vox--2020-07-06--Covid-19 cases are rising, but deaths are falling. What’s going on?

There is something confounding about the US ’ s new coronavirus spikes : Cases are rising , but the country is seeing its lowest death counts since the pandemic first exploded .
The numbers are genuinely strange to the naked eye : On July 3 , the US reported 56,567 new Covid-19 cases , a record high .
On the same day , 589 new deaths were reported , continuing a long and gradual decline .
We haven ’ t seen numbers that low since the end of March .
When laypeople observe those contradictory trends , they might naturally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not increasing along with cases , then why can ’ t we keep reopening ?
The lockdowns took an extraordinary toll of their own , after all , in money and mental health and some lives .
If we could reopen the economy without the loss of life we saw in April and May , then why shouldn ’ t we ?
I posed that very question to more than a dozen public health experts .
All of them cautioned against complacency : This many cases mean many more deaths are probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths don ’ t increase to the same levels seen in April and May , there are still some very serious possible health consequences if you contract Covid-19 .
The novel coronavirus , SARS-Cov-2 , is a maddeningly slow-moving pathogen — until it ’ s not .
The sinking death rates reflect the state of the pandemic a month or more ago , experts say , when the original hot spots had been contained and other states had only just begun to open up restaurants and other businesses .
That means it could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really start to see the consequences , in lives lost , of the recent spikes in cases .
And in the meantime , the virus is continuing to spread .
By the time the death numbers show the crisis is here , it will already be too late .
Difficult weeks will lie ahead .
Even if death rates stay low in the near term , that doesn ’ t mean the risk of Covid-19 has evaporated .
Thousands of Americans being hospitalized in the past few weeks with a disease that makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to declare victory .
Young people , who account for a bigger share of the recent cases , aren ’ t at nearly as high a risk of dying from the virus , but some small number of them will still die and a larger number will end up in the hospital .
Early research also suggests that people infected with the coronavirus experience lung damage and other long-term complications that could lead to health problems down the road , even if they don ’ t experience particularly bad symptoms during their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus is spreading in the community , there is an increased risk that it will find its way to the more vulnerable populations .
“ More infected people means faster spread throughout society , ” Kumi Smith , who studies infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota , told me .
“ And the more this virus spreads the more likely it is to eventually reach and infect someone who may die or be severely harmed by it.
” This presents a communications challenge .
Sadly , as Smith put it , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit others in ways that you may not be able to see or feel ” is not an easy message for people to accept after three-plus months in relative isolation .
But perhaps the bigger problem is the reluctance of our government to take the steps necessary to control the disease .
Experts warned months ago that if states were too quick to relax their social distancing policies , without the necessary capacity for more testing or contact tracing , new outbreaks would flare up and be difficult to contain .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states are scrambling to reimpose some restrictions .
Unless the US gets smarter about its coronavirus response , the country seems doomed to repeat this cycle over and over again .
Why Covid-19 deaths aren ’ t rising along with cases — yet The contradiction between these two curves — case numbers sloping upward , death counts downward — is the primary reason some people are agitating to accelerate , not slow down , reopening in the face of these new coronavirus spikes .
The most important thing to understand is that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a long lag — as long as six weeks , experts told me — between when a person gets infected and when their death would be reported in the official tally .
“ Why aren ’ t today ’ s deaths trending in the same way today ’ s cases are trending ?
That ’ s completely not the way to think about it , ” Eleanor Murray , an epidemiologist at Boston University , told me .
“ Today ’ s cases represent infections that probably happened a week or two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases that were diagnosed possibly up to a month ago , so infections that were up to six weeks ago or more.
” “ Some people do get infected and die quickly , but the majority of people who die , it takes a while , ” Murray continued .
“ It ’ s not a matter of a one-week lag between cases and deaths .
We expect something more on the order of a four- , five- , six-week lag.
” As Whet Moser wrote for the Covid Tracking Project last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really took off around June 18 and 19 .
So we would not expect them to show up in the death data yet .
“ Hospitalizations and deaths are both lagging indicators , because it takes time to progress through the course of illness , ” Caitlin Rivers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security told me late last week .
“ The recent surge started around two weeks ago , so it ’ s too soon to be confident that we won ’ t see an uptick in hospitalizations and deaths.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ local trends .
According to the Covid Tracking Project , hospitalizations are spiking in the South and West , but , at the same time , they are dropping precipitously in the Northeast , the initial epicenter of the US outbreak .
And a similar regional shift in deaths may be underway , though it will take longer to reveal itself because the death numbers lag behind both cases and hospitalizations .
But even now , Alabama , Arizona , Florida , Nevada , South Carolina , Tennessee , Texas , and Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily deaths , according to Covid Exit Strategy , while Connecticut , Massachusetts , and New York have experienced a notable decline .
There are some reasons to be optimistic we will not see deaths accelerate to the same extent that cases are .
For one , clinicians have identified treatments like remdesivir and dexamethasone that , respectively , appear to reduce people ’ s time in the hospital and their risk of dying if they are put on a ventilator .
The new infections are also , for now , skewing more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much lower risk of dying of Covid-19 compared to older people .
But that is not the case for complacency that it might superficially appear to be .
Younger people are less at risk from Covid-19 — but their risk isn ’ t zero For starters , younger people can die of Covid-19 .
About 3,000 people under the age of 45 have died from the coronavirus , according to the CDC ’ s statistics ( which notably have a lower overall death count than other independent sources that rely on state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage of the 130,000 and counting overall Covid-19 deaths in the US .
But it does happen .
Moreover , younger people can also develop serious enough symptoms that they end up having to be hospitalized with the disease .
Again , their risk is meaningfully lower than that of older people , but that doesn ’ t mean it ’ s zero .
There can also be adverse outcomes that are not hospitalization or death .
Illness is not a zero-sum game .
A recent study published in Nature found that even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Lois Parshley has documented for Vox , some people who recover from Covid-19 still report health problems for weeks after their initial sickness .
Potential long-term issues include lung scarring , blood clotting and stroke , heart damage , and cognitive challenges .
In short , surviving Covid-19 , even with relatively mild symptoms , does not mean a person simply reverts to normal .
This is a new disease , and we are still learning the full extent of its effects on the human body .
But even if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a threat directly from the coronavirus , there is still a big reason to worry if the virus is spreading in that population : It could very easily make the leap from less vulnerable people to those who are much more at risk of serious complications or death .
The coronavirus could easily jump from younger people to the more vulnerable One response to the above set of facts might be : “ Well , we should just isolate the old and the sick , while the rest of us go on with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in theory ( if you ’ re not older or immunocompromised yourself ) , but it is much more difficult in practice .
“ The fact is that we live in communities that are all mixed up with each other .
That ’ s the concern , ” Natalie Dean , a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida , says .
“ It ’ s not like there ’ s some nice neat demarcation : you ’ re at high risk , you ’ re at low risk.
” The numbers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in late May and into early June , new infections accelerated among the under-45 cohort .
But after a lag of a week or so , new cases also started to pick up among the over-45 ( i.e.
, more at-risk ) population .
“ The rise in older adults is trailing behind , but it is starting to go up , ” Dean said .
Anecdotally , nursing homes in Arizona and Texas — the two states with the most worrisome coronavirus trends right now — have seen outbreaks in recent weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who work in nursing homes , after all , are living out in the community where Covid-19 is spreading .
And , because they are younger , they may not show symptoms while they are going to work and potentially exposing those patients .
As one expert pointed out to me , both Massachusetts and Norway have seen about 60 percent of their deaths come in long-term care facilities , even though the former has a much higher total fatality count than the latter .
That would suggest we have yet to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from those specific populations .
“ There is so far not much evidence that we know how to shield the most vulnerable when there is widespread community transmission , ” Marc Lipsitch , a Harvard epidemiologist , told me .
That means the best recourse is trying to contain community spread , which keeps the overall case and death counts lower ( as in Norway ) and prevents the health care system from being overwhelmed .
Health systems haven ’ t been overwhelmed — but some hospitals in new hot spots are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas still have 20 to 30 percent of their ICU and hospital beds available statewide , according to Covid Exit Strategy , even as case counts continue to rise .
While some people use those numbers to argue that the health systems can handle an influx of Covid patients , the experts I spoke to warned that capacity can quickly evaporate .
“ Let ’ s keep it that way , shall we ?
” William Hanage at Harvard said .
“ Hospitals are getting close to overwhelmed in some places , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if action isn ’ t taken now .
Also ‘ not overwhelmed ’ is a pretty low bar.
” Hospital capacity is another example of how the lags created by Covid-19 can lull us into a false sense of security until a crisis presents itself and suddenly it ’ s too late .
Because it can take up to two weeks between infection and hospitalization , we are only now beginning to see the impact of these recent spikes .
And , to be clear , hospitalizations are on the rise across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people currently hospitalized with Covid-19 in Texas is up from less than 1,800 on June 1 to nearly 8,000 on July 4 .
Hospitalizations in Arizona have nearly tripled since the beginning of June , up to more than 3,100 today .
And the state-level data doesn ’ t show local trends , which are what really matter when it comes to hospital capacity .
Some of the hardest-hit cities in these states are feeling the strain , as Hanage pointed out .
Hospitals in Houston have started transferring their Covid-19 patients to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their surge capacity plans , anticipating a growing need because of the trendlines in the state .
Once a hospital ’ s capacity is reached , it ’ s already too late .
They will have to endure several rough weeks after that breach , because the virus has continued to infect more people in the interim , some of whom will get very sick and require hospitalization when there isn ’ t any room available for them .
“ We ’ re seeing some drastic measures being implemented right now in Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children ’ s hospitals for adults , going into crisis mode , etc.
, ” Tara Smith , who studies infectious diseases at Kent State University , told me .
“ So it shows how quickly all of that can turn around.
” And , on top of Covid-19 , these health systems will continue to have the usual flow of emergencies from heart attacks , strokes , accidents , etc .
That ’ s when experts start to worry people will die who wouldn ’ t otherwise have .
That is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus , is supposed to prevent .
We don ’ t have to lock down forever — but we have to be smart and vigilant Lockdowns are extraordinarily burdensome .
Tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs .
Drug overdoses have spiked .
There has been a worrying increase in heart-related deaths , which indicates people who otherwise would have sought medical treatment did not do so during the worst of the outbreak this spring .
But we can not will the coronavirus out of existence .
Experts warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early , cases would spike , which would strain health systems and put us at risk of losing more people to this virus .
That appears to be what ’ s starting to happen .
And it may get worse ; if the summer heat has suppressed the virus to any degree , we could see another rebound in the fall and winter .
So we must strike a balance , between the needs of a human society and the reality that most of us are still susceptible to an entirely novel pathogen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the flu .
That means , for starters , being smarter about how we reopen than we have been so far .
There is strong evidence that states were too cavalier about ending stay-at-home orders and reopening businesses , with just a handful meeting the metrics for reopening laid out by experts , as Vox ’ s German Lopez explained .
“ What I ’ ve seen is that reopening is getting interpreted by many as reverting back to a Covid-free time where we could attend larger group gatherings , socialize regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without masks , ” Kumi Smith in Minnesota said .
“ The virus hasn ’ t changed since March , so there ’ s no reasons why our precautions should either.
” To date , most states have opened up bars again and kept schools closed .
Lopez made a persuasive case last week that we ’ ve got that backward .
One of the most thorough studies so far on how lockdowns affected Covid-19 ’ s spread found that closing restaurants and bars had a meaningful effect on the virus but closing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that shelter-in-place orders had a sizable impact .
While those measures may not be politically feasible anymore , individuals can still be cautious about going out — and when they do , they can stick to outdoor activities with a small number of people .
Masks are not a panacea either , but the evidence is convincingly piling up that they also help reduce the coronavirus ’ s spread .
Whether a given state has a mandate to wear one or not , that is one small inconvenience to accept in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , really , that is the point .
While the current divergence between case and death counts can be confusing , the experts agree that Covid-19 still poses a significant risk to Americans — and it is a risk that goes beyond literal life and death .
We know some of the steps that we , as individuals , can take to help slow the spread .
And we need our governments , from Washington to the state capitals , to get smarter about reopening .
It will require collective action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Other countries have done it .
But we have to act now , before we find out it ’ s already too late .
This story appears in VoxCare , a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America ’ s health care debate .
Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — 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 @ @

There is something confounding about the US’s new coronavirus spikes: Cases are rising, but the country is seeing its lowest death counts since the pandemic first exploded.
The numbers are genuinely strange to the naked eye: On July 3, the US reported 56,567 new Covid-19 cases, a record high. On the same day, 589 new deaths were reported, continuing a long and gradual decline. We haven’t seen numbers that low since the end of March.
When laypeople observe those contradictory trends, they might naturally have a follow-up question: If deaths are not increasing along with cases, then why can’t we keep reopening? The lockdowns took an extraordinary toll of their own, after all, in money and mental health and some lives. If we could reopen the economy without the loss of life we saw in April and May, then why shouldn’t we?
I posed that very question to more than a dozen public health experts. All of them cautioned against complacency: This many cases mean many more deaths are probably in our future. And even if deaths don’t increase to the same levels seen in April and May, there are still some very serious possible health consequences if you contract Covid-19.
The novel coronavirus, SARS-Cov-2, is a maddeningly slow-moving pathogen — until it’s not. The sinking death rates reflect the state of the pandemic a month or more ago, experts say, when the original hot spots had been contained and other states had only just begun to open up restaurants and other businesses.
That means it could still be another few weeks before we really start to see the consequences, in lives lost, of the recent spikes in cases. And in the meantime, the virus is continuing to spread. By the time the death numbers show the crisis is here, it will already be too late. Difficult weeks will lie ahead.
Even if death rates stay low in the near term, that doesn’t mean the risk of Covid-19 has evaporated. Thousands of Americans being hospitalized in the past few weeks with a disease that makes it hard to breathe is not a time to declare victory. Young people, who account for a bigger share of the recent cases, aren’t at nearly as high a risk of dying from the virus, but some small number of them will still die and a larger number will end up in the hospital. Early research also suggests that people infected with the coronavirus experience lung damage and other long-term complications that could lead to health problems down the road, even if they don’t experience particularly bad symptoms during their illness.
And as long as the virus is spreading in the community, there is an increased risk that it will find its way to the more vulnerable populations.
“More infected people means faster spread throughout society,” Kumi Smith, who studies infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, told me. “And the more this virus spreads the more likely it is to eventually reach and infect someone who may die or be severely harmed by it.”
This presents a communications challenge. Sadly, as Smith put it, “please abstain from things you like to benefit others in ways that you may not be able to see or feel” is not an easy message for people to accept after three-plus months in relative isolation.
But perhaps the bigger problem is the reluctance of our government to take the steps necessary to control the disease. Experts warned months ago that if states were too quick to relax their social distancing policies, without the necessary capacity for more testing or contact tracing, new outbreaks would flare up and be difficult to contain.
That’s exactly what happened — and now states are scrambling to reimpose some restrictions. Unless the US gets smarter about its coronavirus response, the country seems doomed to repeat this cycle over and over again.
Why Covid-19 deaths aren’t rising along with cases — yet
The contradiction between these two curves — case numbers sloping upward, death counts downward — is the primary reason some people are agitating to accelerate, not slow down, reopening in the face of these new coronavirus spikes.
The most important thing to understand is that this is actually to be expected. There is a long lag — as long as six weeks, experts told me — between when a person gets infected and when their death would be reported in the official tally.
“Why aren’t today’s deaths trending in the same way today’s cases are trending? That’s completely not the way to think about it,” Eleanor Murray, an epidemiologist at Boston University, told me. “Today’s cases represent infections that probably happened a week or two ago. Today’s deaths represent cases that were diagnosed possibly up to a month ago, so infections that were up to six weeks ago or more.”
“Some people do get infected and die quickly, but the majority of people who die, it takes a while,” Murray continued. “It’s not a matter of a one-week lag between cases and deaths. We expect something more on the order of a four-, five-, six-week lag.”
As Whet Moser wrote for the Covid Tracking Project last week, the recent spikes in case counts really took off around June 18 and 19. So we would not expect them to show up in the death data yet.
“Hospitalizations and deaths are both lagging indicators, because it takes time to progress through the course of illness,” Caitlin Rivers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security told me late last week. “The recent surge started around two weeks ago, so it’s too soon to be confident that we won’t see an uptick in hospitalizations and deaths.”
The national numbers can also obscure local trends. According to the Covid Tracking Project, hospitalizations are spiking in the South and West, but, at the same time, they are dropping precipitously in the Northeast, the initial epicenter of the US outbreak.
And a similar regional shift in deaths may be underway, though it will take longer to reveal itself because the death numbers lag behind both cases and hospitalizations. But even now, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia have seen an uptick in their average daily deaths, according to Covid Exit Strategy, while Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York have experienced a notable decline.
There are some reasons to be optimistic we will not see deaths accelerate to the same extent that cases are. For one, clinicians have identified treatments like remdesivir and dexamethasone that, respectively, appear to reduce people’s time in the hospital and their risk of dying if they are put on a ventilator.
The new infections are also, for now, skewing more toward younger people, who are at a much lower risk of dying of Covid-19 compared to older people. But that is not the case for complacency that it might superficially appear to be.
Younger people are less at risk from Covid-19 — but their risk isn’t zero
For starters, younger people can die of Covid-19. About 3,000 people under the age of 45 have died from the coronavirus, according to the CDC’s statistics (which notably have a lower overall death count than other independent sources that rely on state data). That is a small percentage of the 130,000 and counting overall Covid-19 deaths in the US. But it does happen.
Moreover, younger people can also develop serious enough symptoms that they end up having to be hospitalized with the disease. Again, their risk is meaningfully lower than that of older people, but that doesn’t mean it’s zero.
There can also be adverse outcomes that are not hospitalization or death. Illness is not a zero-sum game. A recent study published in Nature found that even asymptomatic Covid-19 patients showed abnormal lung scans. As Lois Parshley has documented for Vox, some people who recover from Covid-19 still report health problems for weeks after their initial sickness. Potential long-term issues include lung scarring, blood clotting and stroke, heart damage, and cognitive challenges.
In short, surviving Covid-19, even with relatively mild symptoms, does not mean a person simply reverts to normal. This is a new disease, and we are still learning the full extent of its effects on the human body.
But even if we recognize that young people face less of a threat directly from the coronavirus, there is still a big reason to worry if the virus is spreading in that population: It could very easily make the leap from less vulnerable people to those who are much more at risk of serious complications or death.
The coronavirus could easily jump from younger people to the more vulnerable
One response to the above set of facts might be: “Well, we should just isolate the old and the sick, while the rest of us go on with our lives.” That might sound good in theory (if you’re not older or immunocompromised yourself), but it is much more difficult in practice.
“The fact is that we live in communities that are all mixed up with each other. That’s the concern,” Natalie Dean, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida, says. “It’s not like there’s some nice neat demarcation: you’re at high risk, you’re at low risk.”
The numbers in Florida are telling. At first, in late May and into early June, new infections accelerated among the under-45 cohort. But after a lag of a week or so, new cases also started to pick up among the over-45 (i.e., more at-risk) population.
“The rise in older adults is trailing behind, but it is starting to go up,” Dean said.
Anecdotally, nursing homes in Arizona and Texas — the two states with the most worrisome coronavirus trends right now — have seen outbreaks in recent weeks as community spread increases. The people who work in nursing homes, after all, are living out in the community where Covid-19 is spreading. And, because they are younger, they may not show symptoms while they are going to work and potentially exposing those patients.
As one expert pointed out to me, both Massachusetts and Norway have seen about 60 percent of their deaths come in long-term care facilities, even though the former has a much higher total fatality count than the latter. That would suggest we have yet to find a good strategy for keeping the coronavirus away from those specific populations.
“There is so far not much evidence that we know how to shield the most vulnerable when there is widespread community transmission,” Marc Lipsitch, a Harvard epidemiologist, told me.
That means the best recourse is trying to contain community spread, which keeps the overall case and death counts lower (as in Norway) and prevents the health care system from being overwhelmed.
Health systems haven’t been overwhelmed — but some hospitals in new hot spots are getting close
Arizona, Florida, and Texas still have 20 to 30 percent of their ICU and hospital beds available statewide, according to Covid Exit Strategy, even as case counts continue to rise. While some people use those numbers to argue that the health systems can handle an influx of Covid patients, the experts I spoke to warned that capacity can quickly evaporate.
“Let’s keep it that way, shall we?” William Hanage at Harvard said. “Hospitals are getting close to overwhelmed in some places, and that will be more places in future if action isn’t taken now. Also ‘not overwhelmed’ is a pretty low bar.”
Hospital capacity is another example of how the lags created by Covid-19 can lull us into a false sense of security until a crisis presents itself and suddenly it’s too late. Because it can take up to two weeks between infection and hospitalization, we are only now beginning to see the impact of these recent spikes.
And, to be clear, hospitalizations are on the rise across the new hot spots. The number of people currently hospitalized with Covid-19 in Texas is up from less than 1,800 on June 1 to nearly 8,000 on July 4. Hospitalizations in Arizona have nearly tripled since the beginning of June, up to more than 3,100 today.
And the state-level data doesn’t show local trends, which are what really matter when it comes to hospital capacity. Some of the hardest-hit cities in these states are feeling the strain, as Hanage pointed out. Hospitals in Houston have started transferring their Covid-19 patients to other cities, and they are implementing their surge capacity plans, anticipating a growing need because of the trendlines in the state.
Once a hospital’s capacity is reached, it’s already too late. They will have to endure several rough weeks after that breach, because the virus has continued to infect more people in the interim, some of whom will get very sick and require hospitalization when there isn’t any room available for them.
“We’re seeing some drastic measures being implemented right now in Texas and Arizona along those lines: using children’s hospitals for adults, going into crisis mode, etc.,” Tara Smith, who studies infectious diseases at Kent State University, told me. “So it shows how quickly all of that can turn around.”
And, on top of Covid-19, these health systems will continue to have the usual flow of emergencies from heart attacks, strokes, accidents, etc. That’s when experts start to worry people will die who wouldn’t otherwise have. That is what social distancing, by slowing the spread of the coronavirus, is supposed to prevent.
We don’t have to lock down forever — but we have to be smart and vigilant
Lockdowns are extraordinarily burdensome. Tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Drug overdoses have spiked. There has been a worrying increase in heart-related deaths, which indicates people who otherwise would have sought medical treatment did not do so during the worst of the outbreak this spring.
But we cannot will the coronavirus out of existence. Experts warned months ago that if states reopened too early, cases would spike, which would strain health systems and put us at risk of losing more people to this virus. That appears to be what’s starting to happen. And it may get worse; if the summer heat has suppressed the virus to any degree, we could see another rebound in the fall and winter.
So we must strike a balance, between the needs of a human society and the reality that most of us are still susceptible to an entirely novel pathogen that is much deadlier and more contagious than the flu.
That means, for starters, being smarter about how we reopen than we have been so far. There is strong evidence that states were too cavalier about ending stay-at-home orders and reopening businesses, with just a handful meeting the metrics for reopening laid out by experts, as Vox’s German Lopez explained.
“What I’ve seen is that reopening is getting interpreted by many as reverting back to a Covid-free time where we could attend larger group gatherings, socialize regularly with many different people, or congregate without masks,” Kumi Smith in Minnesota said. “The virus hasn’t changed since March, so there’s no reasons why our precautions should either.”
To date, most states have opened up bars again and kept schools closed. Lopez made a persuasive case last week that we’ve got that backward. One of the most thorough studies so far on how lockdowns affected Covid-19’s spread found that closing restaurants and bars had a meaningful effect on the virus but closing schools did not.
That study also found that shelter-in-place orders had a sizable impact. While those measures may not be politically feasible anymore, individuals can still be cautious about going out — and when they do, they can stick to outdoor activities with a small number of people.
Masks are not a panacea either, but the evidence is convincingly piling up that they also help reduce the coronavirus’s spread. Whether a given state has a mandate to wear one or not, that is one small inconvenience to accept in order to get this outbreak back under control.
And, really, that is the point. While the current divergence between case and death counts can be confusing, the experts agree that Covid-19 still poses a significant risk to Americans — and it is a risk that goes beyond literal life and death. We know some of the steps that we, as individuals, can take to help slow the spread. And we need our governments, from Washington to the state capitals, to get smarter about reopening.
It will require collective action to stave off the coronavirus for good. Other countries have done it. But we have to act now, before we find out it’s already too late.
This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.


vox--2020-07-06--Netflix’s Unsolved Mysteries is different from the original. But one episode restores its pulpy aest

Netflix’s Unsolved Mysteries is different from the original. But one episode restores its pulpy aesthetic.

Netflix ’ s new Unsolved Mysteries revival occupies an interesting position within the true crime zeitgeist as it tries to serve two finicky masters .
In one corner , we have fans of the original 1987 series , which ran for 14 seasons and more than 500 episodes before petering out in 2010 .
These fans love the original series for its slightly campy ’ 80s aesthetic , its often quirky cases mixed with frequently eerie reenactments , all overseen by host Robert Stack ’ s famous trench coat and dusky-voiced narration .
In another corner , a new generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly cut their teeth on serious presentations of the genre , from Serial to numerous deep-dive Netflix documentaries and podcasts .
Perhaps if Tiger King had aired before Unsolved Mysteries ’ production was underway , the show might have leaned more into the more eccentric elements of the true crime genre .
As it is , the season ’ s first half of six episodes — another six episodes will drop later this year , reportedly in October — takes a much more solemn approach .
Gone are the chilling reenactments , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The new Unsolved Mysteries favors sober on-camera interviews and staid pacing with loaded silences .
Apart from the familiar opening theme music , you might not recognize the spirit of the original series at all — with one notable exception .
Unsolved Mysteries has the daunting task of making its audience , well , care about unsolved mysteries One of the difficulties in this new era of complex crime storytelling : Many fans resent learning about unsolved cases .
As true crime podcasters will tell you , modern audiences tend to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people have come to think of true crime as an improbable kind of comfort genre .
Unsettled crimes with no conclusions make it harder to treat the stories as entertainment .
The new Unsolved Mysteries approaches that difficulty from a few angles .
The original series usually combined multiple short segments that fit a theme , covering different mysteries , into a single episode .
The Netflix revival stretches those themed segments — a strange death , a missing person , or a wanted fugitive , for example — into full episodes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or two of the cases in the first half-season are true mysteries , with both the cause of death and the culprit undetermined — they ’ re less like modern true crime morality plays and more like the brain teasers from the original series .
A few other episodes are nearly conclusive , with the killer all but proven and technicalities like the lack of a body or the inability to locate the main suspect preventing a resolution .
( One episode deals with a famous case , the bizarre Dupont de Ligonnès @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been committed by a family annihilator who then vanished into the French countryside .
Another episode tackles UFOs , with lackluster success , while a third episode delves into a harrowing death that some believe may have been a hate crime . )
There ’ s one case , however , that veers from either path , and instead toys with that age-old rule of true crime : The husband did it .
In episode two , “ Thirteen Minutes , ” the husband in question goes on camera in classic Unsolved Mysteries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem as suspicious and creepy as humanly possible .
Documentary filmmaker Jimmy Goldblum , in his lone directing credit of the season ( each of the series ’ six episodes so far is helmed by a different director , with original series creators Terry Dunn Meurer and John Cosgrove acting respectively as showrunner and executive producer ) , follows the plight of a pain-filled Southern boy with the incredible name of Pistol Black as he tries to find out what happened to his mom .
Patrice Endres went missing from the roadside salon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Georgia , in 2004 .
A year and a half later , her remains were found a county away .
Since then , her son , now transformed from a surly teen into a charcoal-voiced man with a perpetually haunted look , has fought to publicize her case .
A few details make the case unusual , beginning with the number of potential suspects .
Because Endres ’ s salon was right beside a well-trafficked highway , anyone could have stopped and abducted her , and in fact one of the potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing just that .
Eye witnesses , including a friend of Endres ’ s , saw an unfamiliar car parked outside the salon shortly before her disappearance .
If anything , this seems to start out as a case where anyone but the husband did it .
But then we get to know the husband .
This guy did what with his dead wife ’ s remains ?
“ It made me feel really angry , ” Pistol says placidly , speaking of the galling treatment he received at the hands of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s disappearance .
Patrice ’ s husband , Rob Endres , immediately changed the locks to his house and refused to let his then-15-year-old stepson inside — not even to get clothes and other essential supplies .
“ I didn ’ t want Pistol in the house because , you know , I didn ’ t like him , ” Rob , pale-eyed and unsmiling , tells the camera about halfway through the episode .
Rob immediately registers as the villain , the Captain Hook to Pistol ’ s lost boy ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cutting a bouquet of flowers , the picture of silent grief all these years later .
Rob could be just a jerk — plenty of stepdads are .
But his possessive creepiness rapidly escalates .
Soon he ’ s casually relating with a satisfied gleam in his eye that he had the morgue reassemble Patrice ’ s skeleton , after which he picked up her skull , “ carried it around for awhile , ” and kissed it goodbye like a Southern gothic Hamlet .
“ Was she kept captive for a while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as if he were discussing where he misplaced his keys .
“ I hate to say this , but was she somebody ’ s ... toy ?
” Unlike a series like Tiger King , or the original Unsolved Mysteries , the new season of Unsolved Mysteries doesn ’ t treat any of Rob ’ s interviews with campy glee but rather with deferential sobriety .
Because the show clearly wants you to take its cases seriously , it ’ s initially a little annoying that the episode fixates on Rob when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support his guilt — or at least it ’ s annoying until Rob volunteers the fact that he kept Patrice ’ s ashes in bed with him .
In his zeal to keep his wife ’ s remains entirely away from Pistol — who we learn wasn ’ t even able to claim family photos , much less his mom ’ s ashes , from Rob — Patrice ’ s husband has held onto her ashes for years , leaving them unopened in a cheap box , on a shelf in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But for a while , he says , he slept with Patrice ’ s ashes next to him in bed .
Every night .
Unsolved Mysteries has always loved an eccentric suspicious husband , and for just this one episode , the new series leans all the way into that trope “ Thirteen Minutes ” immediately reminded me of another famous Unsolved Mysteries case where the husband seemed to be too skeevy to believe .
The case of Dottie Caylor , who went missing under mysterious circumstances in 1985 , appears in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What makes Dottie ’ s case stand out in the annals of true crime is the utter callousness with which her husband , Jule Caylor , behaved when he was filmed for the show .
Showing a complete lack of remorse or concern , Caylor describes an incident where he attacked his wife with a typing stand .
He says , with boredom , he “ wouldn ’ t even have wanted her ” to move with him to a new city , and similarly describes dropping his wife off at her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from whence she may or may not have vanished .
In a manner bizarrely similar to Rob Endres ’ s studied casualness , he speculates that his wife may have planned her disappearance or perhaps been abducted .
The real clincher , however , comes when he discusses his life after his wife ’ s disappearance .
“ Since ... that whole problem is behind me , ” he drawls , “ things are really pretty good.
” Since there ’ s just nothing you could say to top that mic drop of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original show chose to end the whole episode right there .
The Jule Caylor segment of that first episode is one of the original series ’ most notorious , for obvious reasons .
Caylor was eventually formally named a person of interest in his wife ’ s disappearance in 2004 , though because she was never found , no charges were ever brought .
So it ’ s no wonder some fans of the show were immediately reminded of Caylor when they watched Rob Endres placidly wondering if his wife became her killer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new Unsolved Mysteries mostly abandons the familiar trappings of the old series , “ Thirteen Minutes ” shows that it still knows what longtime Unsolved Mysteries fans want .
Though many of those fans have complained about the aesthetic changes , some have flocked to gawk at Rob Endres along with newer audiences .
There ’ s already a subreddit dedicated to hating the guy .
Virtually nothing is currently resolved , or likely to be resolved without the discovery of new leads , about Patrice Endres ’ s case .
( If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Georgia Bureau of Investigation . )
But thanks to the random macabre magic that resulted from giving her husband an unexpected spotlight , Unsolved Mysteries manages to satisfy both its old and new audiences and deliver at least one case that ’ s as unique as it is baffling .
The rest of the half-season is weaker , but “ Thirteen Minutes ” gives fans plenty to work with .
Don ’ t be surprised if the next six episodes lean even harder into this mix of campiness and the macabre .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will do until the next Tiger King — or the next smug , un-self-aware husband — comes along .
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 .

Netflix’s new Unsolved Mysteries revival occupies an interesting position within the true crime zeitgeist as it tries to serve two finicky masters.
In one corner, we have fans of the original 1987 series, which ran for 14 seasons and more than 500 episodes before petering out in 2010. These fans love the original series for its slightly campy ’80s aesthetic, its often quirky cases mixed with frequently eerie reenactments, all overseen by host Robert Stack’s famous trench coat and dusky-voiced narration.
In another corner, a new generation of true crime fans who’ve mostly cut their teeth on serious presentations of the genre, from Serial to numerous deep-dive Netflix documentaries and podcasts.
Rating: 3 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
Perhaps if Tiger King had aired before Unsolved Mysteries’ production was underway, the show might have leaned more into the more eccentric elements of the true crime genre. As it is, the season’s first half of six episodes — another six episodes will drop later this year, reportedly in October — takes a much more solemn approach. Gone are the chilling reenactments, the spooky narration, the melodramatic background music. The new Unsolved Mysteries favors sober on-camera interviews and staid pacing with loaded silences. Apart from the familiar opening theme music, you might not recognize the spirit of the original series at all — with one notable exception.
Unsolved Mysteries has the daunting task of making its audience, well, care about unsolved mysteries
One of the difficulties in this new era of complex crime storytelling: Many fans resent learning about unsolved cases. As true crime podcasters will tell you, modern audiences tend to get antsy when cases are unresolved; lots of people have come to think of true crime as an improbable kind of comfort genre. Unsettled crimes with no conclusions make it harder to treat the stories as entertainment.
The new Unsolved Mysteries approaches that difficulty from a few angles. The original series usually combined multiple short segments that fit a theme, covering different mysteries, into a single episode. The Netflix revival stretches those themed segments — a strange death, a missing person, or a wanted fugitive, for example — into full episodes, with one per episode.
One or two of the cases in the first half-season are true mysteries, with both the cause of death and the culprit undetermined — they’re less like modern true crime morality plays and more like the brain teasers from the original series. A few other episodes are nearly conclusive, with the killer all but proven and technicalities like the lack of a body or the inability to locate the main suspect preventing a resolution. (One episode deals with a famous case, the bizarre Dupont de Ligonnès murders, which are believed to have been committed by a family annihilator who then vanished into the French countryside. Another episode tackles UFOs, with lackluster success, while a third episode delves into a harrowing death that some believe may have been a hate crime.)
There’s one case, however, that veers from either path, and instead toys with that age-old rule of true crime: The husband did it. In episode two, “Thirteen Minutes,” the husband in question goes on camera in classic Unsolved Mysteries fashion, and proceeds to make himself seem as suspicious and creepy as humanly possible.
Documentary filmmaker Jimmy Goldblum, in his lone directing credit of the season (each of the series’ six episodes so far is helmed by a different director, with original series creators Terry Dunn Meurer and John Cosgrove acting respectively as showrunner and executive producer), follows the plight of a pain-filled Southern boy with the incredible name of Pistol Black as he tries to find out what happened to his mom. Patrice Endres went missing from the roadside salon she owned in her hometown of Cumming, Georgia, in 2004. A year and a half later, her remains were found a county away. Since then, her son, now transformed from a surly teen into a charcoal-voiced man with a perpetually haunted look, has fought to publicize her case.
A few details make the case unusual, beginning with the number of potential suspects. Because Endres’s salon was right beside a well-trafficked highway, anyone could have stopped and abducted her, and in fact one of the potential suspects was a serial killer known for doing just that. Eye witnesses, including a friend of Endres’s, saw an unfamiliar car parked outside the salon shortly before her disappearance. If anything, this seems to start out as a case where anyone but the husband did it.
But then we get to know the husband.
This guy did what with his dead wife’s remains?
“It made me feel really angry,” Pistol says placidly, speaking of the galling treatment he received at the hands of his stepfather in the days following his mother’s disappearance. Patrice’s husband, Rob Endres, immediately changed the locks to his house and refused to let his then-15-year-old stepson inside — not even to get clothes and other essential supplies.
“I didn’t want Pistol in the house because, you know, I didn’t like him,” Rob, pale-eyed and unsmiling, tells the camera about halfway through the episode. Rob immediately registers as the villain, the Captain Hook to Pistol’s lost boy; after this, we see Pistol wordlessly cutting a bouquet of flowers, the picture of silent grief all these years later.
Rob could be just a jerk — plenty of stepdads are. But his possessive creepiness rapidly escalates. Soon he’s casually relating with a satisfied gleam in his eye that he had the morgue reassemble Patrice’s skeleton, after which he picked up her skull, “carried it around for awhile,” and kissed it goodbye like a Southern gothic Hamlet.
“Was she kept captive for a while?” he muses at one point, as if he were discussing where he misplaced his keys. “I hate to say this, but was she somebody’s ... toy?”
Unlike a series like Tiger King, or the original Unsolved Mysteries, the new season of Unsolved Mysteries doesn’t treat any of Rob’s interviews with campy glee but rather with deferential sobriety. Because the show clearly wants you to take its cases seriously, it’s initially a little annoying that the episode fixates on Rob when there’s really not much evidence to support his guilt — or at least it’s annoying until Rob volunteers the fact that he kept Patrice’s ashes in bed with him.
In his zeal to keep his wife’s remains entirely away from Pistol — who we learn wasn’t even able to claim family photos, much less his mom’s ashes, from Rob — Patrice’s husband has held onto her ashes for years, leaving them unopened in a cheap box, on a shelf in his closet like a pair of forgotten shoes. But for a while, he says, he slept with Patrice’s ashes next to him in bed. Every night.
Insert record scratch.
Unsolved Mysteries has always loved an eccentric suspicious husband, and for just this one episode, the new series leans all the way into that trope
“Thirteen Minutes” immediately reminded me of another famous Unsolved Mysteries case where the husband seemed to be too skeevy to believe. The case of Dottie Caylor, who went missing under mysterious circumstances in 1985, appears in the original series’ very first episode. What makes Dottie’s case stand out in the annals of true crime is the utter callousness with which her husband, Jule Caylor, behaved when he was filmed for the show.
Showing a complete lack of remorse or concern, Caylor describes an incident where he attacked his wife with a typing stand. He says, with boredom, he “wouldn’t even have wanted her” to move with him to a new city, and similarly describes dropping his wife off at her last known location, a subway station from whence she may or may not have vanished. In a manner bizarrely similar to Rob Endres’s studied casualness, he speculates that his wife may have planned her disappearance or perhaps been abducted.
The real clincher, however, comes when he discusses his life after his wife’s disappearance. “Since ... that whole problem is behind me,” he drawls, “things are really pretty good.”
Since there’s just nothing you could say to top that mic drop of a non-confession, the producers of the original show chose to end the whole episode right there.
The Jule Caylor segment of that first episode is one of the original series’ most notorious, for obvious reasons. Caylor was eventually formally named a person of interest in his wife’s disappearance in 2004, though because she was never found, no charges were ever brought. So it’s no wonder some fans of the show were immediately reminded of Caylor when they watched Rob Endres placidly wondering if his wife became her killer’s toy.
Jule Caylor: "No one will ever top me as the creepiest spouse on Unsolved Mysteries"
Rod Endres: "Hold my beer!" — The Trail Went Cold (@robin_warder) July 6, 2020
And while the new Unsolved Mysteries mostly abandons the familiar trappings of the old series, “Thirteen Minutes” shows that it still knows what longtime Unsolved Mysteries fans want. Though many of those fans have complained about the aesthetic changes, some have flocked to gawk at Rob Endres along with newer audiences. There’s already a subreddit dedicated to hating the guy.
I have NEVER shouted "what the fuck" so many times in under 5 minutes than I did for the last bit of the Patrice Endres episode of Unsolved Mysteries. Rob is a damn nutjob for how he talked about her remains. Pistol deserves to have his mother's remains. I feel so bad for him. — ⌷ madison ⌷ (@SassMasterMadz) July 1, 2020
Rob suggesting that the killer took Patrice into the woods with a wheelbarrow, how he CUDDLED with her ashes, and how he carried her skull around and kissed it! ARE YOU KIDDING ME RIGHT NOW ARREST THIS MAN #UnsolvedMysteries pic.twitter.com/yM2JQBWYRe — Alexandra (@alexandraclvn) July 6, 2020
Virtually nothing is currently resolved, or likely to be resolved without the discovery of new leads, about Patrice Endres’s case. (If you do have new leads, contact the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.) But thanks to the random macabre magic that resulted from giving her husband an unexpected spotlight, Unsolved Mysteries manages to satisfy both its old and new audiences and deliver at least one case that’s as unique as it is baffling. The rest of the half-season is weaker, but “Thirteen Minutes” gives fans plenty to work with. Don’t be surprised if the next six episodes lean even harder into this mix of campiness and the macabre. For now, “Thirteen Episodes” will do until the next Tiger King — or the next smug, un-self-aware husband — comes along.


vox--2020-07-06--The Supreme Court decides not to make the Electoral College even worse

Under Monday ’ s unanimous Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v. Washington , states may remove or sanction members of the Electoral College if those electors go rogue and defy the will of the state ’ s voters .
The case arose out of a peculiar effort by a handful of Democratic members of the Electoral College to deny the presidency to Donald Trump .
Three members of the Electoral College from the state of Washington cast electoral votes for former Secretary of State Colin Powell , rather than Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton , in the hope that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would join them in electing a Republican other than Trump .
It didn ’ t work , and these three “ faithless ” electors were fined $ 1,000 each for their trouble .
The core question in Chiafalo is whether states may impose such a sanction on “ faithless electors ” — electors who vote for someone other than the winner of their state ’ s popular election for the president .
( Two states , Maine and Nebraska , allocate some electoral votes to the winners of individual congressional districts . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ faithlessly received bipartisan opposition .
Both the Republican National Committee and the Colorado Democratic Party filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to rule against faithless electors .
And the decision was ultimately unanimous , although two justices , Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch , disagreed with the reasoning of Justice Elena Kagan ’ s majority opinion .
In a statement released after Chiafalo was handed down , Paul Smith , a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center , warned that a contrary ruling could have led to corruption by electors because there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for presidential electors.
” An elector could conceivably sell their vote and the public would have no way to learn about it .
Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring members of the Electoral College to pledge to support the winner of the popular election , and the Supreme Court established in Ray v. Blair ( 1952 ) that such pledges are permissible .
Fifteen states , however , do more than merely require an elector to make a pledge .
They also enforce that pledge by either fining faithless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them with someone who will honor the pledge .
The crux of Justice Kagan ’ s majority opinion is that “ the power to appoint an elector ( in any manner ) includes power to condition his appointment — that is , to say what the elector must do for the appointment to take effect.
” That is , a state may tell an elector that they must vote for a particular individual as a condition of being appointed to the Electoral College .
The Constitution gives states broad authority to appoint presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular election to choose members of the Electoral College , and they have done so for quite a while .
By 1832 , every state but South Carolina used a popular election to select electors , and South Carolina came around in the 1860s .
But the Constitution does not actually mandate a popular vote .
Instead , it provides that “ each state shall appoint , in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct , a number of electors , equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress.
” Thus , a state legislature could theoretically draw the names of electors out of a hat .
Thus , as Kagan explains , a state may impose any number of conditions on individuals hoping to join the Electoral College .
It may insist “ that an elector live in the State or qualify as a regular voter during the relevant time period.
” It may require electors to pledge their vote to a certain candidate .
And “ so long as nothing else in the Constitution poses an obstacle ” — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African Americans as electors , for example , because that would violate the Constitution ’ s safeguards against race discrimination — “ a State can add , as Washington did , an associated condition of appointment : It can demand that the elector actually live up to his pledge , on pain of penalty.
” The faithless electors argued that the text of the 12th Amendment , which provides that electors shall “ vote ” by “ ballot , ” implies that those electors must exercise some choice in deciding how to cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this reading of the Constitution ’ s text .
Among other things , Kagan notes that it ’ s not uncommon for candidates to run unopposed for office , especially in down-ballot races .
Yet we still think of someone who votes for such a candidate as casting a “ vote ” or a “ ballot ” — even though they had no meaningful choice .
The history of American elections undercuts the faithless electors ’ argument Kagan ’ s opinion also relies on the history of American presidential elections .
As she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court decision , “ ‘ long settled and established practice ’ may have ‘ great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions.
’ ” That is , if the country has consistently run elections in a particular way over the course of many decades , courts should be reluctant to overturn that settled practice .
And there is a wealth of historical evidence showing that the United States rejected the idea that electors should exercise independent judgment very early in our nation ’ s history .
In the very first contested election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adams and Republican Thomas Jefferson — “ would-be electors declared themselves for one or the other party ’ s presidential candidate , ” Kagan writes .
By 1833 , Justice Joseph Story wrote that “ ‘ the electors are now chosen wholly with reference to particular candidates , ’ having either ‘ silently ’ or ‘ publicly pledge [ d ] ’ how they will vote.
” He added that if an elector exercised “ independent judgment , ” then this act “ would be treated as a political usurpation , dishonourable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his constituents.
” In total , Kagan notes , only 180 faithless electoral votes have been cast in American history , out of more than 23,000 total votes cast .
And a third of these were cast in the 1872 election , “ when the Democratic Party ’ s nominee ( Horace Greeley ) died just after Election Day.
” Setting aside the 1872 election , “ faithless votes represent just one-half of one percent of the total.
” This history , combined with Kagan ’ s textual analysis , is sufficient reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So the upshot of Chiafalo is that , while the Electoral College may still hand the presidency to the loser of the national popular vote , states can prevent individual electors from changing the result of a presidential election .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Under Monday’s unanimous Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v. Washington, states may remove or sanction members of the Electoral College if those electors go rogue and defy the will of the state’s voters.
The case arose out of a peculiar effort by a handful of Democratic members of the Electoral College to deny the presidency to Donald Trump. Three members of the Electoral College from the state of Washington cast electoral votes for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, rather than Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, in the hope that a critical mass of electors from other states would join them in electing a Republican other than Trump.
It didn’t work, and these three “faithless” electors were fined $1,000 each for their trouble.
The core question in Chiafalo is whether states may impose such a sanction on “faithless electors” — electors who vote for someone other than the winner of their state’s popular election for the president. (Two states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate some electoral votes to the winners of individual congressional districts.)
The idea that individual electors may behave faithlessly received bipartisan opposition. Both the Republican National Committee and the Colorado Democratic Party filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to rule against faithless electors. And the decision was ultimately unanimous, although two justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, disagreed with the reasoning of Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion.
In a statement released after Chiafalo was handed down, Paul Smith, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, warned that a contrary ruling could have led to corruption by electors because there are “no federal ethics or transparency laws for presidential electors.” An elector could conceivably sell their vote and the public would have no way to learn about it.
Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring members of the Electoral College to pledge to support the winner of the popular election, and the Supreme Court established in Ray v. Blair (1952) that such pledges are permissible. Fifteen states, however, do more than merely require an elector to make a pledge. They also enforce that pledge by either fining faithless electors or removing those electors and replacing them with someone who will honor the pledge.
The crux of Justice Kagan’s majority opinion is that “the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment — that is, to say what the elector must do for the appointment to take effect.” That is, a state may tell an elector that they must vote for a particular individual as a condition of being appointed to the Electoral College.
The Constitution gives states broad authority to appoint presidential electors
Every state uses some form of popular election to choose members of the Electoral College, and they have done so for quite a while. By 1832, every state but South Carolina used a popular election to select electors, and South Carolina came around in the 1860s.
But the Constitution does not actually mandate a popular vote. Instead, it provides that “each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” Thus, a state legislature could theoretically draw the names of electors out of a hat.
Thus, as Kagan explains, a state may impose any number of conditions on individuals hoping to join the Electoral College. It may insist “that an elector live in the State or qualify as a regular voter during the relevant time period.” It may require electors to pledge their vote to a certain candidate. And “so long as nothing else in the Constitution poses an obstacle” — a state cannot refuse to appoint African Americans as electors, for example, because that would violate the Constitution’s safeguards against race discrimination — “a State can add, as Washington did, an associated condition of appointment: It can demand that the elector actually live up to his pledge, on pain of penalty.”
The faithless electors argued that the text of the 12th Amendment, which provides that electors shall “vote” by “ballot,” implies that those electors must exercise some choice in deciding how to cast that ballot. But the Court rejects this reading of the Constitution’s text.
Among other things, Kagan notes that it’s not uncommon for candidates to run unopposed for office, especially in down-ballot races. Yet we still think of someone who votes for such a candidate as casting a “vote” or a “ballot” — even though they had no meaningful choice.
The history of American elections undercuts the faithless electors’ argument
Kagan’s opinion also relies on the history of American presidential elections. As she notes, quoting from a 1929 Supreme Court decision, “‘long settled and established practice’ may have ‘great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions.’”
That is, if the country has consistently run elections in a particular way over the course of many decades, courts should be reluctant to overturn that settled practice.
And there is a wealth of historical evidence showing that the United States rejected the idea that electors should exercise independent judgment very early in our nation’s history. In the very first contested election — the 1796 election between Federalist John Adams and Republican Thomas Jefferson — “would-be electors declared themselves for one or the other party’s presidential candidate,” Kagan writes.
By 1833, Justice Joseph Story wrote that “‘the electors are now chosen wholly with reference to particular candidates,’ having either ‘silently’ or ‘publicly pledge[d]’ how they will vote.” He added that if an elector exercised “independent judgment,” then this act “would be treated as a political usurpation, dishonourable to the individual, and a fraud upon his constituents.”
In total, Kagan notes, only 180 faithless electoral votes have been cast in American history, out of more than 23,000 total votes cast. And a third of these were cast in the 1872 election, “when the Democratic Party’s nominee (Horace Greeley) died just after Election Day.” Setting aside the 1872 election, “faithless votes represent just one-half of one percent of the total.”
This history, combined with Kagan’s textual analysis, is sufficient reason to allow states to sanction faithless electors.
So the upshot of Chiafalo is that, while the Electoral College may still hand the presidency to the loser of the national popular vote, states can prevent individual electors from changing the result of a presidential election.


vox--2020-07-06--Camping has become the social distancing activity of the summer

During the first wave of strict coronavirus lockdowns in late March , the only outings most Americans could look forward to with some degree of certainty were cautious trips to the grocery store .
Slowly but surely , those fortunate enough to work or quarantine at home began adapting to life indoors : People learned new hobbies , redecorated their homes , dyed their hair , attended lots of virtual events on Zoom , and even planned mini staycations .
Now , as the weather warms up , Americans are eager to get back outdoors as most states at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in coronavirus cases .
Tired of the confines of home and its familiarity , many are gravitating toward nature — planning road trips and reserving RVs to visit national parks and campgrounds , or booking short-term stays at tiny cabins and luxury tents away from society .
People crave the experience of travel , but there ’ s an increased interest in private spaces and areas where they can get away from others .
Travelers naturally want a greater sense of control , especially in the midst of a pandemic , said Alan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of Hawaii .
And as such , many are seeking out socially distant leisure options that appear to prioritize hygiene and overall well-being , while spending time alone or with those in their social cluster .
In recent years , young travelers have been drawn to camping ( or , occasionally , luxury camping with added amenities , also known as “ glamping ” ) in greater numbers , but these outdoorsy activities have new appeal in a world where we ’ re encouraged to remain 6 feet apart .
“ Nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it , ” said Josh Lesnick , president and COO of Collective Retreats , a luxury camping company .
“ The ability to be just outdoors surrounded by fresh air in a safe environment , and not too prescribed where you feel like you ’ re in a bleach box , I think that ’ s what people are looking for.
” From what health experts know about the coronavirus , outdoor spaces appear to present a much lower risk than indoors in terms of transmission .
Plus , being close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pace and scenery for those accustomed to the drudgery of daily work and life .
“ Nature allows you to social distance without thinking about it ” Since stay-at-home orders started easing in May , tourists have been flocking to national parks in droves , worrying local community members who fear the sudden influx of people could lead to an increase in Covid-19 cases .
According to RVshare , a peer-to-peer RV rental company , among the most popular destinations for renters this year are Yellowstone , Zion , and the Grand Canyon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with some preparing to reach capacity during holiday weekends .
Car rental companies are seeing an uptick in reservations , too , especially in urban hot spots like New York City .
RV reservations for the July Fourth weekend skyrocketed , and overall , RVshare has seen “ booking levels of three times last summer and a 1,600 percent increase in bookings since early April , ” a spokesperson for the company told Vox in an email .
It ’ s not just RVs and campgrounds that are seeing unprecedented levels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitality space — which usually caters to more urban , upwardly mobile travelers — are receiving an overwhelming number of bookings .
It could be that people are itching to leave dense cities , even if for a brief period of time .
Plus , there are simply fewer vacation options available with activities that are socially distant ; places like family-friendly resorts and amusement parks have either closed down or could be deemed unsafe for wary travelers .
Camping trips , then , seem to be a much safer choice , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , clean tents or cabins , and comfy beds ) are involved .
Upon first glance at the Instagram page for Getaway , the travel startup is peak cozycore , featuring a grid of warm , yellow-toned photos , comfy white sheets and blankets , and an expansive view of the great outdoors .
The company offers an array of small , cozy cabins in the woods for short-term rentals , located a few hours outside major cities , and appears designed to cater to young professionals in urban areas .
Many outposts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July and August , according to co-founder Jon Staff .
“ We saw a huge jump in bookings , about 400 percent , right when Trump announced the Europe travel ban in March , ” Staff said .
“ We did have a bunch of cancellations when the stay-at-home orders came out , but many people did opt for short-term bookings when their vacations or work conferences got canceled , so it was balanced out.
” It “ just so happened ” that Staff and co-founder Pete Davis created a socially distant business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lucky that Getaway was well-suited for this moment , ” he said .
“ Our cabins have always been 100 to 150 feet apart .
There ’ s no check-in desk .
We have no bar or restaurant.
” Sara Fopiano , who stayed at Getaway ’ s Boston outpost , told me she was initially hesitant to move forward with the trip during the pandemic , despite booking back in January .
However , the socially distant nature of the cabins reassured her .
“ I really appreciated the fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely contactless , so we did not cross paths with anyone at the outpost , ” Fopiano said .
That choice could be much more reassuring than , say , staying at a typical hotel or an Airbnb , where guests might be more likely to bump into strangers in enclosed spaces .
The appearance of openness and isolation could be liberating — and help grant worried guests like Fopiano some peace of mind .
“ We don ’ t have hallways , and our lobbies are like yards , ” Collective Retreats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more geared toward visitors with the means to pay for the luxury of hotel amenities in an outdoor setting .
The experience is similar to that of a public campsite but without the shared spaces ( like bathrooms ) , Lesnick said , and the retreats are close enough to travel to by car from a major city .
At the start of the pandemic , experts predicted the coronavirus could fundamentally change travel as we know it — by affecting flight affordability , how we share public and private spaces , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trip is safe .
These predictions also highlighted how people , in search of comfort and security , might pay more for it .
Ideally , spending time in nature should cost you relatively little .
But in pandemic times , those who are willing and able to fork over extra money can experience nature with the added comfort and cleanliness you might not get at a regular campground .
At Collective Retreats , for example , some locations employ private chefs , and guests are able to order food service from their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leisure travel , especially around the Memorial Day and July Fourth weekends , suggests that people are starting to feel confident enough to venture away from home .
Plus , those who are traveling likely have disposable income , secure jobs , or vacation benefits .
But that doesn ’ t necessarily means they ’ re not taking the pandemic seriously , Katz , the epidemiologist , said .
While Katz admits that people “ are notoriously bad at assessing risks , ” it seems travelers are actively attempting to scope out socially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been about the reward of the destination , ” Katz told me .
“ If the risk is high in that area and is broadcasted as such , travel to that destination will fall off by both car and air.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

During the first wave of strict coronavirus lockdowns in late March, the only outings most Americans could look forward to with some degree of certainty were cautious trips to the grocery store. Slowly but surely, those fortunate enough to work or quarantine at home began adapting to life indoors: People learned new hobbies, redecorated their homes, dyed their hair, attended lots of virtual events on Zoom, and even planned mini staycations.
Now, as the weather warms up, Americans are eager to get back outdoors as most states at least partially reopen, despite the concerning uptick in coronavirus cases. Tired of the confines of home and its familiarity, many are gravitating toward nature — planning road trips and reserving RVs to visit national parks and campgrounds, or booking short-term stays at tiny cabins and luxury tents away from society. People crave the experience of travel, but there’s an increased interest in private spaces and areas where they can get away from others.
Travelers naturally want a greater sense of control, especially in the midst of a pandemic, said Alan Katz, an epidemiology professor at the University of Hawaii. And as such, many are seeking out socially distant leisure options that appear to prioritize hygiene and overall well-being, while spending time alone or with those in their social cluster.
In recent years, young travelers have been drawn to camping (or, occasionally, luxury camping with added amenities, also known as “glamping”) in greater numbers, but these outdoorsy activities have new appeal in a world where we’re encouraged to remain 6 feet apart.
“Nature allows you to social distance without thinking about it,” said Josh Lesnick, president and COO of Collective Retreats, a luxury camping company. “The ability to be just outdoors surrounded by fresh air in a safe environment, and not too prescribed where you feel like you’re in a bleach box, I think that’s what people are looking for.”
From what health experts know about the coronavirus, outdoor spaces appear to present a much lower risk than indoors in terms of transmission. Plus, being close to nature allows for a refreshing change in pace and scenery for those accustomed to the drudgery of daily work and life.
“Nature allows you to social distance without thinking about it”
Since stay-at-home orders started easing in May, tourists have been flocking to national parks in droves, worrying local community members who fear the sudden influx of people could lead to an increase in Covid-19 cases. According to RVshare, a peer-to-peer RV rental company, among the most popular destinations for renters this year are Yellowstone, Zion, and the Grand Canyon. State campgrounds are also anticipating crowds, with some preparing to reach capacity during holiday weekends.
Car rental companies are seeing an uptick in reservations, too, especially in urban hot spots like New York City. RV reservations for the July Fourth weekend skyrocketed, and overall, RVshare has seen “booking levels of three times last summer and a 1,600 percent increase in bookings since early April,” a spokesperson for the company told Vox in an email.
It’s not just RVs and campgrounds that are seeing unprecedented levels of interest. Travel companies in the outdoor hospitality space — which usually caters to more urban, upwardly mobile travelers — are receiving an overwhelming number of bookings. It could be that people are itching to leave dense cities, even if for a brief period of time. Plus, there are simply fewer vacation options available with activities that are socially distant; places like family-friendly resorts and amusement parks have either closed down or could be deemed unsafe for wary travelers. Camping trips, then, seem to be a much safer choice, especially if hotel-like amenities (such as showers, clean tents or cabins, and comfy beds) are involved.
Upon first glance at the Instagram page for Getaway, the travel startup is peak cozycore, featuring a grid of warm, yellow-toned photos, comfy white sheets and blankets, and an expansive view of the great outdoors. The company offers an array of small, cozy cabins in the woods for short-term rentals, located a few hours outside major cities, and appears designed to cater to young professionals in urban areas. Many outposts are close to being sold out in July and August, according to co-founder Jon Staff.
“We saw a huge jump in bookings, about 400 percent, right when Trump announced the Europe travel ban in March,” Staff said. “We did have a bunch of cancellations when the stay-at-home orders came out, but many people did opt for short-term bookings when their vacations or work conferences got canceled, so it was balanced out.”
It “just so happened” that Staff and co-founder Pete Davis created a socially distant business. “We just kind of got lucky that Getaway was well-suited for this moment,” he said. “Our cabins have always been 100 to 150 feet apart. There’s no check-in desk. We have no bar or restaurant.”
Sara Fopiano, who stayed at Getaway’s Boston outpost, told me she was initially hesitant to move forward with the trip during the pandemic, despite booking back in January. However, the socially distant nature of the cabins reassured her. “I really appreciated the fact that the check-in and -out [process] was completely contactless, so we did not cross paths with anyone at the outpost,” Fopiano said.
That choice could be much more reassuring than, say, staying at a typical hotel or an Airbnb, where guests might be more likely to bump into strangers in enclosed spaces. The appearance of openness and isolation could be liberating — and help grant worried guests like Fopiano some peace of mind.
“We don’t have hallways, and our lobbies are like yards,” Collective Retreats’s Lesnick said. Collective Retreats is more geared toward visitors with the means to pay for the luxury of hotel amenities in an outdoor setting. The experience is similar to that of a public campsite but without the shared spaces (like bathrooms), Lesnick said, and the retreats are close enough to travel to by car from a major city.
At the start of the pandemic, experts predicted the coronavirus could fundamentally change travel as we know it — by affecting flight affordability, how we share public and private spaces, and the measures needed to ensure a trip is safe. These predictions also highlighted how people, in search of comfort and security, might pay more for it.
Ideally, spending time in nature should cost you relatively little. But in pandemic times, those who are willing and able to fork over extra money can experience nature with the added comfort and cleanliness you might not get at a regular campground. At Collective Retreats, for example, some locations employ private chefs, and guests are able to order food service from their respective tents.
The broad increase in leisure travel, especially around the Memorial Day and July Fourth weekends, suggests that people are starting to feel confident enough to venture away from home. Plus, those who are traveling likely have disposable income, secure jobs, or vacation benefits. But that doesn’t necessarily means they’re not taking the pandemic seriously, Katz, the epidemiologist, said.
While Katz admits that people “are notoriously bad at assessing risks,” it seems travelers are actively attempting to scope out socially distant options.
“Travel has always been about the reward of the destination,” Katz told me. “If the risk is high in that area and is broadcasted as such, travel to that destination will fall off by both car and air.”