vox--2020-05-14--America’s coronavirus testing numbers are really improving — finally

After an April that some experts described as “ wasted , ” it looks like America is finally making some real progress on coronavirus testing in May .
Over the past couple of weeks , the United States has seen significant improvements not just with the raw number of Covid-19 tests but also other metrics experts use to gauge the scope of the US ’ s coronavirus outbreak and its testing capacity .
During the week of May 5 , the US averaged nearly 300,000 new coronavirus tests a day , according to the Covid Tracking Project .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests performed in early April , although it still falls short of the number of new tests a day experts say is needed to fully control the outbreak — a number that ranges from 500,000 on the low end to tens of millions on the high end , depending on which plan you ’ re reading .
The US also saw a significant improvement in another key metric for coronavirus testing : the positive rate , or the percentage of tests that come back positive for Covid-19 .
Generally , a higher positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough testing happening : It indicates only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested .
The US ’ s positive rate over the week of May 5 was nearly 8 percent — down from almost 21 percent the week of April 5 .
Experts have said the positive rate should be no higher than 10 percent , but preferably much lower .
“ Daily [ Covid-19 ] testing continues to increase nationally while the positivity rate continues to decline , ” Scott Gottlieb , former head of the Food and Drug Administration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopeful signs that — at least in many parts of the nation — the epidemic is slowing.
” This doesn ’ t , however , mean the whole country is ready to start reopening the economy just yet .
Even the latest numbers , as promising as they are , fall short of what some experts have called for .
And by other metrics , the US is still behind where it needs to be .
It ’ s also unclear if the gains will hold and continue .
There were significant improvements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only for those gains to stop in April .
Future problems with testing could slow more increases .
But , at least for now , America has — finally — made some real progress .
Testing is getting there , according to a key metric Testing is crucial to controlling the coronavirus pandemic .
Paired with contact tracing , testing lets officials track the scale of an outbreak , isolate the sick , quarantine those with whom the sick came in contact , and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary .
Aggressive testing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Korea and Germany , got their outbreaks under control , letting them start reopening in the past couple of weeks ( though even they have scaled back their reopenings after new spikes in Covid-19 cases ) .
That Covid-19 tests are increasing while the positive rate is falling indicates the US is now moving toward enough testing capacity to match the scope of its outbreak .
Some of the drop in the positive rate is likely the result of improvements in New York state , which had the worst Covid-19 outbreak in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s positive rate peaked above 50 percent in late March and early April , before falling to around 9 percent in the week of May 5 .
Even excluding New York , though , the US ’ s positive rate has also dropped : from around 17 percent in mid-April to nearly 8 percent on the week of May 5 .
A majority of states now have coronavirus positive rates below 10 percent , which experts say is the acceptable maximum .
Only 15 states and Washington , DC , had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the week of May 5 .
The US is still far from where some other countries are on testing .
According to Our World in Data , New Zealand , Taiwan , and South Korea — all places that have done a better job controlling their Covid-19 outbreaks — have positive test rates below 2 percent and even 1 percent .
“ ‘ Test , test , test ’ means numbers more in that low range , ” Natalie Dean , a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida , told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot more testing.
” Much of the progress so far is despite a lack of federal leadership .
Over much of April , testing numbers stagnated due to supply shortages for swabs , reagents , and other materials needed to collect samples and run coronavirus tests .
Experts have said that the federal government , led by President Donald Trump , should lead national efforts to boost testing .
But Trump ’ s “ blueprint ” for testing explicitly leaves the problem to the states and private sector , saying the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of last resort.
” Most states need more time before they can safely reopen Despite the improvements , experts caution that the US shouldn ’ t rush to fully reopen its economy just yet .
The White House ’ s guidelines and experts ’ proposals lay out which standards states have to meet to reopen — letting each of them slowly reopen with a phased approach that unlocks parts of the economy bit by bit .
For that phased reopening to begin , the proposals typically call for decreases in new Covid-19 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diagnose all of the sick and their contacts .
With testing , most states now fall below the 10 percent positive rate .
But when it comes to reaching the positive rate seen in , say , South Korea or New Zealand , just six states — Alaska , Hawaii , Montana , Vermont , West Virginia , and Wyoming — have rates below 2 percent over the week of May 5 .
Testing also has to be paired with contact tracing , in which “ disease detectives ” track down who the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those contacts to quarantine .
Experts have called for the US to hire between 100,000 to 300,000 contact tracers .
Based on a tally kept by NPR , 44 states and Washington , DC , plan to hire about 66,000 contact tracers as of May 7 — almost two-thirds of the minimum .
With overall cases , the country as a whole has seen its daily new reported Covid-19 cases drop in May .
But much of that decrease originated in Connecticut , New Jersey , and New York — the three states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area , which suffered the worst outbreak .
When those three states are excluded , the US has seen daily new Covid-19 cases at best start to drop only in recent days — far from the two weeks of decreases that experts recommend .
Some of the upward trend in Covid-19 cases outside Connecticut , New Jersey , and New York in recent weeks is likely due to increased testing .
Even though fewer tests are coming back positive , doing many more tests can still mean finding many more cases than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers suggest it ’ s too early to declare victory .
Based on data compiled by the New York Times , just 18 states have seen their daily new reported coronavirus cases drop in recent days — much less the two full weeks experts have called for .
Seven states have seen their daily new cases increase , while the remaining 25 have seen theirs remain roughly flat .
Taken together , these figures suggest that the majority of states are not ready to start to reopen just yet .
While America has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the challenge of this pandemic , there ’ s still a bit more work to be done .
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 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

After an April that some experts described as “wasted,” it looks like America is finally making some real progress on coronavirus testing in May.
Over the past couple of weeks, the United States has seen significant improvements not just with the raw number of Covid-19 tests but also with other metrics experts use to gauge the scope of the US’s coronavirus outbreak and its testing capacity.
During the week of May 5, the US averaged nearly 300,000 new coronavirus tests a day, according to the Covid Tracking Project. That’s nearly double the roughly 150,000 daily tests performed in early April, although it still falls short of the number of new tests a day experts say is needed to fully control the outbreak — a number that ranges from 500,000 on the low end to tens of millions on the high end, depending on which plan you’re reading.
The US also saw a significant improvement in another key metric for coronavirus testing: the positive rate, or the percentage of tests that come back positive for Covid-19. Generally, a higher positive rate suggests there’s not enough testing happening: It indicates only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested.
The US’s positive rate over the week of May 5 was nearly 8 percent — down from almost 21 percent the week of April 5. Experts have said the positive rate should be no higher than 10 percent, but preferably much lower.
“Daily [Covid-19] testing continues to increase nationally while the positivity rate continues to decline,” Scott Gottlieb, former head of the Food and Drug Administration, tweeted. “These are hopeful signs that — at least in many parts of the nation — the epidemic is slowing.”
This doesn’t, however, mean the whole country is ready to start reopening the economy just yet. Even the latest numbers, as promising as they are, fall short of what some experts have called for. And by other metrics, the US is still behind where it needs to be.
It’s also unclear if the gains will hold and continue. There were significant improvements in testing for much of March, only for those gains to stop in April. Future problems with testing could slow more increases.
But, at least for now, America has — finally — made some real progress.
Testing is getting there, according to a key metric
Testing is crucial to controlling the coronavirus pandemic. Paired with contact tracing, testing lets officials track the scale of an outbreak, isolate the sick, quarantine those with whom the sick came in contact, and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary. Aggressive testing and tracing are how other countries, including South Korea and Germany, got their outbreaks under control, letting them start reopening in the past couple of weeks (though even they have scaled back their reopenings after new spikes in Covid-19 cases).
That Covid-19 tests are increasing while the positive rate is falling indicates the US is now moving toward enough testing capacity to match the scope of its outbreak.
Some of the drop in the positive rate is likely the result of improvements in New York state, which had the worst Covid-19 outbreak in the US so far. New York state’s positive rate peaked above 50 percent in late March and early April, before falling to around 9 percent in the week of May 5.
Even excluding New York, though, the US’s positive rate has also dropped: from around 17 percent in mid-April to nearly 8 percent the week of May 5.
A majority of states now have coronavirus positive rates below 10 percent, which experts say is the acceptable maximum. Only 15 states and Washington, DC, had a positive rate above 10 percent during the week of May 5.
The US is still far from where some other countries are on testing. According to Our World in Data, New Zealand, Taiwan, and South Korea — all places that have done a better job controlling their Covid-19 outbreaks — have positive test rates below 2 percent and even 1 percent.
“‘Test, test, test’ means numbers more in that low range,” Natalie Dean, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida, told me. She added, “We need a lot more testing.”
Much of the progress so far is despite a lack of federal leadership. Over much of April, testing numbers stagnated due to supply shortages for swabs, reagents, and other materials needed to collect samples and run coronavirus tests.
Experts have said that the federal government, led by President Donald Trump, should lead national efforts to boost testing. But Trump’s “blueprint” for testing explicitly leaves the problem to the states and private sector, saying the federal government will only act as a “supplier of last resort.”
Most states need more time before they can safely reopen
Despite the improvements, experts caution that the US shouldn’t rush to fully reopen its economy just yet.
The White House’s guidelines and experts’ proposals lay out which standards states have to meet to reopen — letting each of them slowly reopen with a phased approach that unlocks parts of the economy bit by bit. For that phased reopening to begin, the proposals typically call for decreases in new Covid-19 cases for two weeks and enough testing to diagnose all of the sick and their contacts.
Most states don’t meet either standard.
With testing, most states now fall below the 10 percent positive rate. But when it comes to reaching the positive rate seen in, say, South Korea or New Zealand, just six states — Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming — have rates below 2 percent over the week of May 5.
Testing also has to be paired with contact tracing, in which “disease detectives” track down who the infected came in contact with and get those contacts to quarantine. Experts have called for the US to hire between 100,000 to 300,000 contact tracers. Based on a tally kept by NPR, 44 states and Washington, DC, plan to hire about 66,000 contact tracers as of May 7 — almost two-thirds of the minimum.
With overall cases, the country as a whole has seen its daily new reported Covid-19 cases drop in May. But much of that decrease originated in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York — the three states included in the New York City metro area, which suffered the worst outbreak. When those three states are excluded, the US has seen daily new Covid-19 cases at best start to drop only in recent days — far from the two weeks of decreases that experts recommend.
Some of the upward trend in Covid-19 cases outside Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York in recent weeks is likely due to increased testing. Even though fewer tests are coming back positive, doing many more tests can still mean finding many more cases than a state would otherwise.
Still, the numbers suggest it’s too early to declare victory. Based on data compiled by the New York Times, just 18 states have seen their daily new reported coronavirus cases drop in recent days — much less the two full weeks experts have called for. Seven states have seen their daily new cases increase, while the remaining 25 have seen theirs remain roughly flat.
Taken together, these figures suggest that the majority of states are not ready to start to reopen just yet. While America has made decent progress throughout May in confronting the challenge of this pandemic, there’s still a bit more work to be done.
Correction: The positive rate map originally had incorrect data for Utah and Virginia due to a bug in the map-making program. It’s been fixed.


vox--2020-05-14--Partisanship is the strongest predictor of coronavirus response

Editor ’ s note : New political science research finds that partisanship is a fairly strong predictor of one ’ s likelihood of wearing a mask , as Vox ’ s Zack Beauchamp reports .
The piece below , originally published March 31 , explains why the epistemic crisis is a threat to public health The US is a land divided .
Americans have sorted themselves into opposing factions , with different values , sources of authority , and shared understandings .
In some ways , there is no longer any meaningful US “ public , ” but rather two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The current state of deep polarization in the US is the subject of a great deal of discussion and research right now , including in an excellent new book by my colleague Ezra Klein .
One aspect of it that I have highlighted in a number of posts ( start here ) is what I call America ’ s epistemic crisis .
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy having to do with knowledge and how we come to know things ; the crisis is that , as a polity , we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same things , and thus , incapable of acting together in a coherent fashion .
I have been wondering when that epistemic crisis might spiral out into a full-fledged political crisis .
I wondered if it might happen around the Mueller investigation , or when Trump sent 5,000 troops to the southern border to stop a phantom migrant invasion , or when Trump was impeached .
Now the Covid-19 crisis has me wondering again .
A bit of research , published in March , from three leading political scientists shows pretty convincingly that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Republicans and Democrats are once again hearing different things , forming different understandings , and reacting in different ways .
But this time , the epistemic gap could have devastating public health consequences .
Vox ’ s Zack Beauchamp , drawing on the work of Tufts University political scientist Brian Schaffner , has written about how partisanship shaped the response to Covid-19 from the very beginning , with Republicans expressing more skepticism and taking fewer precautions , largely following the cues of their political and media leaders ( as most people do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the New York Times recently analyzed data from some similar polls and surveys , finding a wide but closing partisan gap in views .
While suggestive , research thus far can not precisely isolate partisanship ’ s influence from competing explanations like geography , age , or exposure to the virus .
Shana Kushner Gadarian , Sara Wallace Goodman , and Thomas Pepinsky — political scientists at Syracuse University , UC Irvine , and Cornell respectively — have just released the results of a survey of 3,000 Americans on a wide range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and opinions about how to respond to the crisis.
” ( The survey was done March 20-23 , a week after the initial declaration of emergency . )
Their survey design has allowed them to isolate the effects of different variables on attitudes and behaviors .
Here ’ s how they summarize the results : Partisanship shapes everything , even direct experience .
“ What we find is that even when you account for the zip codes people live in , i.e.
, their actual level of exposure to the disease , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters.
” Democrats are more likely than Republicans to wash their hands more often , avoid contact with others , and self-quarantine , more likely to support increased social spending , more likely to worry about getting themselves and others sick , and more convinced that normal life must be temporarily suspended .
Just about the only virus responses that Republicans support more than Democrats are restrictions on movement ( closing borders ) and trade tariffs — policies they support regardless of circumstance .
Disagreements about the wisdom of hand-washing and social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are differences about matters of epidemiology .
And in disregarding the reports and recommendations of experts , and trusting Trump and right-wing media instead , Republicans are putting not only themselves but everyone at greater risk .
The spread of a virus can only be stopped by concerted collective action .
If a large bloc of the public can not be convinced of the threat or the need for a response , that bloc can prevent collective action all on its own .
It can ensure the virus spreads faster and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority does .
And that , more or less , is what is happening .
America ’ s epistemic crisis is having a direct impact on public health .
This is one survey , a snapshot , so it can not measure how opinion may be changing .
“ We will do more surveys going forward that track the same respondents , ” says Pepinsky , “ and these will allow us to test very conclusively if partisan differences dissipate over time.
” In the meantime , surveys up to mid-March analyzed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the virus is rising among Republicans , as do surveys from the Pew Research Center .
One explanation of this shift is that the influence of partisanship , its ability to shelter conservatives from the truth , is waning as the crisis becomes more severe .
“ While the effects of partisanship are incredibly pronounced , ” Schaffner told the Times , “ I think they also hit their limits.
” Gadarian says that “ once people become anxious about an issue , they act very similarly in their behaviors and attitudes.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bethany Albertson ( a political scientist at UT Austin ) around the time of the H1N1 scare , they randomly assigned students to groups that were asked to either list their thoughts about H1N1 or their worries ; they then artificially increased the anxiety of both groups .
“ The worried group was more likely to trust in health experts to give them information about H1N1 , ” she says , “ and were slightly more likely to take a hand sanitizer versus a pen on their way out of the lab.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , as the Covid-19 crisis grows more severe and people become more anxious about it , Republicans will start listening to Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) — and will continue to do so going forward , mitigating the damage their irresponsible behavior has already done to public health .
At the risk of being predictable , let me offer a more pessimistic prediction .
Partisanship in the US may no longer have any limits Since Covid-19 came on the scene , Americans getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that : • In 2017 , Trump ’ s Department of Homeland Security abandoned models that had been developed to predict the spread and effects of a pandemic ; • The Trump administration completely ignored a 69-page National Security Council playbook on government priorities and responses during a pandemic ( including crucial advice to ramp up procurement of protective medical equipment early ) ; • The Trump administration slashed by two-thirds the staff of a CDC office in Beijing , including eliminating the position of a medical epidemiologist there specifically to monitor for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a briefing , Trump says things contrary to scientific evidence and advice ; • The Trump administration has been slower than almost any of its wealthy nation peers in rolling out testing ; • The Trump administration is using the crisis as a pretext to relax rules on big polluters ; • In all , Trump has comprehensively botched the response to the virus , going all the way back to April 2018 .
Meanwhile , Republicans — who , as a landmark 2017 Harvard study of media consumption found , get their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extreme sources , now including the president — have heard that : • Coronavirus is no worse than the flu ; • Now is a perfect time to fly or shop ; • Democrats and the media are exaggerating the crisis to hurt Trump ; • Trump saved the US from the virus by shutting down travel from China ; • Google is making a website that will help people find coronavirus testing sites ; • Testing will soon be available in most of the nation ’ s big box store parking lots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ open ” by Easter .
Republican concern about the virus is increasing , but there ’ s an alternate explanation : The right-wing base is still listening exclusively to conservative political and media elites ; it ’ s just that those elites have now decided that it is in their best interests to begin acknowledging the threat .
In late March , according to the New York Times , Trump was finally convinced that the data on the coming death toll “ could not be bent to his will , ” so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 30 .
While conservative elites may have changed their tune about the existence and severity of the crisis , they have not ceased searching for a scapegoat against which to turn their credulous followers .
Trump and his allies are still blaming the media , blaming China , and blaming Democratic governors .
Trump has also floated the idea that New York is spreading the virus and should be isolated .
The details of the dangerous myths being fed to the conservative base are changing , but they are still being fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts and following shifting narratives built around venerating Trump and shielding him from accountability .
As they come to believe those myths and act on them , the anti-social nature of their behavior will not be quite so self-evident as their failure to wash their hands , but it will still be anti-social .
Progressive reformers tend to cling to the myth that a sufficiently dramatic shock or disaster will have the effect of dispelling misinformation and propaganda , like a mighty wind blowing dust from all the lenses .
I hear it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the notion that people will wake up to the threat when there is a bad enough storm , or a series of storms .
And I ’ ve heard it about the epistemic crisis again and again .
Surely the Iraq War is a big enough disaster to puncture the bubble .
Surely the botched response to Katrina .
Surely the Great Recession .
Surely 10 fruitless investigations of Benghazi .
Surely Trump ’ s impeachment .
It never happens .
People forget , but the response to H1N1 flu in 2009 was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was visible in vaccination rates .
So was the response to Ebola in 2014 .
Conservative political and media elites were spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories then , too .
It ’ s just that they weren ’ t in charge , so their ability to amplify their message and do real harm to public health was limited .
Now they are running things , spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories live on primetime TV every night , leading the US into a historic catastrophe in which more Americans have already died than died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems fated to rise for the foreseeable future .
The epistemic crisis has been underway for many years now .
It was inevitable that it would spill over into a full-fledged political and health crisis .
If it were not clear before , it has become unmistakably clear now : Right-wing misinformation is a direct and immediate threat to the American public .

Editor’s note: New political science research finds that partisanship is a fairly strong predictor of one’s likelihood of wearing a mask, as Vox’s Zack Beauchamp reports. The piece below, originally published March 31, explains why the epistemic crisis is a threat to public health
The US is a land divided. Americans have sorted themselves into opposing factions, with different values, sources of authority, and shared understandings. In some ways, there is no longer any meaningful US “public,” but rather two publics that want and believe different things.
The current state of deep polarization in the US is the subject of a great deal of discussion and research right now, including in an excellent new book by my colleague Ezra Klein. One aspect of it that I have highlighted in a number of posts (start here) is what I call America’s epistemic crisis. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy having to do with knowledge and how we come to know things; the crisis is that, as a polity, we have become incapable of learning or knowing the same things, and thus, incapable of acting together in a coherent fashion.
I have been wondering when that epistemic crisis might spiral out into a full-fledged political crisis. I wondered if it might happen around the Mueller investigation, or when Trump sent 5,000 troops to the southern border to stop a phantom migrant invasion, or when Trump was impeached.
Now the Covid-19 crisis has me wondering again. A bit of research, published in March, from three leading political scientists shows pretty convincingly that, in the face of the pandemic, Republicans and Democrats are once again hearing different things, forming different understandings, and reacting in different ways.
But this time, the epistemic gap could have devastating public health consequences.
This picture is from 3pm today.
You can see exactly where Duval County ends and St. John’s County begins.
All beaches in Duval are closed, while St. John’s only blocked parking at the beach.
Gov. DeSantis needs to order a state-wide closure of all Florida beaches. pic.twitter.com/JfKzCGCPLq — Travis Akers (@travisakers) March 28, 2020
Partisan affiliation predicts virus response
Vox’s Zack Beauchamp, drawing on the work of Tufts University political scientist Brian Schaffner, has written about how partisanship shaped the response to Covid-19 from the very beginning, with Republicans expressing more skepticism and taking fewer precautions, largely following the cues of their political and media leaders (as most people do). Emily Badger and Kevin Quealy at the New York Times recently analyzed data from some similar polls and surveys, finding a wide but closing partisan gap in views.
While suggestive, research thus far cannot precisely isolate partisanship’s influence from competing explanations like geography, age, or exposure to the virus.
Shana Kushner Gadarian, Sara Wallace Goodman, and Thomas Pepinsky — political scientists at Syracuse University, UC Irvine, and Cornell respectively — have just released the results of a survey of 3,000 Americans on a wide range of “health behaviors, attitudes, and opinions about how to respond to the crisis.” (The survey was done March 20-23, a week after the initial declaration of emergency.) Their survey design has allowed them to isolate the effects of different variables on attitudes and behaviors.
Here’s how they summarize the results:
Our results collectively describe a broad political divide in reaction to COVID-19: Republicans are less likely than Democrats to report responding with CDC-recommended behavior, and are less concerned about the pandemic, yet are more likely to support policies that restrict trade and movement across borders as a response to it. Democrats, by contrast, have responded by changing their personal health behaviors, and supporting policies that socialize the costs of testing and treatment. Partisanship is a more consistent predictor of behaviors, attitudes, and preferences than anything else that we measure. [emphasis added]
Partisanship shapes everything, even direct experience. “What we find is that even when you account for the zip codes people live in, i.e., their actual level of exposure to the disease,” Gadarian told me, “partisanship still matters.” Democrats are more likely than Republicans to wash their hands more often, avoid contact with others, and self-quarantine, more likely to support increased social spending, more likely to worry about getting themselves and others sick, and more convinced that normal life must be temporarily suspended.
Just about the only virus responses that Republicans support more than Democrats are restrictions on movement (closing borders) and trade tariffs — policies they support regardless of circumstance.
Disagreements about the wisdom of hand-washing and social distancing are not mere differences of political opinion. They are differences about matters of epidemiology. And in disregarding the reports and recommendations of experts, and trusting Trump and right-wing media instead, Republicans are putting not only themselves but everyone at greater risk.
The spread of a virus can only be stopped by concerted collective action. If a large bloc of the public cannot be convinced of the threat or the need for a response, that bloc can prevent collective action all on its own. It can ensure the virus spreads faster and more widely, no matter what the majority does.
And that, more or less, is what is happening. America’s epistemic crisis is having a direct impact on public health.
Crowded beaches, confusion amid coronavirus orders as DeSantis won’t mandate statewide lockdown https://t.co/Cl2xt45nfF pic.twitter.com/WPU6it8ikQ — Orlando Sentinel (@orlandosentinel) March 30, 2020
Opinion may converge as local stresses increases
This is one survey, a snapshot, so it cannot measure how opinion may be changing. “We will do more surveys going forward that track the same respondents,” says Pepinsky, “and these will allow us to test very conclusively if partisan differences dissipate over time.”
In the meantime, surveys up to mid-March analyzed by the New York Times suggest that concern over the virus is rising among Republicans, as do surveys from the Pew Research Center.
One explanation of this shift is that the influence of partisanship, its ability to shelter conservatives from the truth, is waning as the crisis becomes more severe. “While the effects of partisanship are incredibly pronounced,” Schaffner told the Times, “I think they also hit their limits.”
Gadarian says that “once people become anxious about an issue, they act very similarly in their behaviors and attitudes.” In a series of experiments with Bethany Albertson (a political scientist at UT Austin) around the time of the H1N1 scare, they randomly assigned students to groups that were asked to either list their thoughts about H1N1 or their worries; they then artificially increased the anxiety of both groups. “The worried group was more likely to trust in health experts to give them information about H1N1,” she says, “and were slightly more likely to take a hand sanitizer versus a pen on their way out of the lab.”
So it’s at least possible that, as the Covid-19 crisis grows more severe and people become more anxious about it, Republicans will start listening to Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — and will continue to do so going forward, mitigating the damage their irresponsible behavior has already done to public health.
At the risk of being predictable, let me offer a more pessimistic prediction.
Partisanship in the US may no longer have any limits
Since Covid-19 came on the scene, Americans getting their news from mainstream sources have heard that:
Meanwhile, Republicans — who, as a landmark 2017 Harvard study of media consumption found, get their information from a small cluster of ideologically extreme sources, now including the president — have heard that:
In this clip, Trump:
1. Denies WHO's coronavirus death rate based on “hunch"
2. Calls coronavirus "corona flu"
3. Suggests it's fine for people w/ Covid-19 to go to work
4. Compares coronavirus to "the regular flu," indicating he doesn't get the difference pic.twitter.com/uC9c03zX31 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 5, 2020
Republican concern about the virus is increasing, but there’s an alternate explanation: The right-wing base is still listening exclusively to conservative political and media elites; it’s just that those elites have now decided that it is in their best interests to begin acknowledging the threat.
In late March, according to the New York Times, Trump was finally convinced that the data on the coming death toll “could not be bent to his will,” so he begrudgingly extended social distancing measures through April 30.
While conservative elites may have changed their tune about the existence and severity of the crisis, they have not ceased searching for a scapegoat against which to turn their credulous followers. Trump and his allies are still blaming the media, blaming China, and blaming Democratic governors. Trump has also floated the idea that New York is spreading the virus and should be isolated.
Rudy Giuliani, Charlie Kirk, and now Laura Ingraham have been forced to delete tweets by Twitter. https://t.co/JoXxgokzYm — andrew kaczynski (@KFILE) March 30, 2020
The details of the dangerous myths being fed to the conservative base are changing, but they are still being fed dangerous myths. They are still disregarding experts and following shifting narratives built around venerating Trump and shielding him from accountability. As they come to believe those myths and act on them, the anti-social nature of their behavior will not be quite so self-evident as their failure to wash their hands, but it will still be anti-social.
Progressive reformers tend to cling to the myth that a sufficiently dramatic shock or disaster will have the effect of dispelling misinformation and propaganda, like a mighty wind blowing dust from all the lenses. I hear it around climate change all the time, the notion that people will wake up to the threat when there is a bad enough storm, or a series of storms.
And I’ve heard it about the epistemic crisis again and again. Surely the Iraq War is a big enough disaster to puncture the bubble. Surely the botched response to Katrina. Surely the Great Recession. Surely 10 fruitless investigations of Benghazi. Surely Trump’s impeachment. It never happens.
The battle to keep Americans from understanding what went on January to March is going to be one of the biggest propaganda and freedom of information fights in modern US history. https://t.co/6IRbc4Mi2K Precisely because so much of it is public, confusion has to be made massive. — Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) March 31, 2020
People forget, but the response to H1N1 flu in 2009 was also split along partisan lines — it was visible in vaccination rates. So was the response to Ebola in 2014. Conservative political and media elites were spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories then, too. It’s just that they weren’t in charge, so their ability to amplify their message and do real harm to public health was limited.
Now they are running things, spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories live on primetime TV every night, leading the US into a historic catastrophe in which more Americans have already died than died on 9/11. And the death toll seems fated to rise for the foreseeable future.
The epistemic crisis has been underway for many years now. It was inevitable that it would spill over into a full-fledged political and health crisis. If it were not clear before, it has become unmistakably clear now: Right-wing misinformation is a direct and immediate threat to the American public.


vox--2020-05-14--The confusing and vague federal guidelines for states to reopen, explained

President Donald Trump has been cheerleading states that are relaxing restrictions in the Covid-19 pandemic and encouraging protests in states that aren ’ t .
At the same time , states are struggling to meet the White House ’ s guidelines for reopening their economies .
This has proven deeply frustrating for some lawmakers .
“ My state has no clue how to implement and pay for that system without help from the federal government , ” Sen. Chris Murphy ( D-CT ) told members of the White House Covid-19 task force during a Senate Health Committee hearing Tuesday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is frankly undermining our efforts to comply with the guidance you ’ ve given us , and the guidance you have provided is criminally vague.
” Similarly , Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ( D ) told the Washington Post that President Trump held a conference call with governors emphasizing that Covid-19 cases need to decline before states can relax only to tweet “ LIBERATE VIRGINIA !
” two days later .
“ Unfortunately , we ’ ve been receiving mixed messages from Washington , ” Northam said .
The Centers for Disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detailed set of instructions for states than what the White House has provided .
The Associated Press obtained a 63-page draft that lays out specifics for reopening places like child care centers , mass transit , and businesses .
But the White House told CDC officials the guidance “ would never see the light of day , ” AP reports , and that it would not follow that guidance .
CDC Director Robert Redfield said more guidance would be made available to states soon , pending review .
One of the central problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still struggling to define what counts as safe , let alone help states meet those targets .
Meanwhile , some jurisdictions are plowing ahead with plans to relax and reopen their economies while failing to meet even the few standards available .
States like California and New York have also established their own benchmarks .
But the lack of clear and consistent goalposts means that , even in the most ideal scenario , cities and states risk a resurgence of cases by relaxing restrictions .
And that could end up making the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , told the Senate Committee on Tuesday he was concerned that states are starting to disregard criteria in the White House ’ s guidelines he helped develop for when it is safe to relax pandemic control measures .
“ If that occurs , there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you may not be able to control , ” he said Many health officials agree broadly on the elements that need to be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 has to be the centerpiece of any path to reopening .
Contact tracing , the ability to care for infected patients , a declining case count , and some ongoing social distancing are also key components of plans to get people back to work .
Most plans also call for a gradual relaxation , proceeding in phases with their own checkpoints .
But the different guidance documents put out by the federal government and some states have proven frustratingly thin on details .
And with a persistent shortage of tests , personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the country don ’ t have the resources they need to even assess whether it ’ s safe to relax .
What are the benchmarks for reopening the economy ?
There are several key elements that experts agree have to be in place to start pulling back on blanket stay-at-home orders and non-essential business closures .
But some of the guidance from states of the federal government is vague .
Figuring out who has SARS-CoV-2 is the first step in any plan to reopen the economy .
Since Covid-19 can spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms , sometimes for weeks , testing is critical for identifying the infected .
Those with the virus can then be instructed to isolate themselves .
Repeat this often enough , and the pandemic will fizzle out .
How many tests are needed ?
Experts have reached different answers , but almost all agree that the US needs vastly more tests than the 300,000 or so per day being conducted right now .
The high-end estimates demand testing almost the entire US population every two weeks plus daily tests for workers on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would demand upward of 35 million tests per day across the country .
In the meantime , one heuristic could be the percentage of tests that report back positive .
William Hanage , an epidemiologist at Harvard University , told NPR that less than 10 percent of tests for Covid-19 should be positive .
If it ’ s higher than that , it means you aren ’ t testing enough to stay ahead of the disease .
New York , the current epicenter of the pandemic , is aiming for 30 diagnostic tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopening .
California did not specify a benchmark for testing rates beyond “ sufficient testing capacity to meet demand.
” Another key metric for judging whether it ’ s safe to reopen is the number of people reporting infections ; it has to trend downward before states and cities can start letting businesses reopen .
The White House guidelines say that new Covid-19 cases have to decline for two weeks straight , and right now , no states meet that threshold .
And it ’ s not just the number of confirmed cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also say that reports of influenza-like symptoms also have to fall for two weeks in a row .
California and New York both have a similar standard .
New York ’ s guidelines also call for a decline in deaths and fewer than two new hospitalizations per 100,000 people .
For places that had few Covid-19 cases to begin with , they can begin to relax if they never exceeded 15 new hospitalizations a day and five deaths a day over a 14-day period , measured as a three-day rolling average .
Baked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to figure out just how many people have the virus at a given time , and it serves as a proxy for the effectiveness of pandemic control measures like social distancing .
But a decline only tells you about the trajectory of the pandemic .
It doesn ’ t say much about the absolute numbers of people who are infected or the rate of decline .
If the infection peak was high and the decline is long and slow , it may not be safe to relax for a long time , lest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s also a time lag between exposures and detected cases since it can take weeks for the infected to show symptoms , so two weeks of falling Covid-19 cases could mask an infection spike in the background .
One of the ways to better use the limited number of Covid-19 tests available is to trace the footsteps of the infected to see who they encountered .
Those contacts can then be tested or told to isolate themselves .
The problem is that this kind of detective work requires a lot of labor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that may prove uncomfortable or politically untenable .
The US would need between 100,000 to 300,000 people trained to perform this work according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security .
It estimated it would cost about $ 3.6 billion to hire and train these workers .
New York state says it ’ s aiming to “ recruit and train an army of contact tracers , ” but that the number needed will be region-specific .
The state estimates it will need 30 tracers per 100,000 residents .
Hospitals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ICU beds , ventilators , personal protective equipment , staff — to cope with a potential surge in Covid-19 infections .
The threat of a shortage in health care capacity is why we had to flatten the curve of cases with measures like social distancing .
The question then is how much headroom is enough .
The White House suggests that states have enough capacity when they can treat patients “ without crisis care.
” That is , there is enough room at normal hospitals and patients don ’ t have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those guidelines also call for a “ robust testing program ” for healthcare workers without defining what counts as “ robust.
” Meanwhile , California ’ s standard is “ hospital surge capacity to meet demand , ” also not clarifying how much surge capacity is enough .
New York state ’ s guidelines are more specific .
They state that regions must have at least 30 percent of their total hospital beds open as well as 30 percent of intensive care unit beds available before they can begin moving through the phases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metrics , New York state reports three regions are on track to proceed toward a phased reopening , where more businesses can reopen and others can open but under restrictions on capacity and requirements for more sanitation .
Meeting the guidelines , whatever they are , won ’ t mean we ’ re in the clear President Trump has made no secret of his desire to end all the measures to control the Covid-19 pandemic and has set their complete removal as his ultimate goal .
“ I see the new normal being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump told representatives from the restaurant and hospitality industries .
“ I want to go back to where it was , that ’ s where we ’ re going to be.
” However , until there ’ s a vaccine , cure , or widespread immunity , Covid-19 still poses a threat .
That means precautions still have to be in place to control the spread of the virus , even as cases decline .
People will still have to wear masks .
Venues can ’ t get too crowded .
Businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gatherings will remain small and distant .
Even in places like South Korea and Germany , countries hailed for their responses to the crisis , they have suffered rebounds in infections as they loosened some of their rules around the pandemic .
Germany ’ s Covid-19 cases nearly tripled on May 12 compared to the day before , prompting calls for another lockdown .
South Korea reported 34 new infections on May 10 , the highest daily case count in a month .
So the world that existed a few months ago is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much longer before we return to anything like it .
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 — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

President Donald Trump has been cheerleading states that are relaxing restrictions in the Covid-19 pandemic and encouraging protests in states that aren’t. At the same time, states are struggling to meet the White House’s guidelines for reopening their economies.
This has proven deeply frustrating for some lawmakers. “My state has no clue how to implement and pay for that system without help from the federal government,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told members of the White House coronavirus task force during a Senate Health Committee hearing Tuesday. “You work for a president who is frankly undermining our efforts to comply with the guidance you’ve given us, and the guidance you have provided is criminally vague.”
Similarly, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) told the Washington Post that President Trump held a conference call with governors emphasizing that Covid-19 cases need to decline before states can relax, only to tweet “LIBERATE VIRGINIA!” two days later.
“Unfortunately, we’ve been receiving mixed messages from Washington,” Northam said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has prepared a more detailed set of instructions for states than what the White House has provided. The Associated Press obtained a 63-page draft that lays out specifics for reopening places like child care centers, mass transit, and businesses.
But the White House told CDC officials the guidance “would never see the light of day,” AP reports, and that it would not follow that guidance. CDC Director Robert Redfield said more guidance would be made available to states soon, pending review.
One of the central problems for states is the federal government is still struggling to define what counts as safe, let alone help states meet those targets. Meanwhile, some jurisdictions are plowing ahead with plans to relax and reopen their economies while failing to meet even the few standards available. States like California and New York have also established their own benchmarks.
But the lack of clear and consistent goalposts means that, even in the most ideal scenario, cities and states risk a resurgence of cases by relaxing restrictions. And that could end up making the situation worse in the short and long term.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the Senate Committee on Tuesday he was concerned that states are starting to disregard criteria in the White House’s guidelines he helped develop for when it is safe to relax pandemic control measures.
“If that occurs, there is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you may not be able to control,” he said
Many health officials agree broadly on the elements that need to be in place. Testing vastly more people for Covid-19 has to be the centerpiece of any path to reopening. Contact tracing, the ability to care for infected patients, a declining case count, and some ongoing social distancing are also key components of plans to get people back to work. Most plans also call for a gradual relaxation, proceeding in phases with their own checkpoints.
But the different guidance documents put out by the federal government and some states have proven frustratingly thin on details. And with a persistent shortage of tests, personal protective equipment, and funding, some parts of the country don’t have the resources they need to even assess whether it’s safe to relax.
What are the benchmarks for reopening the economy?
There are several key elements that experts agree have to be in place to start pulling back on blanket stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures. But some of the guidance from states and the federal government is short on details.
Testing capacity
Figuring out who has SARS-CoV-2 is the first step in any plan to reopen the economy. Since Covid-19 can spread from people who don’t have symptoms, sometimes for weeks, testing is critical for identifying the infected. Those with the virus can then be instructed to isolate themselves. Repeat this often enough, and the pandemic will fizzle out.
How many tests are needed? Experts have reached different answers, but almost all agree that the US needs vastly more tests than the 300,000 or so per day being conducted right now. The high-end estimates demand testing almost the entire US population every two weeks plus daily tests for workers on the front lines of the pandemic. That would demand upward of 35 million tests per day across the country.
In the meantime, one heuristic could be the percentage of tests that report back positive. William Hanage, an epidemiologist at Harvard University, told NPR that less than 10 percent of tests for Covid-19 should be positive. If it’s higher than that, it means you aren’t testing enough to stay ahead of the disease.
New York, the current epicenter of the pandemic, is aiming for 30 diagnostic tests per 1,000 people in each region considering reopening. California did not specify a benchmark for testing rates beyond “sufficient testing capacity to meet demand.”
Declining cases
Another key metric for judging whether it’s safe to reopen is the number of people reporting infections; it has to trend downward before states and cities can start letting businesses reopen. The White House guidelines say that new Covid-19 cases have to decline for two weeks straight, and right now, few states meet that threshold. And it’s not just the number of confirmed cases that has to fall; the guidelines also say that reports of influenza-like symptoms also have to fall for two weeks in a row. California and New York both have a similar standard.
New York’s guidelines also call for a decline in deaths and fewer than two new hospitalizations per 100,000 people. For places that had few Covid-19 cases to begin with, they can begin to relax if they never exceeded 15 new hospitalizations a day and five deaths a day over a 14-day period, measured as a three-day rolling average.
Baked into these metrics are monitoring and testing to figure out just how many people have the virus at a given time, and it serves as a proxy for the effectiveness of pandemic control measures like social distancing.
But a decline only tells you about the trajectory of the pandemic. It doesn’t say much about the absolute numbers of people who are infected or the rate of decline. If the infection peak was high and the decline is long and slow, it may not be safe to relax for a long time, lest infections creep back up.
There’s also a time lag between exposures and detected cases since it can take weeks for infected people to show symptoms, so two weeks of falling Covid-19 cases could mask an infection spike in the background.
Contact tracing
One of the ways to better use the limited number of Covid-19 tests available is to trace the footsteps of the infected to see who they encountered. Those contacts can then be tested or told to isolate themselves.
The problem is that this kind of detective work requires a lot of labor, or it requires a level of surveillance that may prove uncomfortable or politically untenable. The US would need between 100,000 to 300,000 people trained to perform this work, according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. It estimated it would cost about $3.6 billion to hire and train these workers.
New York state says it’s aiming to “recruit and train an army of contact tracers,” but that the number needed will be region-specific. The state estimates it will need 30 tracers per 100,000 residents.
Health system capacity
Hospitals and clinics must have enough resources — beds, ICU beds, ventilators, personal protective equipment, staff — to cope with a potential surge in Covid-19 infections. The threat of a shortage in health care capacity is why we had to flatten the curve of cases with measures like social distancing.
The question then is how much headroom is enough. The White House suggests that states have enough capacity when they can treat patients “without crisis care.” That is, there is enough room at normal hospitals and patients don’t have to be treated in makeshift field sites. Those guidelines also call for a “robust testing program” for health care workers without defining what counts as “robust.”
Meanwhile, California’s standard is “hospital surge capacity to meet demand,” also not clarifying how much surge capacity is enough.
New York state’s guidelines are more specific. They state that regions must have at least 30 percent of their total hospital beds open as well as 30 percent of intensive care unit beds available before they can begin moving through the phases of relaxing restrictions.
Based on these metrics, New York state reports three regions are on track to proceed toward a phased reopening, where more businesses can reopen and others can open but under restrictions on capacity and requirements for more sanitation.
Meeting the guidelines, whatever they are, won’t mean we’re in the clear
President Trump has made no secret of his desire to end all the measures to control the Covid-19 pandemic and has set their complete removal as his ultimate goal.
“I see the new normal being what it was three months ago,” Trump told representatives from the restaurant and hospitality industries. “I want to go back to where it was, that’s where we’re going to be.”
However, until there’s a vaccine, cure, or widespread immunity, Covid-19 still poses a threat. That means precautions still have to be in place to control the spread of the virus, even as cases decline. People will still have to wear masks. Venues can’t get too crowded. Businesses will run at a diminished capacity. Gatherings will remain small and distant.
Even in places like South Korea and Germany, countries hailed for their responses to the crisis, they have suffered rebounds in infections as they loosened some of their restrictions. Germany’s Covid-19 cases nearly tripled on May 12 compared to the day before, prompting calls for another lockdown. South Korea reported 34 new infections on May 10, the highest daily case count in a month.
So the world that existed a few months ago is long gone, and it may be much longer before we return to anything like it.


vox--2020-05-14--The food to avoid if you care about climate change

Roughly half of the habitable land on Earth is devoted to growing the food we eat .
Of that land , nearly 80 percent is for grazing livestock .
Raising livestock for food takes up a lot of space , and that explains a big reason why animal products produce far more greenhouse gas than fruits and vegetables—making way for animals releases all the carbon once stored in trees , other plants , and soil .
Much of the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest , for example , is due to clearing land for grazing cattle .
But it doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some foods , like coffee , uses fertilizers that emit the powerful greenhouse gas , nitrous oxide .
And the biology of some animals , known as ruminants , is responsible for emitting tons of methane into the atmosphere .
Land use and the farming process are the two biggest factors that determine the emissions that go into growing or producing a food product .
That ’ s what a team of researchers at University of Oxford found when it looked at data from more than 38,000 commercial farms in 119 countries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from the production and distribution of common foods .
They also found that one food product , in particular , emits far more greenhouse gas than any other .
This video explains why .
You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Roughly half of the habitable land on Earth is devoted to growing the food we eat. Of that land, nearly 80 percent is for grazing livestock.
Raising livestock for food takes up a lot of space, and that explains a big reason why animal products create far more greenhouse gas than fruits and vegetables — making way for animals to release all the carbon once stored in trees, other plants, and soil. Much of the deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, for example, is due to clearing land for grazing cattle.
But it doesn’t explain everything — the farming process for some foods, like coffee, uses fertilizers that emit the powerful greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide. And the biology of some animals, known as ruminants, is responsible for emitting tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Land use and the farming process are the two biggest factors that determine the emissions that go into growing or producing a food product. That’s what a team of researchers at the University of Oxford found when it looked at data from more than 38,000 commercial farms in 119 countries. The result is the most comprehensive study comparing greenhouse gas emissions from the production and distribution of common foods.
They also found that one food product, in particular, emits far more greenhouse gas than any other. This video explains why.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


vox--2020-05-14--Trump’s plan to limit the pandemic’s death toll: Undercount the numbers

Experts have a range of ideas to suppress the Covid-19 pandemic , save lives , and avert new waves of economic misery .
But President Donald Trump seems to be embracing another plan — massaging the numbers to make inconvenient deaths go away .
But experts believe the problem with the numbers is the opposite — official statistics understate the Covid-19 death toll .
Recent methodological changes have annoyed the president by pushing death numbers higher .
These changes , according to experts , are a sound and reasonable effort to reduce the amount of undercounting .
They factor in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the official coronavirus stats say .
On Wednesday , the Daily Beast reported that Trump and members of his coronavirus task are now pressuring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to get states to change how they count deaths , a campaign designed to lower the numbers .
As Trump tries to juke the stats , he ’ s committing the original sin of America ’ s pandemic response — falling way beyond the curve in terms of testing and surveillance .
For Trump , that seemingly doesn ’ t matter because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep official infection numbers low .
The original way the United States counted coronavirus deaths started with the fact that if you were seriously ill , you might ( or might not ) be tested for Covid-19 .
If you were tested , the test came back positive , you were admitted to the hospital for Covid-19 treatment , and then you died , that was counted as a Covid-19 death .
But we ’ ve known all along that many more people were infected with the virus than were actually receiving tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been in short supply , and some of the most widely used tests have fairly high false negative rates .
Consequently , people who ’ ve died at home or in a long-term care facility without making it to the hospital were initially not counted as Covid-19 deaths .
In mid-April , however , New York City added nearly 4,000 “ probable ” Covid-19 deaths to its official count based on doctors ’ assessment of the symptoms of the deceased .
This shift is in part an effort to obtain more accurate statistics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing capacity in a more efficient way .
There is no Covid-19 pill to give people who test positive , so it makes little sense to prioritize gravely ill people for testing when those scarce tests could be better used on sick people ’ s close contacts .
That makes sense as a process , but adding these suspected cases into the mix makes the situation look worse , and Trump isn ’ t happy about it .
On May 6 , Jonathan Swan and Sam Baker reported for Axios that “ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus deaths are being calculated , suggesting the real numbers are actually lower — and a number of his senior aides share this view , according to sources with direct knowledge.
” They specifically reported concern about the CDC moving broadly to adopt New York ’ s method of classifying probable Covid-19 deaths as Covid-19 deaths .
Then on May 13 , Erin Banco and Asawin Suebsaeng reported that the White House , including Dr. Deborah Birx , is pressuring the CDC to exclude not only probable Covid-19 deaths but also the deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the infection : This stems from an idea , long simmering in virus-skeptical circles , that public health officials are improperly classifying people who died “ with ” coronavirus as having died “ of ” coronavirus instead .
The basic thinking is that a large share of the dead are older , a large share of Covid-19 cases are mild , and consequently , older people with mild Covid-19 infections may be dying for unrelated reasons .
It ’ s a fair hypothesis to offer , but empirically it seems to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than can be accounted for by the official statistics .
Experts say the US is undercounting Covid deaths Testifying before the Senate ’ s health committee on Tuesday , Dr. Anthony Fauci expressed the view of most public health professionals that even with the attempted adjustment for probable cases , the official numbers still underestimate the true death toll .
The basic issue is that even the “ probable ” standard still requires an individualized assessment of symptoms , while broad statistical aggregates show that a lot of people are dying .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calculation .
First , you take the number of people who would die in a typical month in the United States , and then you look at how many people actually died .
When a Yale School of Public Health team did this for March 2020 , they found about 15,400 excess deaths , of which only 8,128 were officially attributed to coronavirus .
Are all 7,000 of the unexplained deaths really Covid-19 cases ?
Probably not .
Some excess mortality is due to people not getting medical treatment for other ailments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s likely fewer people will have died in traffic accidents than you see in a typical March .
A group of economists calculated that several hundred air pollution deaths were avoided in April with fewer cars on the road .
At the same time , the death reporting infrastructure in the United States is very decentralized and a little clunky , so the strong tendency is for all death counts to be revised upward over time as more jurisdictions report .
The big picture is that it ’ s going to take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistical work to get a really clear picture of how many people died of Covid-19 this year .
But it ’ s pretty clear that the CDC ’ s case counts are an underestimate , a product of a gap between the health care system ’ s ability to make individualized determinations about cause of death and the statistical reality that people are dying at an unusually high rate .
Trump is pushing to make inaccurate numbers even less accurate , and it ’ s dangerous .
It ’ s not unusual for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts or for Trump to lie about something .
But as policymakers , business leaders , school officials , and individual citizens are making day-to-day decisions about how to cope with the pandemic , spreading bad information is risky .
The more people underestimate how bad the situation is , the more likely they are to engage in excessively risky behavior and make the situation worse .
Trump is a shrewd person attuned to the political relevance of data .
In early March , he infamously opined that he didn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cruise ships brought home for treatment because “ I like the numbers where they are.
” Bringing them on shore for treatment would create a worse statistical record , but also lead to a better outcome in the real world since they could get better treatment .
In that case , Trump was persuaded to do the right thing and simply complained about it .
But the same basic tension has bedeviled American policy since at least February .
Stark warnings to the public could have saved lives but also risked spooking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it easier to contain the outbreak but also would have meant much higher confirmed case numbers .
Accurate death counts help people make smart decisions but also undermine the president ’ s push for a quick relaxation of restrictions on business .
Throughout his career in both business and politics , Trump has gotten far by relying on spin and bluster to paper over problems of substance .
And while this seems unlikely to be the best way to cope with the pandemic , it ’ s something he ’ s good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outside chance he could make it work for himself politically .
But a strategy focused on juking the stats is overwhelmingly likely to end with more real-world deaths than necessary .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Experts have a range of ideas to suppress the Covid-19 pandemic, save lives, and avert new waves of economic misery. But President Donald Trump seems to be embracing another plan — massaging the numbers to make inconvenient deaths go away.
But experts believe the problem with the numbers is the opposite — official statistics understate the Covid-19 death toll.
Recent methodological changes have annoyed the president by pushing death numbers higher. These changes, according to experts, are a sound and reasonable effort to reduce the amount of undercounting. They factor in that deaths have surged by more than the official coronavirus stats say.
On Wednesday, the Daily Beast reported that Trump and members of his coronavirus task force are now pressuring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to get states to change how they count deaths, a campaign designed to lower the numbers.
As Trump tries to juke the stats, he’s committing the original sin of America’s pandemic response — falling way beyond the curve in terms of testing and surveillance. For Trump, that seemingly doesn’t matter because it’s more politically convenient to keep official infection numbers low.
Coronavirus death count methodologies, explained
The original way the United States counted coronavirus deaths started with the fact that if you were seriously ill, you might (or might not) be tested for Covid-19. If you were tested, the test came back positive, you were admitted to the hospital for treatment, and then you died, that was counted as a Covid-19 death.
But we’ve known all along that many more people were infected with the virus than were actually receiving tests and obtaining positive results. Tests have been in short supply, and some of the most widely used tests have fairly high false negative rates.
Consequently, people who’ve died at home or in a long-term care facility without making it to the hospital were initially not counted as Covid-19 deaths. In mid-April, however, New York City added nearly 4,000 “probable” Covid-19 deaths to its official count based on doctors’ assessment of the symptoms of the deceased.
This shift is in part an effort to obtain more accurate statistics, and in part an effort to use testing capacity in a more efficient way. There is no Covid-19 pill to give people who test positive, so it makes little sense to prioritize gravely ill people for testing when those scarce tests could be better used on sick people’s close contacts.
That makes sense as a process, but adding these suspected cases into the mix makes the situation look worse, and Trump isn’t happy about it.
Trump wants to lowball coronavirus deaths
On May 6, Jonathan Swan and Sam Baker reported for Axios that “Trump has complained to advisers about the way coronavirus deaths are being calculated, suggesting the real numbers are actually lower — and a number of his senior aides share this view, according to sources with direct knowledge.”
They specifically reported concern about the CDC moving broadly to adopt New York’s method of classifying probable Covid-19 deaths as Covid-19 deaths.
Then on May 13, Erin Banco and Asawin Suebsaeng reported that the White House, including Dr. Deborah Birx, is pressuring the CDC to exclude not only probable Covid-19 deaths but also the deaths of some people who have tested positive for the infection:
The White House has pressed the CDC, in particular, to work with states to change how they count coronavirus deaths and report them back to the federal government, according to two officials with knowledge of those conversations. And Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the administration’s coronavirus task force, has urged CDC officials to exclude from coronavirus death-count reporting some of those individuals who either do not have confirmed lab results and are presumed positive or who have the virus and may not have died as a direct result of it, according to three senior administration officials.
This stems from an idea, long simmering in virus-skeptical circles, that public health officials are improperly classifying people who died “with” coronavirus as having died “of” coronavirus instead. The basic thinking is that a large share of the dead are older, a large share of Covid-19 cases are mild, and consequently, older people with mild Covid-19 infections may be dying for unrelated reasons. It’s a fair hypothesis to offer, but empirically it seems to be false — many more people are dying than can be accounted for by the official statistics.
Experts say the US is undercounting Covid-19 deaths
Testifying before the Senate’s health committee on Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci expressed the view of most public health professionals that even with the attempted adjustment for probable cases, the official numbers still underestimate the true death toll.
Sanders asks Fauci if coronavirus deaths are being undercounted. Fauci says "most of us feel the numbers of deaths are likely higher" than the official numbers. pic.twitter.com/dxyQj7C914 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2020
The basic issue is that even the “probable” standard still requires an individualized assessment of symptoms, while broad statistical aggregates show that a lot of people are dying.
You see this by doing an excess deaths calculation. First, you take the number of people who would die in a typical month in the United States, and then look at how many people actually died. When a Yale School of Public Health team did this for March 2020, they found about 15,400 excess deaths, of which only 8,128 were officially attributed to the coronavirus.
Are all 7,000 of the unexplained deaths really Covid-19 cases? Probably not. Some excess mortality is due to people not getting medical treatment for other ailments. On the other hand, it’s likely fewer people will have died in traffic accidents than you see in a typical March. A group of economists calculated that several hundred air pollution deaths were avoided in April with fewer cars on the road.
At the same time, the death reporting infrastructure in the United States is very decentralized and a little clunky, so the tendency is for all death counts to be revised upward over time as more jurisdictions report. It’s going to take a long time and a fair amount of statistical work to get a really clear picture of how many people died of Covid-19 this year.
But it’s pretty clear that the CDC’s case counts are an underestimate, a product of a gap between the health care system’s ability to make individualized determinations about cause of death, and the statistical reality that people are dying at an unusually high rate. Trump is pushing to make inaccurate numbers even less accurate, and that’s dangerous.
Bad data makes bad policy
It’s not unusual for politicians to want to spin away unflattering facts or for Trump to lie about something.
But as policymakers, business leaders, school officials, and individual citizens are making day-to-day decisions about how to cope with the pandemic, spreading bad information is risky. The more people underestimate how bad the situation is, the more likely they are to engage in excessively risky behavior and make the situation worse.
Trump is a shrewd person attuned to the political relevance of data. In early March, he infamously opined that he didn’t really want to see infected American citizens on cruise ships brought home for treatment because “I like the numbers where they are.” Bringing them on shore for treatment would create a worse statistical record, but also lead to a better outcome in the real world since they could get better treatment. In that case, Trump was persuaded to do the right thing and simply complained about it.
But the same basic tension has bedeviled American policy since at least February.
Stark warnings to the public could have saved lives but also risked spooking the stock market. Widespread testing would have made it easier to contain the outbreak but also would have meant much higher confirmed case numbers. Accurate death counts help people make smart decisions but also undermine the president’s push for a quick relaxation of restrictions on business.
Throughout his career in both business and politics, Trump has gotten far by relying on spin and bluster to paper over problems of substance. And while this seems unlikely to be the best way to cope with the pandemic, it’s something he’s good at and there’s at least an outside chance he could make it work for himself politically. But a strategy focused on juking the stats is overwhelmingly likely to end with more real-world deaths than necessary.


vox--2020-05-14--The scolding is not working

The scolding is not working

There is an anecdote from a 29-year-old doctor at Elmhurst Hospital — one of the worst-hit health care facilities in New York City , where the coronavirus has killed more people than anywhere else in the country — that I ’ ve thought about a lot lately .
In April , emergency room doctor Hashem Zikry told the New Yorker about how one day , after a particularly grueling work shift , he went for a run in Central Park .
“ I see these two women out in , like , full hazmat suits , basically , and gloves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feet away while they ’ re power walking , ” he said .
“ And I ’ m thinking , You know what , you ’ re not the ones who are at risk.
” What Zikry likely meant is that the people who are sick and dying in his hospital aren ’ t necessarily the people who are power walking in Central Park .
They ’ re the essential workers , cooks , cleaners , and security staff on whom the power walkers likely rely .
They ’ re people who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the virus with or without someone yelling at them , people whose exposure to the illness is indifferent to public shaming .
Yet there has never been a better time to be a scold .
Think of the possibilities !
There are so many new rules for people to break , rules coming from every possible direction , rules that often contradict each other .
The CDC has rules ; the White House has different ones .
Your mayor might have rules that your governor doesn ’ t agree with .
Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other neighbor has hers .
You might even have different rules from the partner with whom you ’ re supposed to be following all the rules .
Plus , the rules change all the time .
At one point you could be publicly shamed for wearing a mask because you were supposed to be saving them for nurses .
A few weeks later you could be publicly shamed for not wearing one .
If you ’ re in Missouri right now , you ’ re technically allowed to go to a concert .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sunbathe in a public park , there ’ s a good chance you ’ ll end up in a viral tweet about being a selfish rule-breaker .
The images of the selfish rule-breakers are everywhere : photos and videos acting as evidence that people are not taking the pandemic seriously , showing picnic blankets in the park nearly stacked on top of one another , crowded bike paths , beaches , and lines of people who look far less than 6 feet apart , despite the fact that these photos are often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , you ’ re not someone who is picnicking with a dozen of your closest friends right now , nor are you patrolling parks in order to yell at those people .
Maybe you ’ re like me , and you dislike being scolded because you ’ re already the sort of person who moves through the world assuming everyone is mad at you and acting as though it ’ s your job to change their minds .
Maybe you can also empathize with the desire to scold others because you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a 10-person ski trip on her Instagram Story and that seems terribly irresponsible .
Maybe you dislike this part of yourself because you ’ d rather people mind their business , because when you want to pull your mask down on an empty sidewalk to take in the scent of flowers and new leaves and air that has not been stagnant inside your apartment for weeks , you can never quite shake the worry that someone might scream at you to “ GO HOME !
” Being yelled at , obviously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or anyone ’ s ) list of things to fear right now .
We already view other human bodies as threats , willingly alienating ourselves from family and friends in an effort to keep everyone safe .
Still , in an awful time , a culture of mutual mistrust of everyone we pass on the street or see online feels like a highly unpleasant and unnecessary addition to the horribleness of it all .
Scolding , it can be argued , is now a public good .
Scolding has always been one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communicate , particularly online — last year people were scolded for not owning the proper amount of towels ; every now and then people are scolded for either washing or not washing their legs , or for talking about Harry Potter too much .
But now that the tiny personal decisions we make with our bodies are quite literally matters of life and death , scolds can no longer be written off as simply annoying .
Scolding , it can be argued , is now a public good .
That ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make , however .
So I asked Pamela Hieronymi , a professor of philosophy at UCLA who studies ethics and moral responsibility ( and who served as a consultant on The Good Place ) , whether the Central Park scolds were providing some form of value by yelling at everyone they deemed to be acting dangerously .
“ It ’ s very unlikely , ” Hieronymi says .
Beyond the fact that public shaming doesn ’ t often work as intended , Hieronymi cites an unusual source : Judith Martin , the etiquette @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ One of her basic maxims is to presume the best of the other person , ” she says .
“ Presume they don ’ t have the right information , presume that they didn ’ t mean any harm , and then interact on that basis — even if you don ’ t necessarily have great evidence to the effect that they don ’ t have the right information .
Following that advice , it would be , ‘ Hey , did you know that masks can protect people and not wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk ?
’ and personalizing it that way.
” The bigger problem here , though , is the very American inclination to blame individuals for systemic failures .
“ I don ’ t know if it ’ s because of our culture of both rugged individualism and religious seriousness , but there ’ s a real temptation to think that personal piety is the solution to our problems , ” Hieronymi says .
“ It can make people feel they have some control over the issue , and relieve them of what I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for broader social solutions .
And quite frankly , the people and industries who that broader solution would cost absolutely want to put the focus on the individual responsibility because that ’ s taking the focus off of them.
” In short , you are allowed to be angry .
I ’ m angry at the people who are angry at each other instead of angry at how we ended up here .
Individual Americans , for the most part , have held up our end of the bargain by staying home whenever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on our health care system , drastically redesigning our lives to fit around a scary and constantly evolving crisis , canceling an entire year ’ s worth of weddings , holidays , funerals .
“ There ’ s a real temptation to think that personal piety is the solution to our problems.
” Our government hasn ’ t .
The president has consistently prioritized ideological concerns over material ones like testing , lifesaving protective personal equipment , and funding for health initiatives .
Whereas Canada , South Korea , and Germany took the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanded their health care infrastructures and invested in contact tracing , the US is coming off of another “ wasted month , ” without making any demonstrable progress toward safely easing social distancing .
People are understandably angry at the government , but some are deeply misunderstanding the problem , instead expressing that frustration with dangerous anti-lockdown protests , as though saving lives and saving the economy is a binary choice .
Meanwhile , police officers are systematically and violently arresting people of color for allegedly breaking social distancing guidelines , while those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large groups of white people .
That ’ s on top of the fact that the coronavirus is killing black and Hispanic people at disproportionately high rates , in part because they ’ re more likely to be the same people for whom social distancing is a privilege , but also due to America ’ s longstanding economic and health care racial divide .
Partly because of that history , these are not the people who are allowed to yell at strangers in public without consequences .
It ’ s why I keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Park .
On some level , I get it .
There ’ s so much to be angry about , but it ’ s all so far away and abstract .
It ’ s much easier to position oneself as the knower of all rules , the educated expert who has read the most articles and who can cast themself as society ’ s hall monitor while many of our elected officials continue to squander what good faith remains with them .
What ’ s happening is the chaos of failed leadership ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are buying socks with Dr. Fauci ’ s face on them or getting horny for Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , two of the few officials who seem to be taking coronavirus seriously .
Of course you should be wearing a mask , reducing trips to the grocery store , and social distancing whenever you can .
As more states begin to reopen , however , the rules will continue to change and people will continue to be confused and scared and judgmental .
More people will get sick and more people will die @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more leaders will blame it all on our individual selfishness rather than their inaction .
There has never been a better time to be a scold , but we so many better things to do with our anger .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

There is an anecdote from a 29-year-old doctor at Elmhurst Hospital — one of the worst-hit health care facilities in New York City, where the coronavirus has killed more people than anywhere else in the country — that I’ve thought about a lot lately. In April, emergency room doctor Hashem Zikry told the New Yorker about how one day, after a particularly grueling work shift, he went for a run in Central Park.
“I see these two women out in, like, full hazmat suits, basically, and gloves, screaming at people to keep six feet away while they’re power walking,” he said. “And I’m thinking, You know what, you’re not the ones who are at risk.”
What Zikry likely meant is that the people who are sick and dying in his hospital aren’t necessarily the people who are power walking in Central Park. They’re the essential workers, cooks, cleaners, and security staff on whom the power walkers likely rely. They’re people who have a higher chance of coming into contact with the virus with or without someone yelling at them, people whose exposure to the illness is indifferent to public shaming.
Yet there has never been a better time to be a scold. Think of the possibilities! There are so many new rules for people to break, rules coming from every possible direction, rules that often contradict each other. The CDC has rules; the White House has different ones. Your mayor might have rules that your governor doesn’t agree with. Your neighbor has his own rules, your other neighbor has hers. You might even have different rules from the partner with whom you’re supposed to be following all the rules.
Plus, the rules change all the time. At one point you could be publicly shamed for wearing a mask because you were supposed to be saving them for nurses. A few weeks later you could be publicly shamed for not wearing one. If you’re in Missouri right now, you’re technically allowed to go to a concert. In New York, if you decide to sunbathe in a public park, there’s a good chance you’ll end up in a viral tweet about being a selfish rule-breaker.
The images of the selfish rule-breakers are everywhere: photos and videos acting as evidence that people are not taking the pandemic seriously, showing picnic blankets in the park nearly stacked on top of one another, crowded bike paths, beaches, and lines of people who look far less than six feet apart, despite the fact that these photos are often taken with misleading camera lenses.
Ok... buckle up, have I got a thread for you on rage inducing photos!
Our story begins earlier today and this "shocking" photo of people allegedly not social distancing at Bournemouth beach pic.twitter.com/1dVHFQH6sV — Luke W (@alukeonlife) April 27, 2020
Maybe, though, you’re not someone who is picnicking with a dozen of your closest friends right now, nor are you patrolling parks in order to yell at those people. Maybe you’re like me, and you dislike being scolded because you’re already the sort of person who moves through the world assuming everyone is mad at you and acting as though it’s your job to change their minds.
Maybe you can also empathize with the desire to scold others because you saw your friend’s little sister posting about taking a 10-person ski trip on her Instagram Story and that seems terribly irresponsible. Maybe you dislike this part of yourself because you’d rather people mind their business, because when you want to pull your mask down on an empty sidewalk to take in the scent of flowers and new leaves and air that has not been stagnant inside your apartment for weeks, you can never quite shake the worry that someone might scream at you to “GO HOME!”
Being yelled at, obviously, is nowhere near the top of my (or anyone’s) list of things to fear right now. We already view other human bodies as threats, willingly alienating ourselves from family and friends in an effort to keep everyone safe. Still, in an awful time, a culture of mutual mistrust of everyone we pass on the street or see online feels like a highly unpleasant and unnecessary addition to the horribleness of it all.
Scolding, it can be argued, is now a public good
Scolding has always been one of people’s favorite ways to communicate, particularly online — last year people were scolded for not owning the proper number of towels; every now and then, people are scolded for either washing or not washing their legs, or for talking about Harry Potter too much. But now that the tiny personal decisions we make with our bodies are quite literally matters of life and death, scolds can no longer be written off as simply annoying. Scolding, it can be argued, is now a public good.
That’s not an argument I’m qualified to make, however. So I asked Pamela Hieronymi, a professor of philosophy at UCLA who studies ethics and moral responsibility (and who served as a consultant on The Good Place), whether the Central Park scolds were providing some form of value by yelling at everyone they deemed to be acting dangerously. “It’s very unlikely,” Hieronymi says.
Beyond the fact that public shaming doesn’t often work as intended, Hieronymi cites an unusual source: Judith Martin, the etiquette expert better known as Miss Manners. “One of her basic maxims is to presume the best of the other person,” she says. “Presume they don’t have the right information, presume that they didn’t mean any harm, and then interact on that basis — even if you don’t necessarily have great evidence to the effect that they don’t have the right information. Following that advice, it would be, ‘Hey, did you know that masks can protect people and not wearing them will put me and others at risk?’ and personalizing it that way.”
The bigger problem here, though, is the very American inclination to blame individuals for systemic failures. “I don’t know if it’s because of our culture of both rugged individualism and religious seriousness, but there’s a real temptation to think that personal piety is the solution to our problems,” Hieronymi says. “It can make people feel they have some control over the issue, and relieve them of what I think is a real duty to advocate for broader social solutions. And quite frankly, the people and industries who that broader solution would cost absolutely want to put the focus on the individual responsibility because that’s taking the focus off of them.”
In short, you are allowed to be angry. I’m angry at the people who are angry at each other instead of angry at how we ended up here. Individual Americans, for the most part, have held up our end of the bargain by staying home whenever possible in order to lessen the burden on our health care system, drastically redesigning our lives to fit around a scary and constantly evolving crisis, canceling an entire year’s worth of weddings, holidays, funerals.
“There’s a real temptation to think that personal piety is the solution to our problems”
Our government hasn’t. The president has consistently prioritized ideological concerns over material ones like testing, lifesaving protective personal equipment, and funding for health initiatives. Whereas Canada, South Korea, and Germany took the threat of the coronavirus seriously early on and expanded their health care infrastructures and invested in contact tracing, the US is coming off of another “wasted month,” without making any demonstrable progress toward safely easing social distancing. People are understandably angry at the government, but some are deeply misunderstanding the problem, instead expressing that frustration with dangerous anti-lockdown protests, as though saving lives or saving the economy is a binary choice.
Meanwhile, police officers are systematically and violently arresting people of color for allegedly breaking social distancing guidelines, while those same forces politely hand out masks to large groups of white people. That’s on top of the fact that the coronavirus is killing black and Hispanic people at disproportionately high rates, in part because they’re more likely to be the same people for whom social distancing is a privilege, but also due to America’s longstanding economic and health care racial divides. Partly because of that history, these are not the people who are allowed to yell at strangers in public without consequences.
It’s why I keep thinking about the screaming women in Central Park. On some level, I get it. There’s so much to be angry about, but it’s all so faraway and abstract. It’s much easier to position oneself as the knower of all rules, the educated expert who has read the most articles and who can cast themselves as society’s hall monitor, while many of our elected officials continue to squander what good faith remains with them. What’s happening is the chaos of failed leadership; it’s the same reason people are buying socks with Dr. Fauci’s face on them or getting horny for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, two of the few officials who seem to be taking the coronavirus seriously.
Of course you should be wearing a mask, reducing trips to the grocery store, and social distancing whenever you can. As more states begin to reopen, however, the rules will continue to change and people will continue to be confused and scared and judgmental. More people will get sick and more people will die, more jobs will be lost, and more leaders will blame it all on our individual selfishness rather than their inaction. There has never been a better time to be a scold, but we have so many better things to do with our anger.