vox--2020-03-14--The Senate won’t consider urgent coronavirus legislation until next week

Early Saturday morning — as concerns about the coronavirus outbreak continued to grow — the House passed a massive bill guaranteeing free coronavirus testing to all Americans .
The Senate , meanwhile , was nowhere to be found .
In fact , many lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had already left for the weekend .
Senate leadership , rather than sticking around , opted to return next week , prompting an apparent delay in their consideration of this legislation as states and medical providers grapple with an influx of coronavirus cases .
The House still needs to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin .
During a press conference on Saturday , Mnuchin said the House needed to make some “ technical corrections ” to the bill , which could mean that lawmakers will have take another vote on Monday .
Doug Andres , a spokesman for McConnell said as much on Saturday , and argued that the attacks on the Senate were unwarranted .
McConnell ’ s decision to leave the Capitol had spurred extensive criticism from Senate Democrats , who ’ ve called his decision “ irresponsible ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday canceled the Senate recess originally scheduled for next week , but opted to travel back to Kentucky as the House was still working on its deal with Mnuchin .
The Senate majority leader ’ s move to distance himself from the negotiation process and go home has led to the hashtag # WheresMitch , which first emerged during the government shutdown last year , to trend on Twitter .
Given Trump ’ s support , the legislation — called the Families First Coronavirus Response Act — is poised to pass the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free testing , it includes 14 paid sick days for workers during the coronavirus outbreak , as well as paid leave that people will be able to use for up to three months .
McConnell has been skeptical of aspects of the measure in the past , and the upper chamber ’ s response won ’ t be fully evident until they return to vote Monday evening .
He did , however , signal that lawmakers would consider it quickly via a statement Saturday morning .
“ Senators will need to carefully review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ But I believe the vast majority of senators in both parties will agree we should act swiftly to secure relief for American workers , families , and small businesses.
” Why there ’ s so much urgency A two-day delay does not seem like much in the grand scheme of things , but the fluidity of the coronavirus situation has led to McConnell ’ s critics , like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , arguing that it ’ s too long to wait .
The House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this delay as well .
It ’ s one that has serious implications .
For example , there were 938 confirmed cases in the US as of the morning of March 11 ; two days later , on the morning of March 13 , there were 1,215 .
In the last few days , President Trump has also declared a national emergency intended to unlock more funding for states to use as they combat the outbreak .
And as Vox ’ s Eliza Barclay and Dylan Scott have written , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know about how quickly the coronavirus could spread .
Depending on how many people contract the virus , a number that could range in the thousands soon , hospitals are set to be overwhelmed with cases and in need of more resources for testing and treatment .
This makes the relief included in the bill — particularly the free testing — of utmost importance .
Thus far , there ’ s been a striking shortage of coronavirus tests that doctors and patients are even able to access .
As of the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19,000 tests had been conducted in the US , according to the COVID Tracking Project .
That figure pales in comparison to some other countries that are dealing with coronavirus crises including South Korea , which has tested more than 140,000 people .
As Vox ’ s Brian Resnick and Dylan Scott write , testing can be imperative both in identifying patients who have the virus , and in tracking others they may have been in contact with , to contain its spread .
The United States ’ systemic failure to test more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to more effectively reduce the virus ’ s reach .
Free testing also makes it more likely that individuals who need it will attempt to get one .
As Rep. Katie Porter pointed out in a hearing last week , the total out-of-pocket costs of a coronavirus test could wind up being more than a thousand dollars .
As a result , the legislation that Congress is considering is incredibly critical — and could have a pivotal impact in addressing the effects of the coronavirus .

Early Saturday morning — as concerns about the coronavirus outbreak continued to grow — the House passed a massive bill guaranteeing free coronavirus testing to all Americans.
The Senate, meanwhile, was nowhere to be found.
In fact, many lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had already left for the weekend. Senate leadership, rather than sticking around, opted to return next week, prompting an apparent delay in their consideration of this legislation as states and medical providers grapple with an influx of coronavirus cases.
The House still needs to make some adjustments to the bill, however, according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. During a press conference on Saturday, Mnuchin said the House needed to make some “technical corrections” to the bill, which could mean that lawmakers will have take another vote on Monday. Doug Andres, a spokesman for McConnell said as much on Saturday, and argued that the attacks on the Senate were unwarranted.
It’s worth noting that the House has not finished their work. Mnuchin just announced the House needs to pass a correction to the package on Monday. The Senate has no bill to vote on. https://t.co/t114JQ5vgU — Doug Andres (@DougAndres) March 14, 2020
McConnell’s decision to leave the Capitol had spurred extensive criticism from Senate Democrats, who’ve called his decision “irresponsible” and “out of touch.” McConnell on Thursday canceled the Senate recess originally scheduled for next week, but opted to travel back to Kentucky as the House was still working on its deal with Mnuchin.
The Senate majority leader’s move to distance himself from the negotiation process and go home has led to the hashtag #WheresMitch, which first emerged during the government shutdown last year, to trend on Twitter.
Given Trump’s support, the legislation — called the Families First Coronavirus Response Act — is poised to pass the Senate next week. In addition to free testing, it includes 14 paid sick days for workers during the coronavirus outbreak, as well as paid leave that people will be able to use for up to three months.
McConnell has been skeptical of aspects of the measure in the past, and the upper chamber’s response won’t be fully evident until they return to vote Monday evening. He did, however, signal that lawmakers would consider it quickly via a statement Saturday morning.
“Senators will need to carefully review the version just passed by the House,” he said. “But I believe the vast majority of senators in both parties will agree we should act swiftly to secure relief for American workers, families, and small businesses.”
Why there’s so much urgency
A two-day delay does not seem like much in the grand scheme of things, but the fluidity of the coronavirus situation has led to McConnell’s critics, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, arguing that it’s too long to wait. The House, it seems, has played a role in this delay as well.
It’s one that has serious implications. For example, there were 938 confirmed cases in the US as of the morning of March 11; two days later, on the morning of March 13, there were 1,215. In the last few days, President Trump has also declared a national emergency intended to unlock more funding for states to use as they combat the outbreak.
And as Vox’s Eliza Barclay and Dylan Scott have written, there’s still a lot we don’t know about how quickly the coronavirus could spread. Depending on how many people contract the virus, a number that could range in the thousands soon, hospitals are set to be overwhelmed with cases and in need of more resources for testing and treatment.
This makes the relief included in the bill — particularly the free testing — of utmost importance.
Thus far, there’s been a striking shortage of coronavirus tests that doctors and patients are even able to access. As of the early hours of March 14, just over 19,000 tests had been conducted in the US, according to the COVID Tracking Project. That figure pales in comparison to some other countries that are dealing with coronavirus crises including South Korea, which has tested more than 140,000 people.
As Vox’s Brian Resnick and Dylan Scott write, testing can be imperative both in identifying patients who have the virus, and in tracking others they may have been in contact with, to contain its spread. The United States’ systemic failure to test more individuals so far has likely kneecapped its ability to more effectively reduce the virus’s reach.
Free testing also makes it more likely that individuals who need it will attempt to get one. As Rep. Katie Porter pointed out in a hearing last week, the total out-of-pocket costs of a coronavirus test could wind up being more than a thousand dollars.
As a result, the legislation that Congress is considering is incredibly critical — and could have a pivotal impact in addressing the effects of the coronavirus.


vox--2020-03-14--After Trump got tested for coronavirus, people who come into contact with him will have their temper

After Trump got tested for coronavirus, people who come into contact with him will have their temperatures taken

All people who come into contact with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will have their temperatures taken by White House doctors , the Trump administration announced Saturday .
“ Out of an abundance of caution , temperature checks are now being performed on any individuals who are in close contact with the president and vice president , ” White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere said .
Shortly before a Saturday press conference at which Trump announced that he has been tested for the novel coronavirus , members of the press — and members of the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — reportedly received temperature checks .
And given Pence was also at the conference , Trump said he wasn ’ t excluded from the new procedure .
“ I had my temperature taken coming into the room , ” Trump said .
The president has repeatedly faced questions over his risk of exposure to the virus , and his critics have argued he has been overly cavalier about protecting himself .
He told reporters a week ago “ I ’ m not concerned at all , ” when asked whether he was worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
And he has refused to stop shaking hands , as public health experts have recommended .
Although the president has been hesitant to adopt some recommendations , these new measures should help protect Trump to some degree — the World Health Organization has said about 88 percent of those with the coronavirus register a fever .
Trump and Pence are part of the demographic most at risk of coronavirus infection At a Friday White House press conference , Trump received a number of questions about his risk of exposure following a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro , for meetings and a dinner last weekend .
Trump shook hands and took a photograph with one member of the delegation who began showing symptoms of the virus three days after that meeting .
He shared a dinner table with another diplomat , Brazilian Chargé d ’ Affaires Nestor Forster , whose symptoms appeared later in the week and who tested positive for Covid-19 on Friday morning , according to Trump ’ s physician , Sean Conley .
Trump has downplayed concerns about this meeting .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I have no idea who he is , ” Trump said during the Friday press conference .
“ But I take pictures and it lasts for literally seconds .
I don ’ t know the gentleman that we ’ re talking about , I have no idea who he is .
I haven ’ t seen the picture.
” And that wasn ’ t the first time Trump has had a brush with coronavirus exposure .
He and close congressional allies attended the 2020 Conservative Political Action Conference ( CPAC ) where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shook hands with a number of Republican lawmakers , later tested positive for the virus .
Several of those lawmakers , including Reps. Doug Collins and Paul Gosar , have chosen to self-quarantine , something the president has said he will not do .
Trump said Saturday , however , that he has taken a coronavirus test , and expects results to come back in a day or two .
But even if he is not infected with the virus , the measures the White House has begun to take are important steps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 73 , is part of the demographic most affected by it .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) has warned that people above the age of 60 , as well as those with compromised immune systems , are at higher risk for adverse reactions to the virus .
Speaking at Saturday ’ s press conference , US Surgeon General Jerome Adams stressed the need for all people to take precautionary measures , regardless of their general health , in order to protect older Americans and those with health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ re not to protect the 30-year-old or the 20-year-old from getting coronavirus , ” he said .
“ They are there to protect your nana and granddaddy.
” Trump is a grandfather — and the White House ’ s new measures should help him limit further risk of exposure .

All people who come into contact with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will have their temperatures taken by White House doctors, the Trump administration announced Saturday.
“Out of an abundance of caution, temperature checks are now being performed on any individuals who are in close contact with the president and vice president,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere said.
Shortly before a Saturday press conference at which Trump announced that he has been tested for the novel coronavirus, members of the press — and members of the administration who shared a podium with the president — reportedly received temperature checks. And given Pence was also at the conference, Trump said he wasn’t excluded from the new procedure.
“I had my temperature taken coming into the room,” Trump said.
The president has repeatedly faced questions over his risk of exposure to the virus, and his critics have argued he has been overly cavalier about protecting himself.
He told reporters a week ago “I’m not concerned at all,” when asked whether he was worried about having been near those with the virus. And he has refused to stop shaking hands, as public health experts have recommended.
Although the president has been hesitant to adopt some recommendations, these new measures should help protect Trump to some degree — the World Health Organization has said about 88 percent of those with the coronavirus register a fever.
Trump and Pence are part of the demographic most at risk of coronavirus infection
At a Friday White House press conference, Trump received a number of questions about his risk of exposure following a visit from Brazilian government officials, including Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, for meetings and a dinner last weekend.
Trump shook hands and took a photograph with one member of the delegation who began showing symptoms of the virus three days after that meeting. He shared a dinner table with another diplomat, Brazilian Chargé d’Affaires Nestor Forster, whose symptoms appeared later in the week and who tested positive for Covid-19 on Friday morning, according to Trump’s physician, Sean Conley.
Trump has downplayed concerns about this meeting.
“There was somebody that they say has it, I have no idea who he is,” Trump said during the Friday press conference. “But I take pictures and it lasts for literally seconds. I don’t know the gentleman that we’re talking about, I have no idea who he is. I haven’t seen the picture.”
And that wasn’t the first time Trump has had a brush with coronavirus exposure. He and close congressional allies attended the 2020 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) where one attendee, who met with and shook hands with a number of Republican lawmakers, later tested positive for the virus. Several of those lawmakers, including Reps. Doug Collins and Paul Gosar, have chosen to self-quarantine, something the president has said he will not do.
Trump said Saturday, however, that he has taken a coronavirus test, and expects results to come back in a day or two. But even if he is not infected with the virus, the measures the White House has begun to take are important steps for protecting the president, who, at 73, is part of the demographic most affected by it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has warned that people above the age of 60, as well as those with compromised immune systems, are at higher risk for adverse reactions to the virus.
Speaking at Saturday’s press conference, US Surgeon General Jerome Adams stressed the need for all people to take precautionary measures, regardless of their general health, in order to protect older Americans and those with health conditions.
“Social distancing and mitigation, they’re not to protect the 30-year-old or the 20-year-old from getting coronavirus,” he said. “They are there to protect your nana and granddaddy.”
Trump is a grandfather — and the White House’s new measures should help him limit further risk of exposure.


vox--2020-03-14--Trump has tested negative for coronavirus, White House says

President Donald Trump has tested negative for coronavirus , just one day after he took the test and after multiple exposures to people who had contracted the disease .
During a Saturday press conference , Trump surprisingly told reporters that he was tested the night before for Covid-19 , the official term for the novel pandemic coronavirus .
Hours later , Trump ’ s physician released a letter to the public saying “ This evening I received confirmation that the test is negative ” and that “ the President remains symptom-free.
” It ’ s unclear if other top White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test , though , during Saturday ’ s press conference , Vice President Mike Pence said he and his wife Karen Pence would agree to getting tested .
Either way , it ’ s good that Trump took the test .
Last Saturday , Trump met with a top Brazilian official at Mar-a-Lago who has since tested positive for Covid-19 .
An image posted by the official , Fabio Wajngarten , quickly circulated on social media .
It showed Trump standing right next to Wajngarten and holding a “ Make Brazil Great Again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handed him .
Two Republican senators who separately met with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro self-quarantined after the news .
In the last week , Trump has also had direct contact with two Republican members of Congress just before they self-quarantined due to their exposure to coronavirus .
Those politicians , Rep. Doug Collins ( R-GA ) and Rep. Matt Gaetz ( R-FL ) , had been in contact with someone who tested positive during the 2020 Conservative Political Action Conference ( CPAC ) .
Trump also spoke at the event , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct contact with the person who tested positive .
Trump has been on the campaign trail where he ’ s been shaking hands and taking photos with supporters .
Health professionals I spoke to earlier this week said that Trump , along with the leading Democratic presidential candidates , should stop such interactions to minimize their risk of exposure to the virus .
“ That ’ s really hard because that contact is fundamental for interacting with potential voters , ” Ashish Jha , director of the Harvard Global Health Institute , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his 70s — and , as the Centers for Disease Control has been saying for weeks now , older adults are “ at higher risk of getting very sick ” from Covid-19 than the general population .

President Donald Trump has tested negative for the novel coronavirus, just one day after he took the test and after multiple exposures to people who had contracted the disease it causes, Covid-19.
During a Saturday press conference, Trump surprisingly told reporters that he was tested the night before for Covid-19. Hours later, Trump’s physician released a letter to the public saying “This evening I received confirmation that the test is negative” and that “the President remains symptom-free.”
It’s unclear if other top White House officials have also undergone a coronavirus test, though, during Saturday’s press conference, Vice President Mike Pence said he and his wife Karen Pence would agree to get tested.
Trump tested negative for coronavirus, says his White House physician pic.twitter.com/zNZ25wY9g1 — Alex Ward (@AlexWardVox) March 14, 2020
Either way, it’s good that Trump took the test.
Last Saturday, Trump met with a top Brazilian official at Mar-a-Lago who has since tested positive for Covid-19. An image posted by the official, Fábio Wajngarten, quickly circulated on social media. It showed Trump standing right next to Wajngarten and holding a “Make Brazil Great Again” hat that the official had presumably handed him. Two Republican senators who separately met with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro self-quarantined after the news.
In the past week, Trump has also had direct contact with two Republican members of Congress just before they self-quarantined due to their exposure to coronavirus. Those politicians, Reps. Doug Collins (R-GA) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL), had been in contact with someone who tested positive during the 2020 Conservative Political Action Conference. Trump also spoke at the event, but it’s unclear if he came into direct contact with the person who tested positive.
Trump has been on the campaign trail, where he’s been shaking hands and taking photos with supporters. Health professionals I spoke to earlier this week said that Trump, along with the leading Democratic presidential candidates, should stop such interactions to minimize their risk of exposure to the virus.
“That’s really hard because that contact is fundamental for interacting with potential voters,” Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told me earlier this week.
Trump is in his 70s — and, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been saying for weeks now, older adults are “at higher risk of getting very sick” from Covid-19 than the general population.


vox--2020-03-15--This is a time for solidarity

This is a time for solidarity

The main thing about a pandemic like the novel coronavirus is that it doesn ’ t discriminate .
Whoever you are , wherever you live , you ’ re vulnerable , at least in principle .
While some of us may fare better because of our age or health , the microbes themselves are impartial .
It ’ s worth pausing to reflect on the implications of that fact .
Among other things , it means we ’ re all in the same boat , for better or worse .
But accepting this — really accepting this — seems uniquely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built on a cult of individualism .
It ’ s a myth so deeply ingrained that it ’ s politically toxic to even question it , as President Barack Obama learned back in 2012 when he committed the crime of stating the obvious : Obama ’ s remarks became “ A Thing ” in conservative media and “ You didn ’ t build that ” was a popular refrain at the Republican National Convention that year .
Obama wasn ’ t denying that individual effort and talent matter .
His point was that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader social system , and our lives are contingent , one way or another , on the work of other people .
That an observation so banal could generate so much controversy speaks to how deep the individualist ethos goes .
But the crisis we ’ re facing now , a rapidly spreading pandemic , explodes this ethos .
No one can deal with this threat in a vacuum .
Sure , there are steps you can take to protect yourself and your family , but your best efforts are less likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , your government , don ’ t do their part .
Even if you ’ re young and healthy , you ’ ll become a vector for spreading the disease to others if you ’ re not mindful about what you do or where you go .
And if you don ’ t modify your behaviors and needlessly get sick , you ’ ll increase the pressure on an already overtaxed health care system and jeopardize the care of someone else who might need it more than you .
Zeynep Tufekci summed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American : What comes next is unclear .
And the pain will not be distributed equally .
Many people will lose income due to work stoppages or potential lockdowns .
Kids from low-income families will miss meals if schools are canceled ; their parents will miss work if they have to stay home to take care of them .
Older people and those with health problems are uniquely at risk .
And on and on it goes .
Many of us will need help .
The simplest — and probably the most important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precautions like social distancing .
That ’ s the only way to flatten the epidemic curve .
As my colleague Kelsey Piper notes , doing so will literally save lives .
If you ’ re among the less vulnerable , it ’ s tempting to ignore most of this .
Why suffer the inconvenience if the personal risk is low ?
The only answer is that others are counting on you .
And it ’ s almost certainly true that someone in your life — a parent , a grandparent , a friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counting on the people in their community to do the same .
Because all of us , even the most at risk , will have to venture into the world at some point , and the fewer infected people there are , the safer everyone will be .
Halting this virus is a collective task no matter how you look at it .
It ’ s hard to accept this idea without a vision of civic belonging .
We have to care about other people , and they have to care about us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re in for the next several months and everything turns on our willingness to embrace it .
What a pandemic reveals about us My favorite novel is Albert Camus ’ s The Plague .
It was published in 1947 , after World War II .
On the surface , it ’ s a story about an Algerian coastal town beset by a mysterious plague .
But the allegory works on several levels .
“ It is at the same time a tale about an epidemic , a symbol of Nazi occupation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a metaphysical problem , ” Camus wrote .
It ’ s that last point that ’ s so relevant now .
The “ metaphysical problem ” is the brute fact of suffering .
It ’ s a problem because there ’ s no real reason for it .
Like the plague , it ’ s just a thing that happens in the world whether we want it to or not .
Camus ’ s novel asks if we can conceive of suffering not as an individual burden but as a shared experience — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The key is to recognize the universality of suffering .
A plague is an extraordinary event , and the horror it unleashes is extraordinary , too .
But suffering is anything but extraordinary .
Every single day you leave the house , something terrible could happen .
At any moment , you could get mortally sick .
The same is true for everyone you know .
All of us are hostages to forces over which we have no control .
A pandemic simply foregrounds what ’ s already true of our condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about our responsibilities to the people around us .
One of the reasons I love The Plague is that it draws out the conflict between individual happiness and moral obligation in such vivid fashion .
The hero of The Plague is a committed doctor named Rieux .
From the very beginning , Rieux devotes himself to resisting the plague and achieving solidarity with its victims .
His sense of purpose is wrapped up in struggle and sacrifice demanded by the sickness .
Each character in the story is defined by what they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ escapes it , but those who revolt against it , who reduce the suffering of others , are the most fulfilled .
The only villains in The Plague are those who can not see beyond themselves .
The plague , for these people , is either an excuse to flee or an opportunity to exploit .
What makes them so awful isn ’ t their self-interest ; it ’ s what their self-interest undermines .
Because they can ’ t see that their condition is shared , an ethos of solidarity is completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes community — real community — impossible .
A recurring theme of The Plague is that crises have a way of upending the social order .
It throws almost everything we take for granted into chaos .
And it forces us to attend to the present moment .
Nothing else really matters when your day-to-day survival is at stake .
There ’ s just here and now and , as Rieux says , “ We ’ re all involved in it.
” The coronavirus isn ’ t “ The Big One.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
But it will demand the kind of solidarity our individualist ethos denies .
At the very end of The Plague , Camus distills his philosophy in a final passage : That last line is critical .
The struggle against suffering is never over .
The plague will return , and so will everything else that torments human beings .
But the point of the book is that a shared struggle is what makes community possible in the first place .
The lesson of The Plague is that we should see ourselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as atomized actors .
And that means when we think of “ preparedness , ” we ’ re thinking not just of ourselves but of how our actions will affect other people .
It means thinking of risk as more than an individual calculation .
A pandemic , terrible though it is , highlights our mutual interdependence in a way that only tragedy can .
The beauty of The Plague is that it asks the reader to map the lessons of the pandemic onto everyday life .
The principles that drive the hero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that make every society worthwhile — empathy , love , and solidarity .
If we learn these lessons now , in a moment of crisis , we ’ ll all be better off on the other side of it .

The main thing about a pandemic like the novel coronavirus is that it doesn’t discriminate.
Whoever you are, wherever you live, you’re vulnerable, at least in principle. While some of us may fare better because of our age or health, the microbes themselves are impartial.
It’s worth pausing to reflect on the implications of that fact. Among other things, it means we’re all in the same boat, for better or worse. But accepting this — really accepting this — seems uniquely difficult in America.
This country is built on a cult of individualism. It’s a myth so deeply ingrained that it’s politically toxic to even question it, as President Barack Obama learned back in 2012 when he committed the crime of stating the obvious:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
Obama’s remarks became “A Thing” in conservative media and “You didn’t build that” was a popular refrain at the Republican National Convention that year. Obama wasn’t denying that individual effort and talent matter. His point was that we’re all embedded in a broader social system, and our lives are contingent, one way or another, on the work of other people. That an observation so banal could generate so much controversy speaks to how deep the individualist ethos goes.
But the crisis we’re facing now, a rapidly spreading pandemic, explodes this ethos. No one can deal with this threat in a vacuum. Sure, there are steps you can take to protect yourself and your family, but your best efforts are less likely to matter if your neighbors, your community, your government, don’t do their part.
Even if you’re young and healthy, you’ll become a vector for spreading the disease to others if you’re not mindful about what you do or where you go. And if you don’t modify your behaviors and needlessly get sick, you’ll increase the pressure on an already overtaxed health care system and jeopardize the care of someone else who might need it more than you.
Zeynep Tufekci summed it up in a terrific post for Scientific American:
We should prepare, not because we may feel personally at risk, but so that we can help lessen the risk for everyone. We should prepare not because we are facing a doomsday scenario out of our control, but because we can alter every aspect of this risk we face as a society. That’s right, you should prepare because your neighbors need you to prepare—especially your elderly neighbors, your neighbors who work at hospitals, your neighbors with chronic illnesses, and your neighbors who may not have the means or the time to prepare because of lack of resources or time.
What comes next is unclear. And the pain will not be distributed equally. Many people will lose income due to work stoppages or potential lockdowns. Kids from low-income families will miss meals if schools are canceled; their parents will miss work if they have to stay home to take care of them. Older people and those with health problems are uniquely at risk. And on and on it goes.
Many of us will need help. The simplest — and probably the most important — thing you can do is take precautions like social distancing. That’s the only way to flatten the epidemic curve. As my colleague Kelsey Piper notes, doing so will literally save lives.
If you’re among the less vulnerable, it’s tempting to ignore most of this. Why suffer the inconvenience if the personal risk is low? The only answer is that others are counting on you. And it’s almost certainly true that someone in your life — a parent, a grandparent, a friend with an existing medical condition — is counting on the people in their community to do the same. Because all of us, even the most at risk, will have to venture into the world at some point, and the fewer infected people there are, the safer everyone will be. Halting this virus is a collective task no matter how you look at it.
It’s hard to accept this idea without a vision of civic belonging. We have to care about other people, and they have to care about us. This is the world we’re in for the next several months and everything turns on our willingness to embrace it.
What a pandemic reveals about us
My favorite novel is Albert Camus’s The Plague. It was published in 1947, after World War II.
On the surface, it’s a story about an Algerian coastal town beset by a mysterious plague. But the allegory works on several levels. “It is at the same time a tale about an epidemic, a symbol of Nazi occupation, and, thirdly, the concrete illustration of a metaphysical problem,” Camus wrote.
It’s that last point that’s so relevant now. The “metaphysical problem” is the brute fact of suffering. It’s a problem because there’s no real reason for it. Like the plague, it’s just a thing that happens in the world whether we want it to or not. Camus’s novel asks if we can conceive of suffering not as an individual burden but as a shared experience — and maybe turn it into something affirmative.
The key is to recognize the universality of suffering. A plague is an extraordinary event, and the horror it unleashes is extraordinary, too. But suffering is anything but extraordinary. Every single day you leave the house, something terrible could happen. At any moment, you could get mortally sick. The same is true for everyone you know. All of us are hostages to forces over which we have no control.
A pandemic simply foregrounds what’s already true of our condition. And it forces us to think about our responsibilities to the people around us. One of the reasons I love The Plague is that it draws out the conflict between individual happiness and moral obligation in such vivid fashion. The hero of The Plague is a committed doctor named Rieux. From the very beginning, Rieux devotes himself to resisting the plague and achieving solidarity with its victims. His sense of purpose is wrapped up in struggle and sacrifice demanded by the sickness.
Each character in the story is defined by what they do when the scourge comes. No one escapes it, but those who revolt against it, who reduce the suffering of others, are the most fulfilled. The only villains in The Plague are those who cannot see beyond themselves. The plague, for these people, is either an excuse to flee or an opportunity to exploit. What makes them so awful isn’t their self-interest; it’s what their self-interest undermines. Because they can’t see that their condition is shared, an ethos of solidarity is completely foreign to them. And that blindness makes community — real community — impossible.
A recurring theme of The Plague is that crises have a way of upending the social order. It throws almost everything we take for granted into chaos. And it forces us to attend to the present moment. Nothing else really matters when your day-to-day survival is at stake. There’s just here and now and, as Rieux says, “We’re all involved in it.”
The coronavirus isn’t “The Big One.” It won’t be the end of us. But it will demand the kind of solidarity our individualist ethos denies.
At the very end of The Plague, Camus distills his philosophy in a final passage:
And, indeed, as he listened to the cries of joy rising from the town, Rieux remembered that such joy is always imperiled. He knew what those jubilant crowds did not know but could have learned from books: that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen-chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks, and bookshelves; and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city.
That last line is critical. The struggle against suffering is never over. The plague will return, and so will everything else that torments human beings. But the point of the book is that a shared struggle is what makes community possible in the first place.
The lesson of The Plague is that we should see ourselves as members of a community, not as atomized actors. And that means when we think of “preparedness,” we’re thinking not just of ourselves but of how our actions will affect other people. It means thinking of risk as more than an individual calculation.
A pandemic, terrible though it is, highlights our mutual interdependence in a way that only tragedy can. The beauty of The Plague is that it asks the reader to map the lessons of the pandemic onto everyday life. The principles that drive the hero, Rieux, are the same principles that make every society worthwhile — empathy, love, and solidarity.
If we learn these lessons now, in a moment of crisis, we’ll all be better off on the other side of it.


vox--2020-03-15--Harvard’s coronavirus response highlights how college closings are hurting low-income students

At the richest university in the world , students are turning to crowdfunding in order to cover sudden costs spurred by the college ’ s coronavirus response .
Harvard , like a number of schools , has requested that its students move to online classes and leave campus in order to reduce the spread of the outbreak .
Yet , while the college will provide students in need of aid with some financial assistance — including for storage , transportation , and emergency housing — it won ’ t be addressing several other major costs that have emerged .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endowment , the university will not be offering aid for internet access that some students have said they will need in order to attend class remotely , and it has not announced plans to provide compensation for missed wages that a segment of students rely on to support themselves and their families .
It is , of course , far from the only school grappling with how to address the challenges posed by the coronavirus — but Harvard ’ s initial messaging rollout and expansive set of resources , in particular , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter , the college ’ s early communications didn ’ t offer many details about what financial support would look like for the transition .
A Harvard spokesperson pointed Vox to the Frequently Asked Questions page on the school ’ s website for more details about the response .
On it , the college indicates that students can work with school officials to figure out plans for housing and other needs on a case-by-case basis .
As The Harvard Crimson ’ s Juliet Isselbacher and Amanda Su wrote last week , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelmingly affected first generation and low-income students — many of whom have had to juggle the abrupt change with a slew of unexpected expenses .
Harvard students are among many dealing with these issues : Such concerns are affecting students across the country as colleges work to limit the reach of coronavirus , and dramatically alter their approach to coursework .
College closures across the country are disproportionately affecting low-income students According to CNBC , over 200 colleges and universities have closed or moved to remote classes since the beginning of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology specialist Bryan Alexander has been tracking these closures , and they ’ re documented in a comprehensive spreadsheet .
This need to shutter campus operations has served as a reminder that for many students , college provides a support system that goes far beyond the classroom .
As Isselbacher and Su reported , the move-out process has put tremendous pressure on first generation , low-income students .
Others likely to bear the brunt of these policies include international students and foster youth , who aren ’ t able to return home on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of students , college is the only place where they have access to food on a consistent basis , ” Anthony Abraham Jack , an assistant professor of education at Harvard , tells Inside Higher Ed .
“ Oftentimes , especially at residential colleges , it ’ s the only place that they have shelter without the worry of disruptions in utilities , disruptions in terms of feeling unsafe.
” Because of the sudden need to close down campuses , colleges have been forced to deal with how they can responsibly take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , while ensuring that students are equipped with the resources they need to respond to this change .
The approaches have varied at different institutions : Many colleges , including Harvard , Iowa State , and Smith College are asking students to leave campus , though students can petition to stay .
The University of Maine and Michigan State University are among those that will keep some campus facilities including dorms and dining halls operational .
Across the board , however , the coverage of additional costs facing students due to shutdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internet access , especially , are being felt at a number of institutions .
Queens College Professor Kate Antonova told Wired she asked her students about high-speed internet access and found that many didn ’ t have it readily available .
According to a 2018 study from Indiana University , about 20 percent of college students have dealt with technical difficulties when it comes to schoolwork .
Companies including Charter are offering free broadband packages to students who have been affected by these closures .
Other groups are trying to fill gaps left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alumni and students have rushed to fill the gaps colleges and universities have been unable , or unwilling , to account for .
At Harvard , for example , First Generation Harvard Alumni and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Foundation are raising money and allocating it to cover a range of needs including internet service , lost term-time income and food assistance .
At Tufts University , alumni have also formed a Mutual Aid group , which is helping to raise funds for students who need additional support for plane tickets , storage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different colleges have posted the specific costs they ’ re facing on social media , with information about their Venmo accounts .
The sudden shift to remote classes is a move that has undue impact on the most vulnerable students , experts tell Inside Higher Ed .
Many institutions , it seems , are still reckoning with these effects .

At the richest university in the world, students are turning to crowdfunding in order to cover sudden costs spurred by the college’s coronavirus response.
Harvard, like a number of schools, has requested that its students move to online classes and leave campus in order to reduce the spread of the outbreak. Yet, while the college will provide students in need of aid with some financial assistance — including for storage, transportation, and emergency housing — it won’t be addressing several other major costs that have emerged.
For instance, despite its $40 billion endowment, the university will not be offering aid for internet access that some students have said they will need in order to attend class remotely, and it has not announced plans to provide compensation for missed wages that a segment of students rely on to support themselves and their families.
It is, of course, far from the only school grappling with how to address the challenges posed by the coronavirus — but Harvard’s initial messaging rollout and expansive set of resources, in particular, have raised questions. As one student explained on Twitter, the college’s early communications didn’t offer many details about what financial support would look like for the transition.
A Harvard spokesperson pointed Vox to the Frequently Asked Questions page on the school’s website for more details about the response. On it, the college indicates that students can work with school officials to figure out plans for housing and other needs on a case-by-case basis.
As The Harvard Crimson’s Juliet Isselbacher and Amanda Su wrote last week, the financial weight of the sudden move-out has overwhelmingly affected first generation and low-income students — many of whom have had to juggle the abrupt change with a slew of unexpected expenses.
Harvard students are among many dealing with these issues: Such concerns are affecting students across the country as colleges work to limit the reach of coronavirus, and dramatically alter their approach to coursework.
College closures across the country are disproportionately affecting low-income students
According to CNBC, over 200 colleges and universities have closed or moved to remote classes since the beginning of the coronavirus public health crisis. Georgetown University education technology specialist Bryan Alexander has been tracking these closures, and they’re documented in a comprehensive spreadsheet.
This need to shutter campus operations has served as a reminder that for many students, college provides a support system that goes far beyond the classroom. As Isselbacher and Su reported, the move-out process has put tremendous pressure on first generation, low-income students. Others likely to bear the brunt of these policies include international students and foster youth, who aren’t able to return home on such short notice.
“For a lot of students, college is the only place where they have access to food on a consistent basis,” Anthony Abraham Jack, an assistant professor of education at Harvard, tells Inside Higher Ed. “Oftentimes, especially at residential colleges, it’s the only place that they have shelter without the worry of disruptions in utilities, disruptions in terms of feeling unsafe.”
Because of the sudden need to close down campuses, colleges have been forced to deal with how they can responsibly take preventive measures to curb the spread of coronavirus, while ensuring that students are equipped with the resources they need to respond to this change.
The approaches have varied at different institutions: Many colleges, including Harvard, Iowa State, and Smith College are asking students to leave campus, though students can petition to stay. The University of Maine and Michigan State University are among those that will keep some campus facilities including dorms and dining halls operational.
Across the board, however, the coverage of additional costs facing students due to shutdowns has been uneven.
Concerns about remote internet access, especially, are being felt at a number of institutions. Queens College Professor Kate Antonova told Wired she asked her students about high-speed internet access and found that many didn’t have it readily available.
According to a 2018 study from Indiana University, about 20 percent of college students have dealt with technical difficulties when it comes to schoolwork. Companies including Charter are offering free broadband packages to students who have been affected by these closures.
Other groups are trying to fill gaps left by colleges and universities
Groups run by alumni and students have rushed to fill the gaps colleges and universities have been unable, or unwilling, to account for.
At Harvard, for example, First Generation Harvard Alumni and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Foundation are raising money and allocating it to cover a range of needs including internet service, lost term-time income and food assistance. At Tufts University, alumni have also formed a Mutual Aid group, which is helping to raise funds for students who need additional support for plane tickets, storage, and food. And many students at different colleges have posted the specific costs they’re facing on social media, with information about their Venmo accounts.
The sudden shift to remote classes is a move that has undue impact on the most vulnerable students, experts tell Inside Higher Ed.
Many institutions, it seems, are still reckoning with these effects.


vox--2020-03-15--Despite his experts’ grave warnings, Trump wants everyone to just “relax”

President Donald Trump congratulated the Fed on cutting rates , waved around a sheet of printed-out tweets sent by Google , and then once again gave information that conflicts with what his public health officials are saying on the coronavirus pandemic at a press conference Sunday — telling the public it should “ relax ” because “ it all will pass.
” Trump began with the news that the Federal Reserve plans to cut interest rates to zero , saying , “ That ’ s a big step and I ’ m very happy they did it .
And you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless it ’ s about a month or two from now .
So I congratulate the Federal Reserve.
” He quickly went on to highlight the “ head of Google , who is a great gentleman ” — by which he likely meant Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai — and used an interaction with him to attack one of his habitual foils : the press .
Trump and Google have faced questions in recent days after the president announced Friday that the tech company was developing a website that would help Americans understand whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if they did , where they could get one .
Trump claimed “ Google has 1,700 engineers working on this right now .
They ’ ve made tremendous progress ” — but as Recode ’ s Peter Kafka has explained , it is not clear whether Google has been working on such a website .
In a series of tweets Friday , Google explained that Verily , a company owned by Alphabet , its parent company , is in the “ early stages ” of developing “ a tool to help triage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company tweeted that it is working with “ the US Government in developing a nationwide website that includes information about COVID-19 symptoms , risk and testing information.
” Trump retweeted this message , and used it to malign the “ Fake and Corrupt News : ” At his press conference , he held up what appeared to be a printout of the tweets .
Waving it at the reporters in the room , said , “ I don ’ t know where the press got their fake news , but they got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure you ’ ll apologize , ” something he claimed Google ’ s leader called on him to do .
Trump did not explain why an apology from Google was necessary if the company was working on the site — and he also did not roll out the site Sunday , as both he and Vice President Mike Pence promised would happen .
Instead , he moved on to read the names of grocery chain CEOs he spoke with Sunday , praising their leadership , and telling Americans to buy fewer supplies from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that they ’ re buying more than they buy at Christmas , ” Trump said .
“ Relax , we ’ re doing great , it all will pass.
” This is the sort of rhetoric the president ’ s critics say is damaging the government ’ s credibility with the public .
He again minimized concerns while also contradicting the advice of his experts .
While it is true that hoarding supplies serves no one , the Department of Homeland Security has recommended that Americans keep a two-week supply of food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are currently experiencing .
It also is not clear , according to Trump administration experts , that “ We ’ re all going to be great — we ’ re going to be so good , ” as Trump claimed later in his remarks Sunday .
Just hours before the press conference , Dr. Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , appeared on ABC ’ s This Week and said , “ People need to understand that things will get worse before they get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made that statement not to alarm anyone but to help the public understand the gravity of the situation we are in .
Trump , however , has repeatedly provided the public with information that could make things even graver .
For instance , on CNN ’ s State of the Union Sunday , Fauci explained why — even though the coronavirus is believed to be more severe in older people and those with underlying health conditions — young and relatively healthy people should still take steps to limit their exposure .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Fauci said .
“ There are going to be people who are young who are going to wind up getting seriously ill .
So , protect yourself.
” He added that young people can also carry the virus without being seriously affected , infecting those for whom the virus could mean serious health risks .
But Trump failed to convey that message , instead making the risk among younger Americans seem slight .
“ I think very important — the young people , people of good health , and [ these ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affected , ” Trump said .
“ Elderly people that are not well or not well in certain respects are really a very dangerous group .
We have to watch them , we have to protect them very much.
” These sorts of statements from the president have become par for the course in this pandemic , but that does n't make them any less dangerous .
It is true that there are administration officials out there like Fauci who are providing sound , balanced information — but it is also true that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and authority of the office of the president of the United States .
So when Trump tells younger Americans they are “ not strongly affected ” without providing any context , or when he says “ it ’ s a very contagious virus , it ’ s incredible , but it ’ s something we have tremendous control of , ” which is not true , he is doing more than giving bad advice or indulging in a little self-aggrandizement : He is putting lives at risk .

President Donald Trump congratulated the Fed on cutting rates, waved around a sheet of printed-out tweets sent by Google, and then once again gave information that conflicts with what his public health officials are saying on the coronavirus pandemic at a press conference Sunday — telling the public it should “relax” because “it all will pass.”
Trump began with the news that the Federal Reserve plans to cut interest rates to zero, saying, “That’s a big step and I’m very happy they did it. And you will not hear anything about me, unless it’s about a month or two from now. So I congratulate the Federal Reserve.”
He quickly went on to highlight the “head of Google, who is a great gentleman” — by which he likely meant Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai — and used an interaction with him to attack one of his habitual foils: the press.
Trump and Google have faced questions in recent days after the president announced Friday that the tech company was developing a website that would help Americans understand whether they needed a coronavirus test — and, if they did, where they could get one.
Trump claimed “Google has 1,700 engineers working on this right now. They’ve made tremendous progress” — but as Recode’s Peter Kafka has explained, it is not clear whether Google has been working on such a website.
In a series of tweets Friday, Google explained that Verily, a company owned by Alphabet, its parent company, is in the“early stages” of developing “a tool to help triage individuals for Covid-19 testing.” Saturday, the company tweeted that it is working with “the US Government in developing a nationwide website that includes information about COVID-19 symptoms, risk and testing information.”
Trump retweeted this message, and used it to malign the “Fake and Corrupt News:”
The Fake and Corrupt News never called Google. They said this was not true. Even in times such as these, they are not truthful. Watch for their apology, it won’t happen. More importantly, thank you to Google! https://t.co/AuvpbXNouW — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2020
At his press conference, he held up what appeared to be a printout of the tweets. Waving it at the reporters in the room, said, “I don’t know where the press got their fake news, but they got it someplace. ... I’m sure you’ll apologize,” something he claimed Google’s leader called on him to do.
Trump did not explain why an apology from Google was necessary if the company was working on the site — and he also did not roll out the site Sunday, as both he and Vice President Mike Pence promised would happen.
Instead, he moved on to read the names of grocery chain CEOs he spoke with Sunday, praising their leadership, and telling Americans to buy fewer supplies from their stores.
“Doug of Walmart said that they’re buying more than they buy at Christmas,” Trump said. “Relax, we’re doing great, it all will pass.”
This is the sort of rhetoric the president’s critics say is damaging the government’s credibility with the public. He again minimized concerns while also contradicting the advice of his experts.
While it is true that hoarding supplies serves no one, the Department of Homeland Security has recommended that Americans keep a two-week supply of food and water in pandemics like the one we are currently experiencing.
It also is not clear, according to Trump administration experts, that “We’re all going to be great — we’re going to be so good,” as Trump claimed later in his remarks Sunday.
Just hours before the press conference, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, appeared on ABC’s This Week and said, “People need to understand that things will get worse before they get better.”
Fauci was clear that he made that statement not to alarm anyone but to help the public understand the gravity of the situation we are in. Trump, however, has repeatedly provided the public with information that could make things even graver.
For instance, on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday, Fauci explained why — even though the coronavirus is believed to be more severe in older people and those with underlying health conditions — young and relatively healthy people should still take steps to limit their exposure.
“The virus is not a mathematical formula,” Fauci said. “There are going to be people who are young who are going to wind up getting seriously ill. So, protect yourself.”
He added that young people can also carry the virus without being seriously affected, infecting those for whom the virus could mean serious health risks. But Trump failed to convey that message, instead making the risk among younger Americans seem slight.
“I think very important — the young people, people of good health, and [these] groups of people are just not strongly affected,” Trump said. “Elderly people that are not well or not well in certain respects are really a very dangerous group. We have to watch them, we have to protect them very much.”
These sorts of statements from the president have become par for the course in this pandemic, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. It is true that there are administration officials out there like Fauci who are providing sound, balanced information — but it is also true that they do not speak with the weight and authority of the office of the president of the United States.
So when Trump tells younger Americans they are “not strongly affected” without providing any context, or when he says “it’s a very contagious virus, it’s incredible, but it’s something we have tremendous control of,” which is not true, he is doing more than giving bad advice or indulging in a little self-aggrandizement: He is putting lives at risk.


vox--2020-03-15--Despite concerns about coronavirus, Tuesday’s primaries are on

The spread of the novel coronavirus across the US is seriously complicating the Democratic presidential primary season .
On Saturday , Georgia announced it would postpone its March 24 primary , following Louisiana ’ s decision to move its April 4 contest — both states cited concerns over the spread of the coronavirus as the reason .
Georgia moved its primary to May 19 ; Louisiana will hold its primary on June 20 .
Despite this delay , the next set of primaries on Tuesday , March 17 — in Arizona , Illinois , Florida , and Ohio — is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in all four states have argued that voting doesn ’ t pose a big risk of virus exposure , and pledged to take extra care to keep voting areas clean .
But the leaders of Louisiana and Georgia disagree .
Friday , Louisiana Gov .
John Bel Edwards said concerns over the health of voters and volunteers led him to order a delay .
“ The reasons include taking into account the older age of the majority of precinct volunteers and workers , and the need to reduce public contact , and also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regardless of their age and their health conditions , ” Edwards said .
And Saturday , Georgia ’ s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said , “ Events are moving rapidly and my highest priority is protecting the health of our poll workers , their families , and the community at large.
” But Arizona , Florida , Illinois , and Ohio — each of which has multiple reported cases of the coronavirus —are going ahead with their primaries .
Secretaries of state from each of those states put out a joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerts , sporting events or other mass gatherings where large groups of people travel long distances to congregate in a confined space for an extended period of time , polling locations see people from a nearby community coming into and out of the building for a short duration .
Further , guidance from voting machine manufacturers on how best to sanitize machines , guidance from CDC on best practices for hand washing , and guidance from our respective state health officials is being provided to every polling location .
Americans have participated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and based on the best information we have from public health officials , we are confident that voters in our states can safely and securely cast their ballots in this election , and that otherwise healthy poll workers can and should carry out their patriotic duties on Tuesday .
From a public health perspective , there are some red flags in the statement .
Polling locations in the US often have long lines and can require voters to wait for hours .
For example , people waited up to six hours to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Super Tuesday .
That isn ’ t a short period of exposure .
Crystal Watson , a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told the Atlantic that the situation poses clear risks of spreading coronavirus .
“ When you bring people together in close proximity for extended periods of time , that is where you see explosions of disease .
It ’ s tough to stay apart when you ’ re standing in a line , ” she said .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are within about six feet of each other .
That ’ s a greater distance than most people keep between each other in long lines , and not everyone who votes on Tuesday will be convinced that the coronavirus outbreak is a cause for concern or extra distancing .
The Atlantic reports that the states are taking steps to try to make voting booths hygienic and to protect election workers , and that Ohio has closed more than 100 polling locations that are near vulnerable populations , such as nursing homes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ just demonstrate that the states are very much aware of how risky this is in the first place .
If it ’ s too dangerous to let people vote near senior citizens — many of whom are the most active voters in American politics — then maybe that ’ s a sign that an alternate voting strategy , like the emergency vote-by-mail measure proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) , might be wise to consider .

The spread of the novel coronavirus across the US is seriously complicating the Democratic presidential primary season.
On Saturday, Georgia announced it would postpone its March 24 primary, following Louisiana’s decision to move its April 4 contest — both states cited concerns over the spread of the coronavirus as the reason. Georgia moved its primary to May 19; Louisiana will hold its primary on June 20.
Despite this delay, the next set of primaries on Tuesday, March 17 — in Arizona, Illinois, Florida, and Ohio — is going ahead as scheduled. Election officials in all four states have argued that voting doesn’t pose a big risk of virus exposure, and pledged to take extra care to keep voting areas clean.
But the leaders of Louisiana and Georgia disagree.
Friday, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards said concerns over the health of voters and volunteers led him to order a delay.
“The reasons include taking into account the older age of the majority of precinct volunteers and workers, and the need to reduce public contact, and also to allow maximum participation by all voters, regardless of their age and their health conditions,” Edwards said.
And Saturday, Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said, “Events are moving rapidly and my highest priority is protecting the health of our poll workers, their families, and the community at large.”
But Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio — each of which has multiple reported cases of the coronavirus —are going ahead with their primaries. Secretaries of state from each of those states put out a joint statement on Friday explaining why:
Unlike concerts, sporting events or other mass gatherings where large groups of people travel long distances to congregate in a confined space for an extended period of time, polling locations see people from a nearby community coming into and out of the building for a short duration. Further, guidance from voting machine manufacturers on how best to sanitize machines, guidance from CDC on best practices for hand washing, and guidance from our respective state health officials is being provided to every polling location. Americans have participated in elections during challenging times in the past, and based on the best information we have from public health officials, we are confident that voters in our states can safely and securely cast their ballots in this election, and that otherwise healthy poll workers can and should carry out their patriotic duties on Tuesday.
From a public health perspective, there are some red flags in the statement.
Polling locations in the US often have long lines and can require voters to wait for hours. For example, people waited up to six hours to cast their ballots in Texas and California on Super Tuesday. That isn’t a short period of exposure.
Crystal Watson, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told the Atlantic that the situation poses clear risks of spreading coronavirus. “When you bring people together in close proximity for extended periods of time, that is where you see explosions of disease. It’s tough to stay apart when you’re standing in a line,” she said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that coronavirus passes commonly between people who are within about six feet of each other. That’s a greater distance than most people keep between each other in long lines, and not everyone who votes on Tuesday will be convinced that the coronavirus outbreak is a cause for concern or extra distancing.
The Atlantic reports that the states are taking steps to try to make voting booths hygienic and to protect election workers, and that Ohio has closed more than 100 polling locations that are near vulnerable populations, such as nursing homes.
But in a way, those measures just demonstrate that the states are very much aware of how risky this is in the first place. If it’s too dangerous to let people vote near senior citizens — many of whom are the most active voters in American politics — then maybe that’s a sign that an alternate voting strategy, like the emergency vote-by-mail measure proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), might be wise to consider.


vox--2020-03-15--The Fed is bringing interest rates to 2008 crisis levels to fight a coronavirus downturn

The Federal Reserve announced on Sunday , March 15 that it would cut its target interest rate to a range of 0 to 0.25 percent , returning interest rates to the record lows they reached during the 2008-09 recession and its aftermath .
The move represented the clearest sign yet that the Fed considers the coronavirus outbreak a severe economic risk that could slow the economy and possibly cause a large recession .
“ The Committee expects to maintain this target range until it is confident that the economy has weathered recent events and is on track to achieve its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the Federal Reserve said in a statement .
The Fed funds rate ( often colloquially called the “ Fed rate ” or even just the “ interest rate , ” given its economy-wide effects ) is the primary mechanism through which the Fed influences the American economy .
When the Fed uses its powers to lower the rate , that means borrowing is cheaper : Mortgage rates fall , APRs for credit cards fall , auto loans get cheaper , etc .
This is meant to stimulate economic activity by making it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fed enforces this target both through expectations ( it ’ s powerful enough that just saying “ we ’ re lowering rates ” causes banks and other actors to follow suit ) and through “ open market operations , ” in which it buys up Treasury bonds with money it creates in a bid to make those bonds ’ interest rates fall to its target range .
For more , see Matt Yglesias ’ s explainer .
You can see the historical trajectory of the Fed rate over the past two decades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : As you can see , the rate tends to rise during economic expansions , when the Fed uses it to control inflation and prevent the economy from “ overheating , ” and falls during downturns in an effort to stanch the bleeding .
The previous Fed chair , Janet Yellen , began a process of raising interest rates during her tenure in an attempt to “ normalize ” them after they fell to historic lows under her predecessor Ben Bernanke , to try to fight the Great Recession .
Many economists faulted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for raising rates too soon when the labor market was still recovering , and there was still space to reduce unemployment , especially as inflation has been at historic lows , meaning there ’ s little downside to low interest rates .
Usually the only downside to low rates has been the risk of inflation , as occurred in the mid- to late 1970s , but that hasn ’ t been a reality in the US for several decades now .
Jay Powell , the current Fed chair , took the unorthodox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expansion on the logic that the labor market could be doing even better .
This likely reduced unemployment and has not had any ill effects on inflation .
But Powell and the Federal Open Markets Committee have slashed rates even more dramatically since the coronavirus presented a risk of recession .
On March 3 , the board slashed rates from a 1.5 to 1.75 percent range to 1 to 1.25 percent , a half-point cut .
The latest cut is twice as big in scale : a full point reduction down to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This places the Fed at what economists call the “ zero lower bound ” : Because interest rates are at zero , there is a limit to how much lower they can go .
The Fed is not powerless at the zero lower bound .
The European Central Bank has been experimenting with modestly negative interest rates since June 2014 , and the Bank of Japan has since January 2016 .
Under a negative rate system , investors have to actually pay borrowers to take their money .
But the ECB rate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost to most depositors .
If rates get too negative , there ’ s a risk that businesses and individuals will start pulling their money from banks entirely and holding cash ; if your checking account is losing , say , 5 percent of its value a year , there ’ s a good case for taking your money out and stuffing it under a mattress .
In extreme cases like that , the Fed has other tools .
In the aftermath of the Great Recession , it engaged in “ quantitative easing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy by buying long-run Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed investments in an effort to bring down long-run interest rates , as well as the short-run interest rates impacted by the Fed rate .
But long-run interest rates are already negative or very , very low for US Treasury bonds , so it ’ s not clear how much quantitative easing could do right now .
In this scenario , there ’ s a strong case for fiscal stimulus : spending by Congress to get the economy up and running again .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as people employed in service industries like restaurants , bars , gyms , etc .
could be out of work indefinitely and lack funds to buy basic necessities .
For this reason , many prominent economists on the left and right are begging Congress to authorize large cash payments to at least low-income Americans .

The Federal Reserve announced on Sunday, March 15 that it would cut its target interest rate to a range of 0 to 0.25 percent, returning interest rates to the record lows they reached during the 2008-09 recession and its aftermath.
The move represented the clearest sign yet that the Fed considers the coronavirus outbreak a severe economic risk that could slow the economy and possibly cause a large recession.
“The Committee expects to maintain this target range until it is confident that the economy has weathered recent events and is on track to achieve its maximum employment and price stability goals,” the Federal Reserve said in a statement.
The Fed funds rate (often colloquially called the “Fed rate” or even just the “interest rate,” given its economy-wide effects) is the primary mechanism through which the Fed influences the American economy. When the Fed uses its powers to lower the rate, that means borrowing is cheaper: Mortgage rates fall, APRs for credit cards fall, auto loans get cheaper, etc. This is meant to stimulate economic activity by making it cheaper to borrow and spend. The Fed enforces this target both through expectations (it’s powerful enough that just saying “we’re lowering rates” causes banks and other actors to follow suit) and through “open market operations,” in which it buys up Treasury bonds with money it creates in a bid to make those bonds’ interest rates fall to its target range. For more, see Matt Yglesias’s explainer.
You can see the historical trajectory of the Fed rate over the past two decades, including during the last recession, below:
As you can see, the rate tends to rise during economic expansions, when the Fed uses it to control inflation and prevent the economy from “overheating,” and falls during downturns in an effort to stanch the bleeding. The previous Fed chair, Janet Yellen, began a process of raising interest rates during her tenure in an attempt to “normalize” them after they fell to historic lows under her predecessor Ben Bernanke, to try to fight the Great Recession.
Many economists faulted Yellen and her deputy, Stanley Fischer, for raising rates too soon when the labor market was still recovering, and there was still space to reduce unemployment, especially as inflation has been at historic lows, meaning there’s little downside to low interest rates. Usually the only downside to low rates has been the risk of inflation, as occurred in the mid- to late 1970s, but that hasn’t been a reality in the US for several decades now.
Jay Powell, the current Fed chair, took the unorthodox step of slashing rates during an economic expansion on the logic that the labor market could be doing even better. This likely reduced unemployment and has not had any ill effects on inflation.
But Powell and the Federal Open Markets Committee have slashed rates even more dramatically since the coronavirus presented a risk of recession. On March 3, the board slashed rates from a 1.5 to 1.75 percent range to 1 to 1.25 percent, a half-point cut. The latest cut is twice as big in scale: a full point reduction down to a range of 0 to 0.25 percent.
This places the Fed at what economists call the “zero lower bound”: Because interest rates are at zero, there is a limit to how much lower they can go. The Fed is not powerless at the zero lower bound. The European Central Bank has been experimenting with modestly negative interest rates since June 2014, and the Bank of Japan has since January 2016.
Under a negative rate system, investors have to actually pay borrowers to take their money. But the ECB rate is only -0.5 percent, a very small cost to most depositors. If rates get too negative, there’s a risk that businesses and individuals will start pulling their money from banks entirely and holding cash; if your checking account is losing, say, 5 percent of its value a year, there’s a good case for taking your money out and stuffing it under a mattress.
In extreme cases like that, the Fed has other tools. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, it engaged in “quantitative easing,” where it injected trillions into the economy by buying long-run Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed investments in an effort to bring down long-run interest rates, as well as the short-run interest rates impacted by the Fed rate. But long-run interest rates are already negative or very, very low for US Treasury bonds, so it’s not clear how much quantitative easing could do right now.
In this scenario, there’s a strong case for fiscal stimulus: spending by Congress to get the economy up and running again. There’s a strong humanitarian case as well, as people employed in service industries like restaurants, bars, gyms, etc. could be out of work indefinitely and lack funds to buy basic necessities. For this reason, many prominent economists on the left and right are begging Congress to authorize large cash payments to at least low-income Americans.