s market-based response to the coronavirus.
Earlier this month, New York Times Magazine writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized the posture, tweeting, “I never want to hear that the government should be run like a business. This crisis has laid bare the dangers of gutting our public institutions & services, depending on companies dedicated to profit rather than government-mandated to work for the common good. Death is the result.” The Times editorial board expressed similar sentiments, describing the White House coronavirus response as an “embrace of markets so extreme it might seem farcical if it wasn’t resulting in unnecessary deaths.”
The market-based failure resonates particularly for black Americans, who have previously suffered under marquee failed federal public-private partnerships. In her book Race for Profit, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor explores how reliance on private sector solutions to provide access to services like housing has traditionally left black communities woefully underserved.
“There is a reason why African American organizations, community groups, have always called for a greater role of the state, because of the ways that racism and discrimination run rampant and unchecked in the private sector,” Taylor said last year in an interview with Chris Hayes.
Moving forward, establishing a national coronavirus testing plan remains crucial for both managing spread and tracking inequity. This month, medical professionals continue to criticize the racial disparities in testing, particularly among African Americans. Though Trump has been reluctant to engage on testing failures, he has acknowledged Covid-19’s impact on African Americans has “been disproportional.”
Yet as retailers like CVS and Walmart continue to slowly scale up, they are facing problems in reaching people without access to cars, or who live in segregated neighborhoods where these stores are not as accessible. The Trump administration has long opposed the consideration of disparate impacts in policymaking. It remains to be seen whether the federal government will be able to implement a testing system to fully address the racial inequities — and stymie the coronavirus’s disparate impact on black Americans.
This article was reported in partnership with Type Investigations.
Correction, April 28: An earlier version of this article misstated Adarra Benjamin’s job title, and a graphic misstated the number of deaths for certain demographic groups.
CREDITS
Type Investigations
Reporting editor: Alissa Figueroa
Data editor: Taylor Eldridge
Fact-checker: Hannah Beckler
Vox
Story editor: Kay Steiger
Graphics: Christina Animashaun
Photographer: Olivia Obineme for Vox
Visuals editor: Kainaz Amaria
Copy editors: Tim Williams and Tanya Pai


vox--2020-04-28--How anxiety changes political behavior

How anxiety changes political behavior

Why do some Americans react differently to the threat of terrorism than to the threat of the coronavirus ?
This is a question I ’ ve been thinking about a lot lately , particularly in the wake of small protests emerging in opposition to state stay-at-home orders .
And particularly as demands from some conservatives to “ reopen the economy ” continue despite the pandemic continuing to kill thousands of Americans .
On Twitter , MSNBC host Chris Hayes shared many of the same thoughts , noting that after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 , “ We completely transformed nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governance ” in response .
Many of the same voices who urged that transformation seem to be reacting to the coronavirus pandemic — which has killed tens of thousands more than the 9/11 attacks — far differently .
To be sure , while the reaction to 9/11 was transformative for millions of Americans , it didn ’ t have the same economic repercussions as the coronavirus pandemic , but the differing attitudes to terrorism and pandemics were obvious well before the stay-at-home orders were issued .
Researchers on how anxiety impacts our politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disease are the result of the politicization of anxiety , an emotional reaction to a perceived threat .
Bethany Albertson of the University of Texas and Shana Gadarian of Syracuse University are the authors of Anxious Politics : Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World .
In their work , they ’ ve found that what individuals want most when facing anxiety is certainty and protection .
“ When we ’ re anxious , we need to put our trust in someone to protect us , ” Albertson told me .
In more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beacon of security for many Americans , leading to the “ rally around the flag ” effect in which support for presidents and trust in the government rises during times of crisis .
In their book , they looked at four different policy areas — public health , terrorism , climate change , and immigration — and divided them between “ framed threats ” and “ unframed threats.
” In short , a “ framed threat ” is a partisan one , where the “ threat ” level depends on your political perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change , others are very anxious about immigration levels ) .
An “ unframed ” threat , like terrorism or a public health catastrophe , is one where the threat is immediate and obvious to everyone .
As Gadarian told the Niskanen Center in an interview , “ [ unframed threats are ] ones where we don ’ t actually need politicians to necessarily tell you that you should be scared .
Democrats and Republicans alike are scared about terrorism after 9/11.
” Unframed threats , then , are supposed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the federal government ’ s poor response and an existing lack of trust in institutions ( including the media ) , has scrambled that response .
Albertson told me that in the midst of the pandemic , “ who [ is ] feeling anxious about this threat , and who people are trusting , have strong partisan predictors , ” which broke with their previous research showing that response to a pandemic-level threat would be largely nonpartisan .
But Americans still want to hear from medical authorities over politicians .
Gadarian told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to hear as much from the political leaders , particularly when they think that their performance to date has been pretty bad.
” In this interview , Albertson and Gadarian discussed how partisanship and the actions of political elites are impacting anxiety and what reporters ( like me ! )
and the media can do to help .
This interview has been edited for length and clarity .
How do you define anxiety ?
You do not necessarily mean the anxiety that I feel about going to the grocery store during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anxiety in a political context ?
Well , I think actually the anxiety about getting sick is part of the politicization of anxiety .
So , when we talk about anxiety , we ’ re talking about a kind of emotional reaction to a threat that people see in the environment — the recognition of a threat , and the uncertainty that goes around with how to protect oneself .
So , in a pandemic , the kinds of things that people become anxious about may really be about becoming sick .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so that can be a source of anxiety in terrorism , as well .
I think the concerns that people have , some of them are wrapped up in these concerns about physical harm .
... Now , in different parts of the book , we look at four different policy areas .
We look at immigration , we look at terrorism , we look at climate change , and we look at public health outbreaks .
The anxiety , the source of that anxiety , is different across those areas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are looking for is a way to cope with that anxiety .
And they want policies , and they want leaders who can protect them .
How would you say the anxiety from terrorism differs from the anxiety caused by a public health threat ?
I think one of the variables to think about is whether the threat is coming internally or externally .
In general , when we ’ re anxious , we need to put our trust in someone to protect us .
And so , you can say in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the government .
When we ’ re anxious about the economy , though , and we think the government is at fault , anxiety makes trust in governments go down .
And so , you can think about this as , when we ’ re anxious , like directly after 9/11 , trust in the government goes up , and that ’ s rally around the flag .
That ’ s “ we need to believe in our government to keep us safe and feel protected ” .
And that gives way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last .
And it takes on partisan dimensions over time .
But a public health threat , to the extent it ’ s external , should also prompt an increase of trust .
And it shouldn ’ t hurt trust in government because it is supposed to be this external thing that hits us exogenous to the United States .
...
It ’ s more complicated than that , though , because we ’ re getting daily updates on ways in which the government hasn ’ t been protecting us .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaks down in our current context .
Do you think that that ’ s why some people have turned to conspiracy theories ?
When you are constantly getting news about how the government has failed , or even how medical professionals aren ’ t as knowledgeable , and someone claims , “ I have this means to prove that this is all a hoax , ” or , “ I ’ m the person with the cure , ” [ maybe ] people are just looking for something to trust .
Yeah , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it .
I don ’ t know if you ’ ve talked to Joanne Miller at the University of Delaware about her conspiracy theories work .
She ’ s got some really interesting stuff , and she ’ s out in the field this week with some Covid-19 conspiracy theories .
She and her coauthors argue that conspiracy theories are for people who have experienced political losses .
And they ’ re talking particularly about political conspiracy theories .
But I think this sense of loss and [ the idea ] that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team would be in charge , that kind of psychology leads you to endorse theories that on their face have very little backing .
And I think that sense of , “ Yeah , the government has failed .
No , the experts don ’ t know what they ’ re talking about ” — that work has been done by political elites for a long time to try and denigrate experts .
The current president is particularly good at it , but that is a long-term project , particularly of elites on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government and in other professions .
So you wrote this book not knowing that a global pandemic would arise .
What has surprised you about specifically the American response to the pandemic , based on the research that you ’ ve done ?
I have some other work looking at fear of terrorism and attitudes about Muslims and attitudes about immigrants .
And so , that kind of other-ing that happens in terrorism , it ’ s happening now in Covid-19 , which is very disconcerting in a lot of ways .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff that ’ s surprising , but to me , it ’ s the way in which particularly the president and some right-wing leaders have talked about Covid-19 as a Wuhan virus , as a Chinese virus .
That work that they ’ re doing to other it is a way of casting blame on China , and casting blame away from the government and particularly the president .
And that has really bad implications for blame attribution , and then also [ for ] things like racist violence against groups of Asian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay-at-home orders are not just protests about economic anxiety , although there is part of that .
I mean , it ’ s not surprising .
We ’ ve seen this before .
But this glomming on of anxiety about the virus and othering that ’ s going on about who to blame , and it ’ s anyone but the government , I think that is , again , it ’ s not surprising .
It is a little depressing , though .
In our book , we look at two public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to [ the H1N1 outbreak ] and then we look at responses to a fictional smallpox outbreak .
And in both studies , we both theorized a public health threat as nonpartisan .
And , empirically , we found that responses to a public health threat were nonpartisan .
Where this is different , not too many years later , in the current context we ’ re in now , is who ’ s feeling anxious about this threat , and who people are trusting have strong partisan predictors .
And so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as our nonpartisan issue area and climate change and immigration as our partisan issue areas where people feel anxious .
And partisanship shapes who feels anxious .
But now we see , people on the left are feeling more anxious [ about the coronavirus ] .
Partisanship is shaping who ’ s being trusted .
At the same time , we do see some evidence that some of our theories around public health crises in the book still holds .
People are putting their trust in medical experts .
So it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do want medical expertise in the face of a public health crisis .
What is the best way [ for scientists and others ] to respond to the completely understandable anxiety of people who are looking for information to trust , while also continuing to learn more ?
You ’ re going to have scientists who say something one week and then three weeks later look back and think , “ That was incorrect , ” which is part of the scientific process .
But how do you think that they could do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to people who are not as versed in how the scientific method works ?
That ’ s part of the really big challenge here is , I think generally , as political scientists , we ’ re a little bit sad about how little attention people are paying to politics on a normal basis .
And that ’ s not the case [ now ] .
Local news consumption is up .
People are paying more attention to the media .
They ’ re picking up the phone for polls , also , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for democracy .
But the messages that they ’ re getting are very quick-moving .
And that is hard for people to adjust to .
The World Health Organization says we shouldn ’ t wear masks , and now we should wear masks .
And I do think that ’ s hard for people to keep up with .
We ’ ve recommended that the medical experts be up front and center , and the political leaders take a step back and defer to the doctors and to the head of the health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anxious people want to hear from .
They don ’ t want to hear as much from the political leaders , particularly when they think that the performance to date has been pretty bad , which we see in the polling .
I ’ ve been thinking about how partisanship has impacted , in some ways , if not what the [ government ] response to the coronavirus looked like , the interpretation of coronavirus in the media .
If you could wave a magic wand and change how I do this work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could better report on both the pandemic and the partisan response to it ?
While also getting across that , for most Americans , they ’ re obeying stay at home orders .
They ’ re more concerned about stay-at-home orders being lifted too early rather than too late .
How do you think we could do a better job of getting that across ?
There is this big partisan gap [ that impacts ] who is worried about coronavirus and [ their behaviors .
But while there ’ s still a gap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is disagreement across the parties , in the mass public .
I think reflecting that is good so that people don ’ t feel alone .
I think part of the challenge of this time period is [ that there is ] so much uncertainty , and that people are looking for any kind of solution .
And like you said , sometimes they ’ ll go to solutions that aren ’ t even logical , like conspiracy theories .
But if we , if the media and political leaders can provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have some evidence , and to also call out when there ’ s no evidence , and very explicitly , that would be really helpful for people to know , one , they ’ re not alone .
They ’ re frustrated and they want to go back to work , but they can ’ t yet , and it ’ s for everyone ’ s safety .
Oh , I have one more suggestion .
I ’ ve been thinking about how the epidemiological modeling is hard for people to understand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but because I think counterfactuals are really hard for people .
What would have happened in a different world had we not stayed home ?
I think that ’ s a hard thing to understand .
I ’ ve thought about whether or not we can start thinking about the people who we ’ ve saved by staying home .
To move us in the realm of gains , rather than the realm of losses , showing those people , “ this person is now alive because you stayed at home.
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand the value of staying home and not going back to work .
That ’ s something I ’ ve been kicking around lately .
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 ever , but our distinctive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Why do some Americans react differently to the threat of terrorism than to the threat of the coronavirus?
This is a question I’ve been thinking about a lot lately, particularly in the wake of small protests emerging in opposition to state stay-at-home orders. And particularly as demands from some conservatives to “reopen the economy” continue despite the pandemic continuing to kill thousands of Americans.
On Twitter, MSNBC host Chris Hayes shared many of the same thoughts, noting that after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, “We completely transformed nearly every facet of American public life and governance” in response. Many of the same voices who urged that transformation seem to be reacting to the coronavirus pandemic — which has killed tens of thousands more than the 9/11 attacks — far differently.
Trying to imagine people going around after 9/11 saying "You know, the flu kills 60,000 a people a year so not sure what the big deal is here!" and how the people *now* making that same argument would have received it then. — Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) April 15, 2020
To be sure, while the reaction to 9/11 was transformative for millions of Americans, it didn’t have the same economic repercussions as the coronavirus pandemic, but the differing attitudes to terrorism and pandemics were obvious well before the stay-at-home orders were issued.
Researchers on how anxiety impacts our politics argue that our different responses to terrorism and disease are the result of the politicization of anxiety, an emotional reaction to a perceived threat.
Bethany Albertson of the University of Texas and Shana Gadarian of Syracuse University are the authors of Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. In their work, they’ve found that what individuals want most when facing anxiety is certainty and protection. “When we’re anxious, we need to put our trust in someone to protect us,” Albertson told me. In more typical disasters, the government becomes a beacon of security for many Americans, leading to the “rally round the flag” effect in which support for presidents and trust in the government rises during times of crisis.
In their book, they looked at four different policy areas — public health, terrorism, climate change, and immigration — and divided them between “framed threats” and “unframed threats.” In short, a “framed threat” is a partisan one, where the “threat” level depends on your political perspective (some people are very anxious about climate change; others are very anxious about immigration levels).
An “unframed” threat, like terrorism or a public health catastrophe, is one where the threat is immediate and obvious to everyone. As Gadarian told the Niskanen Center in an interview, unframed threats are “ones where we don’t actually need politicians to necessarily tell you that you should be scared. Democrats and Republicans alike are scared about terrorism after 9/11.” Unframed threats, then, are supposed to be nonpartisan.
But the coronavirus, coupled with the federal government’s poor response and an existing lack of trust in institutions (including the media), has scrambled that response. Albertson told me that in the midst of the pandemic, “who [is] feeling anxious about this threat and who people are trusting have strong partisan predictors,” which broke with their previous research showing that response to a pandemic-level threat would be largely nonpartisan.
But Americans still want to hear from medical authorities over politicians. Gadarian told me, “They don’t want to hear as much from the political leaders, particularly when they think that their performance to date has been pretty bad.”
In this interview, Albertson and Gadarian discussed how partisanship and the actions of political elites are impacting anxiety and what reporters (like me!) and the media can do to help. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Jane Coaston
How do you define anxiety? You do not necessarily mean the anxiety that I feel about going to the grocery store during a pandemic. How do you think about anxiety in a political context?
Shana Gadarian
Well, I think actually the anxiety about getting sick is part of the politicization of anxiety. So, when we talk about anxiety, we’re talking about a kind of emotional reaction to a threat that people see in the environment — the recognition of a threat, and the uncertainty that goes around with how to protect oneself.
So in a pandemic, the kinds of things that people become anxious about may really be about becoming sick. The [anxiety] may be about dying, so that can be a source of anxiety in terrorism, as well. I think the concerns that people have, some of them are wrapped up in these concerns about physical harm. ...
Now, in different parts of the book, we look at four different policy areas. We look at immigration, we look at terrorism, we look at climate change, and we look at public health outbreaks. The anxiety, the source of that anxiety, is different across those areas. But what we argue is that what people are looking for is a way to cope with that anxiety. And they want policies, and they want leaders who can protect them.
Jane Coaston
How would you say the anxiety from terrorism differs from the anxiety caused by a public health threat?
Bethany Albertson
I think one of the variables to think about is whether the threat is coming internally or externally. In general, when we’re anxious, we need to put our trust in someone to protect us. And so you can say in general that anxious Americans put their trust in the government. When we’re anxious about the economy, though, and we think the government is at fault, anxiety makes trust in governments go down.
And so you can think about this as, when we’re anxious, like directly after 9/11, trust in the government goes up, and that’s rally around the flag. That’s “we need to believe in our government to keep us safe and feel protected.” And that gives way over time. It doesn’t last. And it takes on partisan dimensions over time.
But a public health threat, to the extent it’s external, should also prompt an increase of trust. And it shouldn’t hurt trust in government because it is supposed to be this external thing that hits us exogenous to the United States. ...
It’s more complicated than that, though, because we’re getting daily updates on ways in which the government hasn’t been protecting us. And so I think that this external/internal attribution breaks down in our current context.
Jane Coaston
Do you think that’s why some people have turned to conspiracy theories? When you are constantly getting news about how the government has failed, or even how medical professionals aren’t as knowledgeable, and someone claims, “I have this means to prove that this is all a hoax,” or, “I’m the person with the cure,” [maybe] people are just looking for something to trust.
Shana Gadarian
Yeah, I think that that’s part of it. I don’t know if you’ve talked to Joanne Miller at the University of Delaware about her conspiracy theories work. She’s got some really interesting stuff, and she’s out in the field this week with some Covid-19 conspiracy theories. She and her coauthors argue that conspiracy theories are for people who have experienced political losses. And they’re talking particularly about political conspiracy theories.
Jane Coaston
Right.
Shana Gadarian
But I think this sense of loss and [the idea] that if the world were fair then my team would be in charge, that kind of psychology leads you to endorse theories that on their face have very little backing. And I think that sense of, “Yeah, the government has failed. No, the experts don’t know what they’re talking about” — that work has been done by political elites for a long time to try and denigrate experts. The current president is particularly good at it, but that is a long-term project, particularly of elites on the right, to denigrate expertise in government and in other professions.
Jane Coaston
So you wrote this book not knowing that a global pandemic would arise. What has surprised you about specifically the American response to the pandemic, based on the research that you’ve done?
Shana Gadarian
I have some other work looking at fear of terrorism and attitudes about Muslims and attitudes about immigrants. And so, that kind of other-ing that happens in terrorism, it’s happening now in Covid-19, which is very disconcerting in a lot of ways.
I think there’s a lot of stuff that’s surprising, but to me, it’s the way in which particularly the president and some right-wing leaders have talked about Covid-19 as a “Wuhan virus,” as a “Chinese virus.” That work that they’re doing to other it is a way of casting blame on China, and casting blame away from the government and particularly the president. And that has really bad implications for blame attribution, and then also [for] things like racist violence against groups of Asian Americans. And these protests about the stay-at-home orders are not just protests about economic anxiety, although there is part of that.
I mean, it’s not surprising. We’ve seen this before. But this glomming on of anxiety about the virus and othering that’s going on about who to blame, and it’s anyone but the government, I think that is, again, it’s not surprising. It is a little depressing, though.
Bethany Albertson
In our book, we look at two public health crises. We look at responses to [the H1N1 outbreak] and then we look at responses to a fictional smallpox outbreak. And in both studies, we both theorized a public health threat as nonpartisan. And, empirically, we found that responses to a public health threat were nonpartisan.
Where this is different, not too many years later, in the current context we’re in now, is who’s feeling anxious about this threat and who people are trusting have strong partisan predictors. And so we thought of a public health threat as our nonpartisan issue area and climate change and immigration as our partisan issue areas where people feel anxious. And partisanship shapes who feels anxious. But now we see, people on the left are feeling more anxious [about the coronavirus]. Partisanship is shaping who’s being trusted.
At the same time, we do see some evidence that some of our theories around public health crises in the book still holds. People are putting their trust in medical experts. So it’s not everything has changed. People still do want medical expertise in the face of a public health crisis.
Jane Coaston
What is the best way [for scientists and others] to respond to the completely understandable anxiety of people who are looking for information to trust, while also continuing to learn more? You’re going to have scientists who say something one week and then three weeks later look back and think, “That was incorrect,” which is part of the scientific process.
But how do you think that they could do a better job of getting that across to people who are not as versed in how the scientific method works?
Shana Gadarian
Part of the really big challenge here is, I think generally, as political scientists, we’re a little bit sad about how little attention people are paying to politics on a normal basis. And that’s not the case [now]. Local news consumption is up. People are paying more attention to the media. They’re picking up the phone for polls, also, at higher rates, which seems good for democracy. But the messages that they’re getting are very quick-moving. And that is hard for people to adjust to. The World Health Organization says we shouldn’t wear masks, and now we should wear masks. And I do think that’s hard for people to keep up with.
We’ve recommended that the medical experts be up front and center, and the political leaders take a step back and defer to the doctors and to the head of the health agencies, because that’s who anxious people want to hear from. They don’t want to hear as much from the political leaders, particularly when they think that the performance to date has been pretty bad, which we see in the polling.
Jane Coaston
I’ve been thinking about how partisanship has impacted, in some ways, if not what the [government] response to the coronavirus looked like, the interpretation of coronavirus in the media. If you could wave a magic wand and change how I do this work, how do you think that media could better report on both the pandemic and the partisan response to it? While also getting across that, for most Americans, they’re obeying stay-at-home orders. They’re more concerned about stay-at-home orders being lifted too early rather than too late. How do you think we could do a better job of getting that across?
Shana Gadarian
There is this big partisan gap [that impacts] who is worried about coronavirus and [their behaviors. But while there’s still a gap, there is still more agreement than there is disagreement across the parties, in the mass public. I think reflecting that is good so that people don’t feel alone. I think part of the challenge of this time period is [that there is] so much uncertainty, and that people are looking for any kind of solution. And like you said, sometimes they’ll go to solutions that aren’t even logical, like conspiracy theories. But if we, if the media and political leaders, can provide a set of solutions for people that have some evidence, and to also call out when there’s no evidence, and very explicitly, that would be really helpful for people to know, one, they’re not alone. They’re frustrated and they want to go back to work, but they can’t yet, and it’s for everyone’s safety.
Oh, I have one more suggestion. I’ve been thinking about how the epidemiological modeling is hard for people to understand. Not because they’re numbers, but because I think counterfactuals are really hard for people. What would have happened in a different world had we not stayed home? I think that’s a hard thing to understand.
I’ve thought about whether or not we can start thinking about the people who we’ve saved by staying home. To move us in the realm of gains, rather than the realm of losses, showing those people, “This person is now alive because you stayed at home.” And I think personalizing that may help people understand the value of staying home and not going back to work. That’s something I’ve been kicking around lately.