vox--2020-05-27--5 ways to prevent another 100,000 coronavirus deaths in the US (and beyond)

Share All sharing options for : 5 ways to prevent another 100,000 coronavirus deaths in the US ( and beyond ) As we hit a gruesome milestone — 100,000 reported deaths from the novel coronavirus in the United States — we must focus on the single most important part of the response : saving the most lives .
The SARS-CoV-2 virus is likely to kill more than 1 million people worldwide by the end of this year , and 60 million people will die this year from other , often preventable causes , as they do every year .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat the world has faced in a century , unless we are more careful , there will be many more avoidable deaths , not just from Covid-19 but also from the disruption it causes .
If there ’ s one constant in the varying effectiveness of responses in different cities , states , and countries , it ’ s the tight correlation between how fully political leaders are guided by and support public health ( for example , in Singapore , Germany , New Zealand , Seattle , and elsewhere ) and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed by the virus .
To save as many lives as possible , both from the coronavirus and other causes , public health specialists must guide and political leaders must fully support five things at the core of public health .
1 ) Fix the glaring gaps in data about deaths Although deaths are not an early indicator of the spread of the coronavirus and other health trends , tracking death rates is crucial to understanding and counteracting the impact of the pandemic .
Tracking deaths identifies increases from the virus missed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early warning if deaths from other conditions increase .
What gets measured can be managed , and so every US state and every country must report all-cause mortality every week .
Many higher-income countries can start weekly reporting by age group compared with historical levels , as Switzerland and others have done .
Even in the United States , this information isn ’ t readily available , and in places ranging from New York City to Georgia , public health leaders have had to resist pressure from political leaders to hide this key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectation so that we learn the death rates every week , in every community — both deaths caused by the coronavirus and all deaths .
In lower-income countries where basic vital registration systems are often weak or lacking , this will require training , supporting , and paying community health workers and hospital registrars and also improving the capacity to collect , analyze , and disseminate real-time data .
Last week , our organization , Resolve to Save Lives , joined the World Health Organization and others in releasing practical guidance on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US , this increase in deaths from other conditions , which results from the pandemic ’ s disruption , could come in the form of more heart disease deaths among those who didn ’ t seek care during the pandemic .
At the height of the pandemic , a colleague in a New York City emergency department commented to me , “ We ’ re seeing no angina.
” It ’ s likely that patients with heart attacks avoided care for fear of contracting the coronavirus .
In Africa , meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause millions of preventable deaths .
These trends can be found early — and further deterioration prevented — with rapid mortality surveillance .
2 ) Protect our health care workers to keep our health care systems functioning so they can prevent both coronavirus and non-coronavirus deaths It is appalling that more than 100,000 health care workers have been infected with the novel coronavirus .
The health and economic consequences of losing health care workers and overwhelming health care facilities are catastrophic .
This does not have to be .
I began my public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in hospitals ; it is possible to make health care much safer .
Singapore has had few if any health care workers infected by the virus at work — not thanks to high-technology interventions , but due to sensible , meticulous attention to protocols .
Protective equipment is important , but comprehensive and well-implemented infection prevention programs are the most effective ways to protect health care workers and patients .
Only if health care workers are and are known to be safe will we be able to prevent avoidable deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and also prevent increases in mortality from other conditions that result from overwhelmed health care systems .
In New York City , between mid-March and mid-May , there were more than 4,000 “ excess ” deaths — deaths that may have been but are not known to have been related to the coronavirus .
It ’ s likely that many people died from non-coronavirus causes because they did not seek care , for example for heart disease , which is the leading cause of death in the US .
Avoiding an increase in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Africa .
If we don ’ t take steps to preserve care , over the coming years more than 10 million people in Africa could die from malaria , tuberculosis , HIV , vaccine-preventable diseases , and other causes due to the pandemic ’ s disruption of health care systems .
Yet the age structure — only 4 percent of Africans are over age 65 — means that the proportion of coronavirus infections that are fatal will be far below 1 percent : closer to the seasonal flu than to the devastation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If we fail to preserve the programs that address preventable killers , the number of people who die from the coronavirus directly might be a small fraction of those killed by other diseases because of the disruption the pandemic causes .
Donor agencies , international organizations , and governments themselves must keep non-coronavirus health care going , with telemedicine , longer-term prescription refills , safer facilities , and bolstered primary and preventive care .
One-third of the US coronavirus deaths have occurred in nursing homes , revealing that facilities for the elderly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drastically improve efforts to keep the virus out , find it fast when the first staff or residents become infected , and stop outbreaks from spreading .
The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( CMS ) has made a good start requiring an end to nonessential visitors , but regulators , payors , and nursing home administrators will all need to keep the virus out with strict policies .
These include universal wearing of masks , limited visitors , and extensive testing .
Nursing homes need to find the virus fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they need to stop outbreaks before they spread widely with rapid-response teams and test-based strategies .
We need to identify and protect the highest-risk facilities — not just nursing homes , but also prisons , homeless shelters , and factories , and the highest-risk individuals , including the elderly and those with underlying conditions .
Health versus the economy is a false dichotomy .
Poverty increases ill health , and until people are confident , they will not resume economic activities .
Yogi Berra asked , “ If people don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are you going to stop them ?
” Unless people feel safer working , dining , or shopping , they won ’ t venture out for those activities .
The coronavirus will cause the first increase in global poverty in more than two decades .
In a recent survey in Africa , half of respondents estimated they would run out of money and food in a week or less .
Every country needs to find the balance , and this may mean allowing economically important activities to begin even before all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This can only happen if we better protect health care workers , shield the most vulnerable , and redesign to reduce risk .
In most places , most economic disruption from the pandemic isn ’ t from lockdowns , but from fear — much of it rational — that everyday activities could kill us or our loved ones .
It ’ s not a “ guns or butter ” dilemma .
We can save the most lives and protect our economy most effectively by urgently strengthening public health and emerging as soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the most important societal activities first .
This means widespread use of face masks , hand-washing , staggered shifts , telework , and prompt contact tracing to prevent cases from becoming clusters , clusters from becoming outbreaks , and outbreaks from forcing another retreat into our homes .
The British epidemiologist William Farr wrote , “ The death rate is a fact ; anything beyond this is an inference.
” Weekly mortality tracking can guide a response that rapidly identifies and prevents further increases in coronavirus and non-coronavirus deaths .
Only focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths in our nursing homes alone .
As future waves of the virus hit , we need to be ready to adapt rapidly to reduce spread , stop outbreaks , and protect the vulnerable .
In every step we take , we must first remember : Illness and economic damage are reversible .
Death is not .
Tom Frieden is a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations , CEO of Resolve to Save Lives ( an initiative of Vital Strategies ) , former director of the US Centers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former commissioner of the New York City Health Department .
Follow him @ DrTomFrieden on Twitter and Instagram .
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 brand of explanatory journalism takes resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Share All sharing options for: 5 ways to prevent another 100,000 coronavirus deaths in the US (and beyond)
As we hit a gruesome milestone — 100,000 reported deaths from the novel coronavirus in the United States — we must focus on the single most important part of the response: saving the most lives.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus is likely to kill more than 1 million people worldwide by the end of this year, and 60 million people will die this year from other, often preventable causes, as they do every year. As we confront the most devastating infectious disease threat the world has faced in a century, unless we are more careful, there will be many more avoidable deaths, not just from Covid-19 but also from the disruption it causes.
If there’s one constant in the varying effectiveness of responses in different cities, states, and countries, it’s the tight correlation between how fully political leaders are guided by and support public health (for example, in Singapore, Germany, New Zealand, Seattle, and elsewhere) and how well they prevent their people from being killed by the virus.
To save as many lives as possible, both from the coronavirus and other causes, public health specialists must guide and political leaders must fully support five things at the core of public health.
1) Fix the glaring gaps in data about deaths
Although deaths are not an early indicator of the spread of the coronavirus and other health trends, tracking death rates is crucial to understanding and counteracting the impact of the pandemic. Tracking deaths identifies increases from the virus missed by testing and tracking systems and provides an early warning if deaths from other conditions increase.
What gets measured can be managed, and so every US state and every country must report all-cause mortality every week. Many higher-income countries can start weekly reporting by age group compared with historical levels, as Switzerland and others have done.
Even in the United States, this information isn’t readily available, and in places ranging from New York City to Georgia, public health leaders have had to resist pressure from political leaders to hide this key data.
We need to change the expectation so that we learn the death rates every week, in every community — both deaths caused by the coronavirus and all deaths. In lower-income countries where basic vital registration systems are often weak or lacking, this will require training, supporting, and paying community health workers and hospital registrars and also improving the capacity to collect, analyze, and disseminate real-time data. Last week, our organization, Resolve to Save Lives, joined the World Health Organization and others in releasing practical guidance on how countries can do just that.
In the US, this increase in deaths from other conditions, which results from the pandemic’s disruption, could come in the form of more heart disease deaths among those who didn’t seek care during the pandemic. At the height of the pandemic, a colleague in a New York City emergency department commented to me, “We’re seeing no angina.” It’s likely that patients with heart attacks avoided care for fear of contracting the coronavirus.
Related The coronavirus crisis is leading to an immunization crisis
In Africa, meanwhile, falling immunization and malaria treatment rates could cause millions of preventable deaths. These trends can be found early — and further deterioration prevented — with rapid mortality surveillance.
2) Protect our health care workers to keep our health care systems functioning so they can prevent both coronavirus and non-coronavirus deaths
It is appalling that more than 100,000 health care workers have been infected with the novel coronavirus. The health and economic consequences of losing health care workers and overwhelming health care facilities are catastrophic.
This does not have to be. I began my public health career documenting and stopping the spread of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in hospitals; it is possible to make health care much safer.
Singapore has had few if any health care workers infected by the virus at work — not thanks to high-technology interventions, but due to sensible, meticulous attention to protocols. Protective equipment is important, but comprehensive and well-implemented infection prevention programs are the most effective ways to protect health care workers and patients.
Only if health care workers are and are known to be safe will we be able to prevent avoidable deaths from people infected with the novel coronavirus and also prevent increases in mortality from other conditions that result from overwhelmed health care systems.
3) Preserve non-coronavirus health care
In New York City, between mid-March and mid-May, there were more than 4,000 “excess” deaths — deaths that may have been but are not known to have been related to the coronavirus. It’s likely that many people died from non-coronavirus causes because they did not seek care, for example for heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the US.
Avoiding an increase in non-coronavirus deaths is a particularly urgent priority in Africa. If we don’t take steps to preserve care, over the coming years more than 10 million people in Africa could die from malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, vaccine-preventable diseases, and other causes due to the pandemic’s disruption of health care systems. Yet the age structure — only 4 percent of Africans are over age 65 — means that the proportion of coronavirus infections that are fatal will be far below 1 percent: closer to the seasonal flu than to the devastation seen in other parts of the world.
If we fail to preserve the programs that address preventable killers, the number of people who die from the coronavirus directly might be a small fraction of those killed by other diseases because of the disruption the pandemic causes. Donor agencies, international organizations, and governments themselves must keep non-coronavirus health care going, with telemedicine, longer-term prescription refills, safer facilities, and bolstered primary and preventive care.
4) Protect the most vulnerable
One-third of the US coronavirus deaths have occurred in nursing homes, revealing that facilities for the elderly will be coronavirus death traps until we drastically improve efforts to keep the virus out, find it fast when the first staff or residents become infected, and stop outbreaks from spreading.
The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has made a good start requiring an end to nonessential visitors, but regulators, payors, and nursing home administrators will all need to keep the virus out with strict policies. These include universal wearing of masks, limited visitors, and extensive testing. Nursing homes need to find the virus fast with rapid and repeated testing, and they need to stop outbreaks before they spread widely with rapid-response teams and test-based strategies. We need to identify and protect the highest-risk facilities — not just nursing homes, but also prisons, homeless shelters, and factories, and the highest-risk individuals, including the elderly and those with underlying conditions.
5) Balance saving lives with preserving livelihoods
Health versus the economy is a false dichotomy. Poverty increases ill health, and until people are confident, they will not resume economic activities.
Yogi Berra asked, “If people don’t want to come to the ballpark, how are you going to stop them?” Unless people feel safer working, dining, or shopping, they won’t venture out for those activities.
The coronavirus will cause the first increase in global poverty in more than two decades. In a recent survey in Africa, half of respondents estimated they would run out of money and food in a week or less.
Every country needs to find the balance, and this may mean allowing economically important activities to begin even before all of the ideal disease control systems are in place. This can only happen if we better protect health care workers, shield the most vulnerable, and redesign to reduce risk. In most places, most economic disruption from the pandemic isn’t from lockdowns, but from fear — much of it rational — that everyday activities could kill us or our loved ones.
It’s not a “guns or butter” dilemma. We can save the most lives and protect our economy most effectively by urgently strengthening public health and emerging as soon and as safely as possible, focusing on the most important societal activities first. This means widespread use of face masks, hand-washing, staggered shifts, telework, and prompt contact tracing to prevent cases from becoming clusters, clusters from becoming outbreaks, and outbreaks from forcing another retreat into our homes.
The British epidemiologist William Farr wrote, “The death rate is a fact; anything beyond this is an inference.” Weekly mortality tracking can guide a response that rapidly identifies and prevents further increases in coronavirus and non-coronavirus deaths. Only focused and intensive action will prevent another 100,000 deaths in our nursing homes alone.
As future waves of the virus hit, we need to be ready to adapt rapidly to reduce spread, stop outbreaks, and protect the vulnerable. In every step we take, we must first remember: Illness and economic damage are reversible. Death is not.
Tom Frieden is a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, CEO of Resolve to Save Lives (an initiative of Vital Strategies), former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and former commissioner of the New York City Health Department. Follow him @DrTomFrieden on Twitter and Instagram.


vox--2020-05-27--The US has reached a grim milestone: 100,000 coronavirus deaths

Officially , 100,000 Americans and counting have now died from the novel coronavirus , another unfortunate marker in the pandemic .
In the three months since the first reports of a US Covid-19 death on February 29 in Washington state , the death toll has reached six figures , according to the New York Times ’ s count .
An unprecedented nationwide lockdown , with almost every state issuing a stay-at-home order and all of them placing restrictions on public activities , could only do so much to slow the virus ’ s spread ( although earlier action likely could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus now looks like it will soon claim more lives in the US than the influenza outbreaks of the 1950s and ’ 60s that resulted in more than 100,000 deaths — the worst pandemics in modern history , behind only the 1918 flu that killed about 675,000 Americans .
Going by raw totals , more people have died in America from the coronavirus than in any other country in the world .
Even adjusting for population , the US has one of the highest rates in deaths per million people , ranking behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The US may have been particularly vulnerable to Covid-19 because of high rates of chronic health conditions , which increase the coronavirus ’ s lethality , and the disease ’ s presence in nursing homes populated by seniors who are more at risk of a serious case or death if they get infected .
The New York Times reported in mid-May that one-third of confirmed Covid-19 deaths were nursing home residents or workers .
Policies like one in New York that directed people diagnosed with the coronavirus to nursing homes , possibly seeding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have come under scrutiny as the fatality figures increase .
The official tallies — in the US and around the world — are also almost certainly undercounts .
In April , autopsy records revealed that the first official Covid-19-related death occured on February 6 , but was not reported at the time .
The Washington Post , in partnership with researchers from the Yale School of Public Health , estimated in late April that 15,400 more Americans died between March 1 and April 4 than ordinarily would have been expected , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths that were reported over that time by US government agencies .
Not all of those excess deaths can be blamed on Covid-19 .
But experts believe many of them are uncounted casualties of the virus .
It is no mystery why more people have died during the coronavirus pandemic than the government figures indicate .
The officially reported number of Covid-19 deaths generally comes from hospitals .
People who die at home may not be counted if they are never tested for the coronavirus .
Instead , they may have a pulmonary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of death , even if Covid-19 was the catalyst for their passing .
Whichever way you count it , the coronavirus ’ s toll has been devastating .
And recent research indicates that it could have been at least partially avoided .
Columbia University researchers projected that if lockdowns had taken effect a week earlier than they did in reality , as many as 36,000 fewer people might have died of Covid-19 .
President Donald Trump ’ s administration and many state officials were reluctant to order the lockdowns , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also had a more limited understanding of the virus ’ s spread because of early problems with tests sent out by the federal government .
The US coronavirus response has been defined by its missteps .
And Americans are still paying the price for those failures .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 .

Officially, 100,000 Americans and counting have now died from the novel coronavirus, another unfortunate marker in the pandemic.
In the three months since the first reports of a US Covid-19 death on February 29 in Washington state, the death toll has reached six figures, according to the New York Times’s count. An unprecedented nationwide lockdown, with almost every state issuing a stay-at-home order and all of them placing restrictions on public activities, could only do so much to slow the virus’s spread (although earlier action likely could have saved more lives).
The coronavirus now looks like it will soon claim more lives in the US than the influenza outbreaks of the 1950s and ’60s that resulted in more than 100,000 deaths — the worst pandemics in modern history, behind only the 1918 flu that killed about 675,000 Americans.
Going by raw totals, more people have died in America from the coronavirus than in any other country in the world. Even adjusting for population, the US has one of the highest rates in deaths per million people, ranking behind only the hardest-hit countries in Europe.
The US may have been particularly vulnerable to Covid-19 because of high rates of chronic health conditions, which increase the coronavirus’s lethality, and the disease’s presence in nursing homes populated by seniors who are more at risk of a serious case or death if they get infected. The New York Times reported in mid-May that one-third of confirmed Covid-19 deaths were nursing home residents or workers. Policies like one in New York that directed people diagnosed with the coronavirus to nursing homes, possibly seeding more outbreaks and leading to more deaths, have come under scrutiny as the fatality figures increase.
The official tallies — in the US and around the world — are also almost certainly undercounts. In April, autopsy records revealed that the first official Covid-19-related death occured on February 6, but was not reported at the time. The Washington Post, in partnership with researchers from the Yale School of Public Health, estimated in late April that 15,400 more Americans died between March 1 and April 4 than ordinarily would have been expected, a substantially higher number than the 8,128 coronavirus deaths that were reported over that time by US government agencies.
Not all of those excess deaths can be blamed on Covid-19. But experts believe many of them are uncounted casualties of the virus.
It is no mystery why more people have died during the coronavirus pandemic than the government figures indicate. The officially reported number of Covid-19 deaths generally comes from hospitals. People who die at home may not be counted if they are never tested for the coronavirus. Instead, they may have a pulmonary embolism or heart attack listed as their cause of death, even if Covid-19 was the catalyst for their passing.
Whichever way you count it, the coronavirus’s toll has been devastating. And recent research indicates that it could have been at least partially avoided. Columbia University researchers projected that if lockdowns had taken effect a week earlier than they did in reality, as many as 36,000 fewer people might have died of Covid-19.
President Donald Trump’s administration and many state officials were reluctant to order the lockdowns, however, fearing the economic consequences; the country also had a more limited understanding of the virus’s spread because of early problems with tests sent out by the federal government.
The US coronavirus response has been defined by its missteps. And Americans are still paying the price for those failures.


vox--2020-05-27--Imagine Hurricane Katrina during a pandemic. The US needs to prepare for that — now.

Imagine Hurricane Katrina during a pandemic .
The US needs to prepare for that — now .
Share All sharing options for : Imagine Hurricane Katrina during a pandemic .
The US needs to prepare for that — now .
Without proper planning , the threat of hurricanes combined with Covid-19 is a recipe for disaster .
Think about how , when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005 , around 20,000 people took refuge in the Superdome stadium .
By their very nature , hurricanes force people to gather close together in shelters , at treatment locations , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and densities than the CDC recommends for countering a Covid-19 outbreak .
And vulnerable populations such as residents of senior care facilities and individuals with disabilities are particularly affected by both hurricanes and infectious diseases .
The Atlantic hurricane season starts on June 1 , and every state and territory on the Atlantic coast is vulnerable .
This year ’ s hurricane season is predicted to be more active than normal , with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecasting three to six major hurricanes .
Given indications that the Covid-19 outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this situation requires a new kind of planning from both emergency managers and the public .
And that planning needs to happen now .
Emergency managers — including federal officials , private sector authorities , and nonprofits — need to analyze their strategies to develop hurricane-plus-Covid-19 scenarios .
This approach can yield complementary strategies instead of two separate plans for each situation .
Among the many issues to be considered : Response systems may already be at capacity or overwhelmed Covid-19 is already placing unprecedented strain on disaster management , health , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that strain .
With outbreaks across the entire nation , an area hit by a hurricane is less likely to get aid from other states or regions .
Federal resources are limited in authority and capacity .
Many hospitals are struggling to provide care due to limited resources and personnel , and at the community level , many are experiencing the economic effects of Covid-19 and have fewer resources and greater uncertainty .
Instead of assuming “ business as usual , ” plans need to be reassessed .
For example , this might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delays in material and money , and insufficient hospital capacity impact hurricane response , and incorporating those changes into plans .
Evacuation and sheltering will have extra complications Traditional calculations of when to issue evacuation warnings should be reassessed in light of Covid-19 , which may change decisions of when to fortify and shelter in place .
Emergency evacuations are typically called for based on the expected impact of the hurricane , and may involve large populations moving to concentrated locations like emergency shelters or hotels — or leaving the area entirely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions are always difficult , both practically and politically .
The decision process should be altered during an epidemic because usual evacuation risks ( traffic accidents , for example ) will have to be balanced against the risk of increasing disease transmission , which could have longer-term effects than the hurricane itself .
The pandemic makes clearly communicating exactly who should evacuate even more important : Those in the storm surge zone should go while others should be encouraged to shelter in place and be prepared for wind , rain , and power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managers may need to get creative .
Evacuees should be screened for symptoms of the coronavirus , and those with symptoms should be placed in separate facilities .
The elderly and immunocompromised should be separated as much as possible and housed in smaller facilities to reduce their risk of catching the virus .
Hotels might be used to keep people apart , though large shelters and evacuation camps crowded with people may be inevitable .
There ’ s a much higher possibility that supplemental facilities , such as military shelters and hospitals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplies and food Household stocking of supplies may be even more critical than normal to get through the hurricane season .
People have been stockpiling food and supplies ( sometimes to the extreme ) in response to Covid-19 .
Some of these stocks can be doubly useful for hurricanes .
However , the coronavirus outbreak has also led to unique needs , such as disinfectants , soap , and masks .
People should remember these different needs as part of their hurricane planning .
Response organizations might also be able to combine their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of the materials are distinct , of course : Hurricane preparation requires material to harden buildings and careful transportation route protection , while Covid-19 preparation requires personal protective equipment and other medical supplies .
However , their needs are similar in many other respects , requiring stockpiles of emergency food and supplies and dedicated response staff .
Stocking up on supplies is also an equity issue .
Poorer and more vulnerable populations might have greater needs and fewer resources to meet those needs .
Response organizations should look to support these groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response involves a great number of people , including first responders like police , firefighters , search and rescue organizations , utility companies responsible for getting critical infrastructure back up and running , and incident managers who coordinate response efforts .
Since people themselves spread Covid-19 , how do you safely deploy them across the country , as well as deal with reductions in staff availability ?
Strategies are already being developed for managing the coronavirus outbreak in a way that minimizes disease spread , such as remote emergency operations centers and enhanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such strategies will need to be considered when dealing with the hurricane workforce .
Disaster recovery is a long-term process that plays out over the course of months , years , and decades .
This means that much of the recovery efforts should be occurring after we might expect to have a coronavirus vaccine .
However , the economic slowdown from the pandemic may affect the speed and scale of recovery .
Emergency managers generally view individual households as the center of recovery efforts .
Amassing an emergency fund is a crucial part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly half of Americans living paycheck to paycheck , that ’ s almost impossible .
With millions more people out of work entirely since March , many more people are likely to need external aid , such as financial support to secure temporary housing and to repair damages to their homes .
Instead of assuming people are able to recover on their own , the government may need to play an even more active role in assisting with the recovery .
Aaron Clark-Ginsberg is an associate social scientist at the nonprofit , nonpartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disaster risk management , including issues related to disaster risk reduction , response , and recovery .
Gary Cecchine is director of the RAND Gulf States Policy Institute and a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation .
His research focuses on emergency preparedness and response , environmental and health policy , and military medicine .
W. Craig Fugate is one of the world ’ s leading experts in emergency and crisis management .
The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Obama , Mr. Fugate is currently Chief Emergency Management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company focused on using big data to improve disaster management .
Craig Bond is a senior economist at the nonprofit , nonpartisan RAND Corporation .
His research focuses on applied welfare economics , including risk and resilience issues affecting the Gulf Coast .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Aaron Clark-Ginsberg, Gary Cecchine, Craig Fugate, and Craig Bond

Imagine Hurricane Katrina during a pandemic. The US needs to prepare for that — now.
Share All sharing options for: Imagine Hurricane Katrina during a pandemic. The US needs to prepare for that — now.
Without proper planning, the threat of hurricanes combined with Covid-19 is a recipe for disaster.
Think about how, when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, around 20,000 people took refuge in the Superdome stadium. By their very nature, hurricanes force people to gather close together in shelters, at treatment locations, and during evacuations — at much higher numbers and densities than the CDC recommends for countering a Covid-19 outbreak. And vulnerable populations such as residents of senior care facilities and individuals with disabilities are particularly affected by both hurricanes and infectious diseases.
The Atlantic hurricane season starts on June 1, and every state and territory on the Atlantic coast is vulnerable. This year’s hurricane season is predicted to be more active than normal, with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecasting three to six major hurricanes. Given indications that the Covid-19 outbreak will continue into the hurricane season, this situation requires a new kind of planning from both emergency managers and the public. And that planning needs to happen now.
Emergency managers — including federal officials, private sector authorities, and nonprofits — need to analyze their strategies to develop hurricane-plus-Covid-19 scenarios. This approach can yield complementary strategies instead of two separate plans for each situation.
Among the many issues to be considered:
Response systems may already be at capacity or overwhelmed
Covid-19 is already placing unprecedented strain on disaster management, health, and other systems; a hurricane will exacerbate that strain. With outbreaks across the entire nation, an area hit by a hurricane is less likely to get aid from other states or regions. Federal resources are limited in authority and capacity. Many hospitals are struggling to provide care due to limited resources and personnel, and at the community level, many are experiencing the economic effects of Covid-19 and have fewer resources and greater uncertainty.
Instead of assuming “business as usual,” plans need to be reassessed. For example, this might entail looking at how workforce shortages, delays in material and money, and insufficient hospital capacity impact hurricane response, and incorporating those changes into plans.
Evacuation and sheltering will have extra complications
Traditional calculations of when to issue evacuation warnings should be reassessed in light of Covid-19, which may change decisions of when to fortify and shelter in place.
Emergency evacuations are typically called for based on the expected impact of the hurricane, and may involve large populations moving to concentrated locations like emergency shelters or hotels — or leaving the area entirely. Even without a disease outbreak, evacuation decisions are always difficult, both practically and politically. The decision process should be altered during an epidemic because usual evacuation risks (traffic accidents, for example) will have to be balanced against the risk of increasing disease transmission, which could have longer-term effects than the hurricane itself.
The pandemic makes clearly communicating exactly who should evacuate even more important: Those in the storm surge zone should go while others should be encouraged to shelter in place and be prepared for wind, rain, and power outages.
If evacuation occurs, emergency managers may need to get creative. Evacuees should be screened for symptoms of the coronavirus, and those with symptoms should be placed in separate facilities. The elderly and immunocompromised should be separated as much as possible and housed in smaller facilities to reduce their risk of catching the virus. Hotels might be used to keep people apart, though large shelters and evacuation camps crowded with people may be inevitable. There’s a much higher possibility that supplemental facilities, such as military shelters and hospitals, may be needed.
Stocking up on supplies and food
Household stocking of supplies may be even more critical than normal to get through the hurricane season. People have been stockpiling food and supplies (sometimes to the extreme) in response to Covid-19. Some of these stocks can be doubly useful for hurricanes. However, the coronavirus outbreak has also led to unique needs, such as disinfectants, soap, and masks. People should remember these different needs as part of their hurricane planning.
Related Why hurricanes are expected to dump more rain in a warming world
Response organizations might also be able to combine their supply planning for Covid-19 and hurricanes. Some of the materials are distinct, of course: Hurricane preparation requires material to harden buildings and careful transportation route protection, while Covid-19 preparation requires personal protective equipment and other medical supplies. However, their needs are similar in many other respects, requiring stockpiles of emergency food and supplies and dedicated response staff.
Stocking up on supplies is also an equity issue. Poorer and more vulnerable populations might have greater needs and fewer resources to meet those needs. Response organizations should look to support these groups as part of preparedness planning.
Deploying emergency workers
Hurricane response involves a great number of people, including first responders like police, firefighters, search and rescue organizations, utility companies responsible for getting critical infrastructure back up and running, and incident managers who coordinate response efforts.
Since people themselves spread Covid-19, how do you safely deploy them across the country, as well as deal with reductions in staff availability?
Strategies are already being developed for managing the coronavirus outbreak in a way that minimizes disease spread, such as remote emergency operations centers and enhanced personal protective equipment for first responders. Such strategies will need to be considered when dealing with the hurricane workforce.
Economic recovery
Disaster recovery is a long-term process that plays out over the course of months, years, and decades. This means that much of the recovery efforts should be occurring after we might expect to have a coronavirus vaccine. However, the economic slowdown from the pandemic may affect the speed and scale of recovery.
Emergency managers generally view individual households as the center of recovery efforts. Amassing an emergency fund is a crucial part of hurricane preparedness, but for the nearly half of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, that’s almost impossible. With millions more people out of work entirely since March, many more people are likely to need external aid, such as financial support to secure temporary housing and to repair damages to their homes.
Instead of assuming people are able to recover on their own, the government may need to play an even more active role in assisting with the recovery.
Aaron Clark-Ginsberg is an associate social scientist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. His research focuses on disaster risk management, including issues related to disaster risk reduction, response, and recovery.
Gary Cecchine is director of the RAND Gulf States Policy Institute and a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation. His research focuses on emergency preparedness and response, environmental and health policy, and military medicine.
W. Craig Fugate is one of the world’s leading experts in emergency and crisis management. The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Obama, Mr. Fugate is currently Chief Emergency Management Officer for One Concern, an AI company focused on using big data to improve disaster management.
Craig Bond is a senior economist at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. His research focuses on applied welfare economics, including risk and resilience issues affecting the Gulf Coast.


vox--2020-05-27--Twitter now lets you disable replies. It could be its best change yet.

In February 2019 , Twitter announced that it was developing a feature to allow users to moderate their replies .
Users would be able to choose who could directly respond to their tweets , out of a hierarchy of user groups : anyone using the platform , only people they follow , or only people directly mentioned in the tweet itself .
At the time , this planned change went largely under the radar — it was , after all , one more step in Twitter ’ s ongoing , exhausting quest to cut down on platform toxicity and give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it wasn ’ t exactly clear whether this particular feature would ever see the light of day .
As it worked on the feature , Twitter rolled out other related changes first , like the ability to hide replies .
But now , 15 months later , the platform has finally begun deploying the feature in beta for some users as a test , and the reactions across Twitter have been striking : While discussing the recent apparent suicide of Japanese wrestler and reality TV star Hana Kimura , who had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to her death last weekend , Danish comedian Sofie Hagen explicitly referenced the new feature as a means of providing protection and safety : The new feature comes as part of a larger platform update , which also introduces other changes to your timeline .
Most notably , quoted tweets now show up in your notifications feed .
That means that when a Twitter user adds their own commentary onto a retweet of your content , you can actually be notified that their commentary exists .
But the comment-moderation tool seems to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-moderation idea is not new across social media ; YouTube , for example , has had the ability to disable comments to posts for years .
But on Twitter , where conversation virtually is the platform , this is a huge change — one that many users seem to view as a much-needed step in the right direction .
This tool won ’ t completely wipe out Twitter harassment , but it may drastically reduce it A Twitter spokesperson told Vox that they ’ re still waiting to see whether the change will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , noting , “ This is a test and we ’ ll be listening to feedback before determining if it should roll out to everyone .
Being able to participate and understand what ’ s happening is key for useful public conversation .
So , we ’ re exploring how we can improve these settings to give people more opportunities to weigh in while still giving people control over the conversations they start.
” The ability to control who replies to you singlehandedly truncates one of the worst aspects of Twitter harassment — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tweet you make goes viral or gets retweeted into a community beyond your own .
Even if these conversations aren ’ t inherently toxic , they can still be overwhelming , unexpected , and difficult .
Before the new moderation options launched , Twitter only offered two options for dealing with unwanted conversations : deleting the attention-getting thread or locking your entire Twitter account for a while .
Neither alternative is ideal .
Deleting your content is never a good look on the internet , and it can even expose you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you use Twitter , putting your account on private creates logistical difficulties — it ’ s essentially walling yourself off from the rest of Twitter , preventing you from interacting with any accounts that don ’ t follow you .
The ability to hide individual replies in a thread , which was added in fall 2019 , can help you moderate conversations without completely cutting them off , but manually hiding individual replies takes time and can be exhausting if you ’ re facing a flood of comments .
The truth is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trash fire .
Now , Twitter ’ s given us an easy ( or easier , at least ) way to douse the flames .
Better yet , you can control who gets to reply to a tweet before a conversation really even begins at all .
This new factor both does and doesn ’ t substantially change the way Twitter ’ s social interactions operate .
For starters , this new change existentially threatens the dreaded “ ratio ” — the ratio of replies to “ Likes ” on a viral thread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversial a tweet can be .
The Twitter ratio has become a meme over time , with people who dislike a tweet ’ s point using the numbers to proclaim that anyone so ratio ’ d has been owned by the crowd response .
But if replies can be restricted , a ratio might not stand in as a shorthand for the tone of a Twitter discussion or as a public verdict on whether that take was good or bad .
As the Twitter spokesperson noted , “ With this test , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to limit who can reply.
” Instead , if replies are completely shut off , users might need to take their discussion elsewhere ; or , if replies are allowed from people the user follows , the visiting bystander might be able to read their discussion and privately come to their own conclusions about the ideas under debate .
The advent of moderated Twitter replies also continues to be what seems to be an ongoing trend of modern-day social media slowly becoming LiveJournal circa 2002 , complete with most of the features of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now mostly out of fashion among US users ( it ’ s still big in Russia ) .
LiveJournal ’ s open source features largely anticipated most of what social media users complain about lacking today , like easy-to-follow threaded discussions and enhanced privacy settings .
It ’ s become something of a joke to note that between the addition of an expanded character count , bookmarks , and now comment moderation , Twitter is becoming more like LJ daily : Beyond jokes about LiveJournal , this change further reflects the inexorable privatization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The last half-decade or so has seen an explosion in locked , invite-only , moderated , and semi-public communities across the internet .
The dominance of direct messaging and group chats , locked Facebook groups , invite-only Slack and Discord servers , and lately even closed Zoom meetings — all of these services allow greater privacy and protection from harassment and outside observation .
In other words , they ’ re direct responses to many of the uncomfortable aspects of public social media .
By allowing Twitter users to self-moderate , the platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their public spaces without having to retreat entirely .
Reply moderation fundamentally alters the tone of Twitter interactions for the better Not everyone likes this new change , of course .
And we should point out that Twitter ’ s official communications team nearly turned us off the idea altogether by making the world ’ s most smug , passive-aggressive tweet to “ advertise ” the feature : Okay , we get it — the ability to turn off replies can be a secret form of weaponizing the hierarchy of your Twitter follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people you ’ re chummy with .
There ’ s that .
Maybe it ’ s too much to assume that people won ’ t use the reply feature to deliberately snub people who can ’ t reply to them .
But assuming people don ’ t use the reply moderation tool to be assholes , most of its alleged disadvantages kind of sound like advantages in disguise .
For instance , some K-pop fans worried that it would prevent them from doing something K-pop fans love to do : engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissed : Not to worry , fans : You can still host these strident defenses of your faves .
But if a tweet ’ s replies are turned off , you ’ ll just have to do it in your own space .
Reply moderation represents a huge potential shift from the way fandoms and fan campaigns have operated for years on Twitter .
Twitter became a popular space for fandom and other communities within geek culture primarily because it allowed fans to interact with , praise , and generally be heard by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorite media .
At the same time , the ease of interactivity and engagement , discovering opinions held by strangers , and removing those opinions from their originally intended contexts and broadcasting them to a completely different audience has also made the platform a toxic place for many quieter members of emphatic fandoms .
Disabling replies won ’ t curtail all of this .
A tweet with a moderated reply setting doesn ’ t mean that people can ’ t still yell at you .
We all know how much Twitter users love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and come to your Twitter and strike up conversations in your direction ; they just can ’ t do it in response to a specific thread whose mentions have been restricted .
Plus , people can still quote-tweet your replies .
With the new update to notifications , you ’ ll even see them doing it .
Anticipation of this added emphasis seems to be why Twitter tweaked the quote-reply interface : But a moderated reply chain has the potential to substantially change the inflection of Twitter interactions , even if those interactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been turned off might be a wake-up call to some users that they are not invited into this person ’ s personal space — that this person , like them , is just a real human going about their day , living their life , not seeking outside input from strangers .
That shift has the potential to profoundly alter fandom engagement on Twitter , especially regarding their relationships with celebrities .
Imagine , for example , how J.K. Rowling ’ s transphobic tweet might have been publicly received if she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fans telling her how hurt they were .
And think how different the entire culture of Twitter might be if K-pop stans can no longer show up in response to viral tweets to share random concert fancams .
The ability to turn off replies also potentially impacts the way entire sub-communities and subcultures interact with one another across ideological , cultural , and political divides .
When people can ’ t easily go into another user ’ s space and react to their tweet , the knee-jerk emotionality that drives many reactive Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even tempting to hope that the inability to directly engage with strangers about their opinions might fundamentally shift how we think about those opinions , and it might deflate the value of those opinions and their impact on your life .
When it takes a couple more seconds and a few more clicks to put your emotional response to a tweet out into the world , maybe those extra seconds and those extra clicks will put that emotion into perspective .
Is a deeper engagement with this idea , and with your own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the additional labor ?
In the case of some users , like those avid K-pop fans , the answer may well be yes .
And that ’ s fine !
Debating someone ’ s garbage talking point is every Twitter user ’ s right .
But being forced to relocate your reaction into your own space , through the act of quote-tweeting someone instead of replying to them directly , puts a buffer zone between you and any potential target of your emotions .
Even many people who resent the change seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be unbearable : In other words , this change potentially redirects the focus of Twitter ’ s public sphere toward the public debate rather than interpersonal attacks or exhausting unwanted conversations .
It promotes the idea that an exchange of opinions doesn ’ t necessarily have to involve direct engagement with the owner of that opinion .
Maybe I ’ m assuming too much .
Trollish types will invite and encourage replies and feed off the negative emotion they stir up in other users .
That ’ s not likely to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argumentative back and forth has always been the best part of Twitter : But if the choice to refuse to allow engagement becomes an accepted community practice , then maybe the choice not to engage can also become a new , stress-alleviating standard of behavior — for Twitter and beyond .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

In February 2019, Twitter announced that it was developing a feature to allow users to moderate their replies. Users would be able to choose who could directly respond to their tweets, out of a hierarchy of user groups: anyone using the platform, only people they follow, or only people directly mentioned in the tweet itself.
At the time, this planned change went largely under the radar — it was, after all, one more step in Twitter’s ongoing, exhausting quest to cut down on platform toxicity and give users more control over their experience, and it wasn’t exactly clear whether this particular feature would ever see the light of day. As it worked on the feature, Twitter rolled out other related changes first, like the ability to hide replies.
But now, 15 months later, the platform has finally begun deploying the feature in beta for some users as a test, and the reactions across Twitter have been striking:
BRUH ?!;4)$ this may be Twitter’s best update yet pic.twitter.com/XpnU6Btlmg — ot⁷ naja (@BTS_TINGS) May 20, 2020
Don’t reply to this tweet if you think Twitter’s new update where you can’t reply to tweets is terrible — Josh Wigler (@roundhoward) May 20, 2020
Someone has got to tell these lads about Twitter's new "no replies" feature pic.twitter.com/BugwSc9yYk — Michael Deacon (@MichaelPDeacon) May 23, 2020
While discussing the recent apparent suicide of Japanese wrestler and reality TV star Hana Kimura, who had been bullied and harassed on social media prior to her death last weekend, Danish comedian Sofie Hagen explicitly referenced the new feature as a means of providing protection and safety:
22 year old wrestler Hana Kimura took her own life yesterday after having been bullied by trolls online. Only a few months after Caroline Flack. A Danish influencer is currently sharing messages where she is being told to kill herself.
‘Just ignore the haters’ is not a thing. — Sofie Hagen (@SofieHagen) May 23, 2020
What I will say, as someone who is often sent abuse and threats AND as someone doesn’t give a fuck about trolls’ opinions: when Twitter made it an option to not allow people to reply to my tweets, it was the first time I ever felt safe tweeting. — Sofie Hagen (@SofieHagen) May 23, 2020
The new feature comes as part of a larger platform update, which also introduces other changes to your timeline. Most notably, quoted tweets now show up in your notifications feed. That means that when a Twitter user adds their own commentary onto a retweet of your content, you can actually be notified that their commentary exists. But the comment-moderation tool seems to be the update’s centerpiece.
This self-moderation idea is not new across social media; YouTube, for example, has had the ability to disable comments to posts for years. But on Twitter, where conversation virtually is the platform, this is a huge change — one that many users seem to view as a much-needed step in the right direction.
This tool won’t completely wipe out Twitter harassment, but it may drastically reduce it
A Twitter spokesperson told Vox that they’re still waiting to see whether the change will become a permanent fixture of the site, noting, “This is a test and we’ll be listening to feedback before determining if it should roll out to everyone. Being able to participate and understand what’s happening is key for useful public conversation. So, we’re exploring how we can improve these settings to give people more opportunities to weigh in while still giving people control over the conversations they start.”
The ability to control who replies to you singlehandedly truncates one of the worst aspects of Twitter harassment — being inundated with replies from strangers after a tweet you make goes viral or gets retweeted into a community beyond your own. Even if these conversations aren’t inherently toxic, they can still be overwhelming, unexpected, and difficult.
Before the new moderation options launched, Twitter only offered two options for dealing with unwanted conversations: deleting the attention-getting thread or locking your entire Twitter account for a while.
Neither alternative is ideal. Deleting your content is never a good look on the internet, and it can even expose you to further criticism. And depending on how you use Twitter, putting your account on private creates logistical difficulties — it’s essentially walling yourself off from the rest of Twitter, preventing you from interacting with any accounts that don’t follow you.
The ability to hide individual replies in a thread, which was added in fall 2019, can help you moderate conversations without completely cutting them off, but manually hiding individual replies takes time and can be exhausting if you’re facing a flood of comments.
The truth is, sometimes your mentions are just a total trash fire. Now, Twitter’s given us an easy (or easier, at least) way to douse the flames.
Better yet, you can control who gets to reply to a tweet before a conversation really even begins at all. This new factor both does and doesn’t substantially change the way Twitter’s social interactions operate.
For starters, this new change existentially threatens the dreaded “ratio” — the ratio of replies to “Likes” on a viral thread, which indicates at a glance how controversial a tweet can be. The Twitter ratio has become a meme over time, with people who dislike a tweet’s point using the numbers to proclaim that anyone so ratio’d has been owned by the crowd response. But if replies can be restricted, a ratio might not stand in as a shorthand for the tone of a Twitter discussion or as a public verdict on whether that take was good or bad. As the Twitter spokesperson noted, “With this test, people can clearly tell when the author chooses to limit who can reply.”
Instead, if replies are completely shut off, users might need to take their discussion elsewhere; or, if replies are allowed from people the user follows, the visiting bystander might be able to read their discussion and privately come to their own conclusions about the ideas under debate.
The advent of moderated Twitter replies also continues to be what seems to be an ongoing trend of modern-day social media slowly becoming LiveJournal circa 2002, complete with most of the features of that veteran blogging site, once-beloved but now mostly out of fashion among US users (it’s still big in Russia). LiveJournal’s open source features largely anticipated most of what social media users complain about lacking today, like easy-to-follow threaded discussions and enhanced privacy settings. It’s become something of a joke to note that between the addition of an expanded character count, bookmarks, and now comment moderation, Twitter is becoming more like LJ daily:
Twitter should have an option to make tweets that only your friends can see, like on LiveJournal. And there should be no character limit, like on LiveJournal. And there should be a separate field where you can add which Rilo Kiley song you’re currently listening to. — Raphael Bob-Waksberg (@RaphaelBW) May 20, 2020
Beyond jokes about LiveJournal, this change further reflects the inexorable privatization of the public sphere on Twitter. The last half-decade or so has seen an explosion in locked, invite-only, moderated, and semi-public communities across the internet. The dominance of direct messaging and group chats, locked Facebook groups, invite-only Slack and Discord servers, and lately even closed Zoom meetings — all of these services allow greater privacy and protection from harassment and outside observation. In other words, they’re direct responses to many of the uncomfortable aspects of public social media. By allowing Twitter users to self-moderate, the platform is giving users a way to control their public spaces without having to retreat entirely.
Reply moderation fundamentally alters the tone of Twitter interactions for the better
Not everyone likes this new change, of course. And we should point out that Twitter’s official communications team nearly turned us off the idea altogether by making the world’s most smug, passive-aggressive tweet to “advertise” the feature:
reply if you want to be verified! — Twitter Comms (@TwitterComms) May 20, 2020
Okay, we get it — the ability to turn off replies can be a secret form of weaponizing the hierarchy of your Twitter follow list, your verified status, and/or the people you’re chummy with. There’s that. Maybe it’s too much to assume that people won’t use the reply feature to deliberately snub people who can’t reply to them.
But assuming people don’t use the reply moderation tool to be assholes, most of its alleged disadvantages kind of sound like advantages in disguise. For instance, some K-pop fans worried that it would prevent them from doing something K-pop fans love to do: engage in heated debate when their favorite bands are dissed:
so what people are getting from this update is the ability to say extremely ignorant and disrespectful things about other groups and nobody can reply to defend their favs. got it. thanks, Twitter. — ᴠɪᴄ⁷₁₂₇⁶ᵛ⁶ ☻ nsfr (@tinglyjimin) May 21, 2020
Not to worry, fans: You can still host these strident defenses of your faves. But if a tweet’s replies are turned off, you’ll just have to do it in your own space.
Reply moderation represents a huge potential shift from the way fandoms and fan campaigns have operated for years on Twitter. Twitter became a popular space for fandom and other communities within geek culture primarily because it allowed fans to interact with, praise, and generally be heard by the celebrities and creative teams behind their favorite media. At the same time, the ease of interactivity and engagement, discovering opinions held by strangers, and removing those opinions from their originally intended contexts and broadcasting them to a completely different audience has also made the platform a toxic place for many quieter members of emphatic fandoms.
Disabling replies won’t curtail all of this. A tweet with a moderated reply setting doesn’t mean that people can’t still yell at you. We all know how much Twitter users love yelling. Anyone can still mention you and come to your Twitter and strike up conversations in your direction; they just can’t do it in response to a specific thread whose mentions have been restricted.
Plus, people can still quote-tweet your replies. With the new update to notifications, you’ll even see them doing it. Anticipation of this added emphasis seems to be why Twitter tweaked the quote-reply interface:
Don’t miss the Tweets about your Tweet.
Now on iOS, you can see Retweets with comments all in one place. pic.twitter.com/oanjZfzC6y — Twitter (@Twitter) May 12, 2020
But a moderated reply chain has the potential to substantially change the inflection of Twitter interactions, even if those interactions can still occur. Seeing that replies have been turned off might be a wake-up call to some users that they are not invited into this person’s personal space — that this person, like them, is just a real human going about their day, living their life, not seeking outside input from strangers.
That shift has the potential to profoundly alter fandom engagement on Twitter, especially regarding their relationships with celebrities. Imagine, for example, how J.K. Rowling’s transphobic tweet might have been publicly received if she’d chosen to disable replies from heartfelt fans telling her how hurt they were. And think how different the entire culture of Twitter might be if K-pop stans can no longer show up in response to viral tweets to share random concert fancams.
The ability to turn off replies also potentially impacts the way entire sub-communities and subcultures interact with one another across ideological, cultural, and political divides. When people can’t easily go into another user’s space and react to their tweet, the knee-jerk emotionality that drives many reactive Twitter brigades might dissipate.
It’s even tempting to hope that the inability to directly engage with strangers about their opinions might fundamentally shift how we think about those opinions, and it might deflate the value of those opinions and their impact on your life. When it takes a couple more seconds and a few more clicks to put your emotional response to a tweet out into the world, maybe those extra seconds and those extra clicks will put that emotion into perspective. Is a deeper engagement with this idea, and with your own reaction to this opinion, really worth the additional labor?
In the case of some users, like those avid K-pop fans, the answer may well be yes. And that’s fine! Debating someone’s garbage talking point is every Twitter user’s right. But being forced to relocate your reaction into your own space, through the act of quote-tweeting someone instead of replying to them directly, puts a buffer zone between you and any potential target of your emotions. Even many people who resent the change seem to agree that the alternative in the extreme would be unbearable:
Me: Twitter should be a conversation, making it so people can't reply is foolish.
Also me: If I say I have a headache and don't ask for help, I just wanted to SAY I have a HEADACHE, STOP TELLING ME TO GO TO THE FUCKING DOCTOR. — Seanan McGuire (@seananmcguire) May 21, 2020
Twitter really doesn't understand its audience.
They offer us "Everyone can reply", "People you follow", and "Only people you mention", but what I really want is "Everyone that sees this tweet has to formulate a thoughtful & proper response before being able to scroll on" — Rami Ismail (@tha_rami) May 21, 2020
Well I don't want other people to have them that sounds atrocious — Rami Ismail (@tha_rami) May 21, 2020
In other words, this change potentially redirects the focus of Twitter’s public sphere toward the public debate rather than interpersonal attacks or exhausting unwanted conversations. It promotes the idea that an exchange of opinions doesn’t necessarily have to involve direct engagement with the owner of that opinion.
Maybe I’m assuming too much. Trollish types will invite and encourage replies and feed off the negative emotion they stir up in other users. That’s not likely to change. And for some people, this argumentative back and forth has always been the best part of Twitter:
The twitter update to limit who can reply to your tweets sucks ass. The best part of twitter has always been that blue checkmarks can post terrible things and dudes like “cockpirate420” could respond with tons of evidence to prove them wrong. — grant (@TakeForGrantd) May 22, 2020
But if the choice to refuse to allow engagement becomes an accepted community practice, then maybe the choice not to engage can also become a new, stress-alleviating standard of behavior — for Twitter and beyond.


What day is it today?

Today is Thursday , May 28 , 2020 , at least in the continental United States .
It is already Friday , May 29 , in some parts of the world .
To some degree , time is an illusion .
We are bound by its forward passage , being the third-dimensional creatures we are , but the perceptions we have placed upon time have been invented .
Humans invented the year .
Humans invented the month .
Humans invented the day , the hour , the minute , the second .
These distinctions are not arbitrary — it really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth to orbit the sun — but their creation was not inevitable .
Our numerical system is likely base-10 because we have 10 fingers ; the way we understand time is almost entirely dependent on the fact that we evolved on this planet , circling this sun .
Time , at least as we understand it , is also a byproduct of capitalism .
In his seminal 1967 economic paper “ Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism , ” E. P. Thompson notes that in early human cultures , delineations of time were broad understandings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went down , when the seasons changed .
But as industrialization became the norm , time became a mechanized system that no longer served those who ’ d invented it .
We increasingly served at the beck and call of time , for that is how those who possessed capital could best regulate those who performed the labor .
For we are now at a point where sociologists are discussing the “ problem ” of leisure .
And a part of the problem is : how did it come to be a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convenience with industrial capitalism , was the agent which converted men to new valuations of time ; which taught children even in their infancy to improve each shining hour ; and which saturated men ’ s minds with the equation , time is money .
One recurrent form of revolt within Western industrial capitalism , whether bohemian or beatnik , has often taken the form of flouting the urgency of respectable timevalues .
And the interesting question arises : if Puritanism was a necessary part of the work-ethos which enabled the industrialized world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the past , will the Puritan valuation of time begin to decompose as the pressures of poverty relax ?
Is it decomposing already ?
Will men begin to lose that restless urgency , that desire to consume time purposively , which most people carry just as they carry a watch on their wrists ?
But it remains that on some base level , we will always understand time .
The sun comes up , the sun goes down .
Though we might be inside , where that process is more difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not obscure the day and night cycle .
What is lost , as each day blends into the next , in vaguely similar ways , is the mechanistic definition of time , the capitalist definition of time , the industrial definition of time .
We do not know what day it is , but we do know when there is a new day .
To live inside is to lose distinction .
There is a numbing effect that occurs when each day is the same , when our schedules are subsumed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undifferentiated time .
And yet isn ’ t this how so many of the less privileged around the world , forced to work jobs involving menial labor , day after day after day , already live ?
Isn ’ t this why we invented the weekend ?
Has this quarantine simply shown to those of us with more economic privilege that our “ free time ” was always a mirage , which could disappear before our eyes , by giving us so much “ free ” time ?
I have a wall calendar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I need to orient myself in time , I look at it .
But even the usefulness of my calendar has started to fray around the edges .
I began writing this story because I couldn ’ t quite believe it was a Thursday , even as I knew it had to be a Thursday .
But it might as well not be .
A cycle that bears the sun across our sky until it sets in the west is a reality ; “ Thursday ” is an invention .
Is it still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I will update this article daily until we don ’ t need it anymore .
I hope there is a time when we know it is Thursday or Tuesday or June 17 without having to look at a calendar or ask each other or Google .
I hope there is a time when going outside to see the sun doesn ’ t feel like exposing yourself to toxic levels of radiation .
( I know I should be taking walks ; every time , I feel like I ’ m risking everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in which all this “ free ” time no longer feels like a period we must exploit for maximum value .
I hope there is a time when I remember what it ’ s like to grab lunch with a friend , to watch dogs play in the surf , to breathe in the air and just be .
Until then , find a way to make time have meaning for you .
Read a long book .
Cook an elaborate meal .
Take up knitting .
Write an epic poem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ always meant to get to .
Sleep .
Remember that time doesn ’ t own you , and that you own time .
This will be over someday , a part of the past .
It will someday be a memory .
Hang on to that .
I ’ ll see you outside again .
For now , it is Thursday , May 28 , 2020 .
In some parts of the world , it is Friday , May 29 , 2020 .
Are you a “ What day is it today ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ theme song .
It ’ s written by composer Laura Stratford , and it is wonderful .

Today is Wednesday, July 1, 2020, at least in the continental United States. It is already Thursday, July 2, 2020, in some parts of the world. Life isn’t resuming gracefully, but the herky jerky train wreck of America’s reopening certainly speaks to some desire to exit this quarantine period. And so “What Day Is It Today” will exit the stage, too. For now, at least.
To some degree, time is an illusion. We are bound by its forward passage, being the third-dimensional creatures we are, but the perceptions we have placed upon time have been invented. Humans invented the year. Humans invented the month. Humans invented the day, the hour, the minute, the second.
These distinctions are not arbitrary — it really does take about 365 days for the Earth to orbit the sun — but their creation was not inevitable. Our numerical system is likely base-10 because we have 10 fingers; the way we understand time is almost entirely dependent on the fact that we evolved on this planet, circling this sun.
Time, at least as we understand it, is also a byproduct of capitalism. In his seminal 1967 economic paper “Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism,” E. P. Thompson notes that in early human cultures, delineations of time were broad understandings of when the sun came up and went down, when the seasons changed. But as industrialization became the norm, time became a mechanized system that no longer served those who’d invented it. We increasingly served at the beck and call of time, for that is how those who possessed capital could best regulate those who performed the labor.
Thompson writes:
For we are now at a point where sociologists are discussing the “problem” of leisure. And a part of the problem is: how did it come to be a problem ? Puritanism, in its marriage of convenience with industrial capitalism, was the agent which converted men to new valuations of time; which taught children even in their infancy to improve each shining hour; and which saturated men’s minds with the equation, time is money. One recurrent form of revolt within Western industrial capitalism, whether bohemian or beatnik, has often taken the form of flouting the urgency of respectable timevalues. And the interesting question arises: if Puritanism was a necessary part of the work-ethos which enabled the industrialized world to break out of the poverty-stricken economies of the past, will the Puritan valuation of time begin to decompose as the pressures of poverty relax? Is it decomposing already? Will men begin to lose that restless urgency, that desire to consume time purposively, which most people carry just as they carry a watch on their wrists?
But it remains that on some base level, we will always understand time. The sun comes up, the sun goes down. Though we might be inside, where that process is more difficult to witness, the fact of our insideness does not obscure the day and night cycle. What is lost, as each day blends into the next, in vaguely similar ways, is the mechanistic definition of time, the capitalist definition of time, the industrial definition of time. We do not know what day it is, but we do know when there is a new day.
To live inside is to lose distinction. There is a numbing effect that occurs when each day is the same, when our schedules are subsumed by what feels like an endless gulf of undifferentiated time. And yet isn’t this how so many of the less privileged around the world, forced to work jobs involving menial labor, day after day after day, already live? Isn’t this why we invented the weekend? Has this quarantine simply shown to those of us with more economic privilege that our “free time” was always a mirage, which could disappear before our eyes, by giving us so much “free” time?
I have a wall calendar hanging above my desk, and when I need to orient myself in time, I look at it. But even the usefulness of my calendar has started to fray around the edges. I began writing this story because I couldn’t quite believe it was a Thursday, even as I knew it had to be a Thursday. But it might as well not be. A cycle that bears the sun across our sky until it sets in the west is a reality; “Thursday” is an invention. Is it still necessary? I don’t know.
What’s important to remember is that time doesn’t own you. You own time. This will be over someday, a part of the past. It will someday be a memory. Hang on to that. I’ll see you outside again.
This story was originally published Friday, March 27, 2020.
Are you a “What day is it today?” superfan? Check out our official theme song. It’s written by composer Laura Stratford, and it is wonderful.