vox--2020-04-16--Sweden’s government has tried a risky coronavirus strategy. It could backfire.

As most governments around the world impose strict social distancing measures to try to stop the spread of the coronavirus , Sweden has tried something quite different — and it ’ s unclear if it ’ ll prove successful or lead to more deaths .
For months , the Scandinavian nation allowed large gatherings to form , schools for younger children to remain open , restaurants to serve late-night guests , and resorts to welcome thrill-seeking skiers .
Although some restrictions were in place and many people observed general safety and social distancing measures , Swedish health authorities felt it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country operating somewhat normally instead of shutting it all down .
On a theoretical scale of activity , where most countries brought it down to zero in the hope of quickly ramping up to 100 again , experts say Sweden has tried to keep the country at a simmer of 30 to manage the crisis for months to come .
“ The reason given by Swedish authorities is about resilience , ” Peter Lindgren , the managing director of the Swedish Institute for Health Economics , told me .
“ We may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and if you put all the heavy stuff in place at once , it will be quite difficult to maintain that .
By having some measures in place and trying to be a bit more proportional , it ’ s possible to actually keep this under control.
” Sweden ’ s neighbors have taken a more aggressive approach during the Covid-19 outbreak .
Denmark and Norway , for example , quickly closed their borders along with schools and industry to maximize social distancing .
The chart below shows that those two countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of cases down .
But Swedish officials , and particularly chief state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell , argue theirs is the right way forward .
“ Locking people up at home won ’ t work in the longer term .
Sooner or later people are going to go out anyway , ” Tegnell told reporters recently .
He ’ s also repeatedly said it would be good for the Swedish population to gain immunity to the disease , though he ’ s flatly denied purposely seeking “ herd immunity.
” Whatever the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to be troubled .
As of April 9 , Sweden ’ s rate per capita of confirmed deaths from the coronavirus is higher than the rate of its fellow Scandinavian countries or the US .
Hospitals are overcrowded and staff members are overworked , and the military has begun setting up field hospitals in major cities , including Stockholm , the country ’ s capital and the epicenter of its outbreak .
The government is now seeking extraordinary powers to impose further restrictions .
Some experts I spoke to estimated that as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a population of around 10 million — may eventually contract the disease .
And Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven stated this week that “ thousands ” in his country will die from Covid-19 .
Experts note it ’ s still too early to tell if the Swedish government ’ s methods will prove successful in the end .
But most Swedes I talked to said they ’ re unhappy being the world ’ s guinea pigs at such a dangerous time .
“ I didn ’ t sign my informed consent for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Karolinska Institute , a medical research center near Stockholm , told me .
“ I don ’ t know if [ my family and I ] can stay in a country that is not protecting its population.
” Many Swedes adopted social distancing .
But not all of them .
As the outbreak started to hit Scandinavia , Norway restricted outdoor gatherings to no more than five people and encouraged those inside to keep 6 feet away from each other .
Denmark was one of the first countries in Europe to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools and restaurants and limited outdoor groups to 10 or fewer .
Sweden ’ s government , by contrast , said it was okay for up to 500 people to meet outside .
Schools for children 16 and younger would remain open , as would other establishments from restaurants to hair salons .
And the government refused to close borders because , in Tegnell ’ s words last month , “ We are not in the containment phase .
We are in the mitigation phase , ” because the virus had already hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , that Swedes should adopt the usual social distancing measures to flatten the curve .
And experts told me the population typically trusts what officials say and abides by their guidelines , allowing officials not to have to impose strict measures .
Top Swedish officials say that two-way trust is paying off .
“ It is a myth that life goes on as normal in Sweden .
Many people stay at home and have stopped traveling , ” Sweden ’ s Minister of Health and Social Affairs Lena Hallengren told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Sweden , but many parts of the Swedish society have shut down.
” Hallengren offered some data points to make her case .
Ridership on public transportation in Stockholm has dropped about 60 percent , she said .
Nearly all domestic flights in Sweden have been canceled .
All the major ski resorts in the country have closed voluntarily .
And local media reports that 85 percent of people who ’ d planned to travel to Gotland , a popular Swedish vacation island , have canceled their trips ahead of Easter weekend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Stockholm University , agreed with this general view .
“ A large majority are following the government ’ s advice , ” he told me .
“ It ’ s pretty empty out there.
” Even critics of the government ’ s handling of the outbreak like Söderberg-Nauclér said that “ it was a great thing from the beginning to trust people.
” But , she noted , not everyone would reward Stockholm ’ s trust — and that ’ s where major problems have arisen .
Sweden ’ s lax coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Knowing that events were capped at 500 people , organizers purposely sold 499 tickets to customers .
Some older people , feeling little pressure from authorities , continued to go out into busy public squares .
And bars , a central hangout spot for many young people in Stockholm , still served patrons deep into the night .
“ Is it really that damn bad ?
” Sandra Bergkvist , a 28-year-old grocery clerk in Sweden , asked in an interview with the Washington Post this month while drinking beer with friends .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about people in the risk groups , but if it wasn ’ t for media it wouldn ’ t have been this hysterical.
” That nonchalance may have led to the country ’ s worsening coronavirus numbers .
The number of confirmed Swedish Covid-19 deaths has risen to more than 650 , as of April 9 .
That brought the death rate per million in Sweden — Scandinavia ’ s biggest economy — to about 65 .
By comparison , Denmark ’ s rate was near 40 while Norway ’ s was near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are likely to get even worse : One-third of all of Stockholm ’ s nursing homes have at least one case of the coronavirus .
In response , the government has taken some important steps , such as restricting gatherings at outside venues to 50 people and telling those at restaurants to sit only at tables , not stand crowded around the bar .
It ’ s also seeking extraordinary powers to impose further measures , which could lead to forced closures of business , schools , airports , railways , and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a field hospital in a major conference center in the capital .
“ The government is ready to adopt stricter measures to combat the virus whenever we consider it necessary , ” Hallengren said .
But virologist Söderberg-Nauclér isn ’ t buying it : “ It ’ s too late to try and stop ” a larger outbreak , she told me .
Which means many Swedes are now potentially at risk of contracting the deadly virus who wouldn ’ t have been had the government imposed these measures much sooner .
Sweden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepared than most for a major outbreak Estimates vary among experts I spoke to , but the country ’ s health system likely has had somewhere between 500 and 1,000 beds available in hospital intensive care units .
This follows a quick ramp-up from the government and lots of funding for a universal health system that ’ s considered top-tier worldwide , with well-trained physicians .
According to Lindgren of the Swedish Institute of Health Economics , hospitals typically have enough equipment for 48 hours should no shipments of protective equipment like masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national government has been good about buying and distributing materials to caregivers when needed .
And while physicians are overworked as cases increase , Lindgren said , the number of new admissions to intensive care units over the past two weeks has remained flat , at around 30 to 40 people per day .
Critics , though , note that recent reforms to the nation ’ s health care system led to an unnecessary shortage in the stockpile of protective materials before the crisis and lower capacity at hospitals .
So Sweden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it could struggle to deal with a rapid uptick in coronavirus cases like many other countries .
Sweden ’ s Public Health Agency has a lot of autonomy .
That worries some people .
Still , many Swedes see no need to panic .
“ I think our government is doing the right thing , ” Margareta Eriksson , a retired 67-year-old in Stockholm , told the Washington Post this week .
That sense of security comes partly from widespread trust in the Public Health Agency .
It ’ s a mostly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major public health crises like disease outbreaks and is heavily protected from political interference .
No government minister actually oversees the agency , which gives Tegnell , the government ’ s chief epidemiologist and response coordinator , a lot of room to make decisions as he sees fit .
“ There ’ s cause for a [ government ] minister to get sacked if they interfere ” with independent public bodies , Lindgren told me .
“ The scandals that get reported here are when ministers try to place undue influence on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview with Health Minister Hallengren , who said the government defers to the agency on a lot .
For instance , “ the government relies on advice from the Swedish Public Health Agency regarding school closures , ” she told me .
“ If the Swedish Public Health Agency makes the assessment that all schools in Sweden should close in order to fight the spread of Covid-19 , the government is prepared to do so ” after coordinating between the two sets of authorities .
That all seems good on the surface .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as large as the coronavirus outbreak — it ’ s important for politicians to step aside and let the experts lead the way .
But that only works if the experts offer sound advice , and it ’ s not clear Tegnell is .
Critics say he ’ s trying to have the country develop herd immunity , a controversial approach that aims to have many millions contract the disease so the wider population is resistant to infection down the line .
It ’ s an idea that seemed to take hold in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Netherlands — before models showing such a policy would merely lead to more deaths led them to change course .
Tegnell firmly denies that developing herd immunity in Sweden is his goal , but he has told reporters it ’ s “ not contradictory ” to his aims , either .
Stockholm University ’ s Beckman noted that Tegnell recently said Sweden only has two options : Either everyone gets vaccinated or the country develops herd immunity .
It ’ s comments like these that make the Karolinska Institute ’ s Söderberg-Nauclér deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She and more than 2,000 other academics and experts signed a petition requesting that the government pursue a different strategy .
“ It ’ s my responsibility as a scientist ” to call them out , she told me .
“ I don ’ t trust authorities .
I trust data.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As most governments around the world impose strict social distancing measures to try to stop the spread of the coronavirus, Sweden has tried something quite different — and it’s unclear if it’ll prove successful or lead to more deaths.
For months, the Scandinavian nation allowed large gatherings to form, schools for younger children to remain open, restaurants to serve late-night guests, and resorts to welcome thrill-seeking skiers. Although some restrictions were in place and many people observed general safety and social distancing measures, Swedish health authorities felt it was better to have much of the country operating somewhat normally instead of shutting it all down.
On a theoretical scale of activity, where most countries brought it down to zero in the hope of quickly ramping up to 100 again, experts say Sweden has tried to keep the country at a simmer of 30 to manage the crisis for months to come.
“The reason given by Swedish authorities is about resilience,” Peter Lindgren, the managing director of the Swedish Institute for Health Economics, told me. “We may have to do this for a long time, and if you put all the heavy stuff in place at once, it will be quite difficult to maintain that. By having some measures in place and trying to be a bit more proportional, it’s possible to actually keep this under control.”
Sweden’s neighbors have taken a more aggressive approach during the Covid-19 outbreak. Denmark and Norway, for example, quickly closed their borders along with schools and industry to maximize social distancing. The chart below shows that those two countries have done better than Sweden in keeping the number of cases down.
There are sharp differences in COVD19 strategists between the Nordic countries. And also a distinct difference in results as measured in deaths. pic.twitter.com/Egw51K02Xk — Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) April 16, 2020
But Swedish officials, and particularly chief state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, argue theirs is the right way forward. “Locking people up at home won’t work in the longer term. Sooner or later people are going to go out anyway,” Tegnell told reporters recently. He’s also repeatedly said it would be good for the Swedish population to gain immunity to the disease, though he’s flatly denied purposely seeking “herd immunity.”
Whatever the true goal, Sweden’s strategy appears to be troubled.
As of April 9, Sweden’s rate per capita of confirmed deaths from the coronavirus is higher than the rate of its fellow Scandinavian countries or the US. Hospitals are overcrowded and staff members are overworked, and the military has begun setting up field hospitals in major cities, including Stockholm, the country’s capital and the epicenter of its outbreak. The government is now seeking extraordinary powers to impose further restrictions.
Some experts I spoke to estimated that as many as 4 million Swedes — out of a population of around 10 million — may eventually contract the disease. And Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven stated this week that “thousands” in his country will die from Covid-19.
Experts note it’s still too early to tell if the Swedish government’s methods will prove successful in the end. But most Swedes I talked to said they’re unhappy being the world’s guinea pigs at such a dangerous time.
“I didn’t sign my informed consent for this experiment,” virologist Cecilia Söderberg-Nauclér of the Karolinska Institute, a medical research center near Stockholm, told me. “I don’t know if [my family and I] can stay in a country that is not protecting its population.”
Many Swedes adopted social distancing. But not all of them.
As the outbreak started to hit Scandinavia, Norway restricted outdoor gatherings to no more than five people and encouraged those inside to keep 6 feet away from each other. Denmark was one of the first countries in Europe to close its borders as it also shuttered schools and restaurants and limited outdoor groups to 10 or fewer.
Sweden’s government, by contrast, said it was okay for up to 500 people to meet outside. Schools for children 16 and younger would remain open, as would other establishments from restaurants to hair salons. And the government refused to close borders because, in Tegnell’s words last month, “We are not in the containment phase. We are in the mitigation phase,” because the virus had already hit the country.
The government was clear, though, that Swedes should adopt the usual social distancing measures to flatten the curve. And experts told me the population typically trusts what officials say and abides by their guidelines, allowing officials not to have to impose strict measures.
Top Swedish officials say that two-way trust is paying off. “It is a myth that life goes on as normal in Sweden. Many people stay at home and have stopped traveling,” Sweden’s Minister of Health and Social Affairs Lena Hallengren told me. “There is no full lockdown of Sweden, but many parts of the Swedish society have shut down.”
Hallengren offered some data points to make her case. Ridership on public transportation in Stockholm has dropped about 60 percent, she said. Nearly all domestic flights in Sweden have been canceled. All the major ski resorts in the country have closed voluntarily. And local media reports that 85 percent of people who’d planned to travel to Gotland, a popular Swedish vacation island, have canceled their trips ahead of Easter weekend.
Ludvig Beckman, a political scientist at Stockholm University, agreed with this general view. “A large majority are following the government’s advice,” he told me. “It’s pretty empty out there.”
Even critics of the government’s handling of the outbreak like Söderberg-Nauclér said that “it was a great thing from the beginning to trust people.” But, she noted, not everyone would reward Stockholm’s trust — and that’s where major problems have arisen.
Sweden’s lax coronavirus approach could put its people in danger
Knowing that events were capped at 500 people, organizers purposely sold 499 tickets to customers. Some older people, feeling little pressure from authorities, continued to go out into busy public squares. And bars, a central hangout spot for many young people in Stockholm, still served patrons deep into the night.
“Is it really that damn bad?” Sandra Bergkvist, a 28-year-old grocery clerk in Sweden, asked in an interview with the Washington Post this month while drinking beer with friends. “Of course we’re worried about people in the risk groups, but if it wasn’t for media it wouldn’t have been this hysterical.”
That nonchalance may have led to the country’s worsening coronavirus numbers.
The number of confirmed Swedish Covid-19 deaths has risen to more than 650, as of April 9. That brought the death rate per million in Sweden — Scandinavia’s biggest economy — to about 65. By comparison, Denmark’s rate was near 40 while Norway’s was near 20.
And Sweden’s numbers are likely to get even worse: One-third of all of Stockholm’s nursing homes have at least one case of the coronavirus.
In response, the government has taken some important steps, such as restricting gatherings at outside venues to 50 people and telling those at restaurants to sit only at tables, not stand crowded around the bar. It’s also seeking extraordinary powers to impose further measures, which could lead to forced closures of business, schools, airports, railways, and more. The military is also setting up a field hospital in a major conference center in the capital.
“The government is ready to adopt stricter measures to combat the virus whenever we consider it necessary,” Hallengren said.
But virologist Söderberg-Nauclér isn’t buying it: “It’s too late to try and stop” a larger outbreak, she told me.
Which means many Swedes are now potentially at risk of contracting the deadly virus who wouldn’t have been had the government imposed these measures much sooner.
Sweden’s health care system was better prepared than most for a major outbreak
Estimates vary among experts I spoke to, but the country’s health system likely has had somewhere between 500 and 1,000 beds available in hospital intensive care units. This follows a quick ramp-up from the government and lots of funding for a universal health system that’s considered top-tier worldwide, with well-trained physicians.
According to Lindgren of the Swedish Institute of Health Economics, hospitals typically have enough equipment for 48 hours should no shipments of protective equipment like masks arrive. However, he said, the national government has been good about buying and distributing materials to caregivers when needed.
And while physicians are overworked as cases increase, Lindgren said, the number of new admissions to intensive care units over the past two weeks has remained flat, at around 30 to 40 people per day.
Critics, though, note that recent reforms to the nation’s health care system led to an unnecessary shortage in the stockpile of protective materials before the crisis and lower capacity at hospitals.
So Sweden may be better off than most, but it could struggle to deal with a rapid uptick in coronavirus cases like many other countries.
Sweden’s Public Health Agency has a lot of autonomy. That worries some people.
Still, many Swedes see no need to panic. “I think our government is doing the right thing,” Margareta Eriksson, a retired 67-year-old in Stockholm, told the Washington Post this week.
That sense of security comes partly from widespread trust in the Public Health Agency. It’s a mostly independent organization that takes the lead during major public health crises like disease outbreaks and is heavily protected from political interference.
No government minister actually oversees the agency, which gives Tegnell, the government’s chief epidemiologist and response coordinator, a lot of room to make decisions as he sees fit.
“There’s cause for a [government] minister to get sacked if they interfere” with independent public bodies, Lindgren told me. “The scandals that get reported here are when ministers try to place undue influence on the experts.”
That became clear during my interview with Health Minister Hallengren, who said the government defers to the agency on a lot.
For instance, “the government relies on advice from the Swedish Public Health Agency regarding school closures,” she told me. “If the Swedish Public Health Agency makes the assessment that all schools in Sweden should close in order to fight the spread of Covid-19, the government is prepared to do so” after coordinating between the two sets of authorities.
That all seems good on the surface. During a medical crisis — especially one as large as the coronavirus outbreak — it’s important for politicians to step aside and let the experts lead the way. But that only works if the experts offer sound advice, and it’s not clear Tegnell is.
Critics say he’s trying to have the country develop herd immunity, a controversial approach that aims to have many millions contract the disease so the wider population is resistant to infection down the line. It’s an idea that seemed to take hold in governments in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands — before models showing such a policy would merely lead to more deaths led them to change course.
Tegnell firmly denies that developing herd immunity in Sweden is his goal, but he has told reporters it’s “not contradictory” to his aims, either. Stockholm University’s Beckman noted that Tegnell recently said Sweden only has two options: Either everyone gets vaccinated or the country develops herd immunity.
It’s comments like these that make the Karolinska Institute’s Söderberg-Nauclér deeply skeptical of the government’s aims. She and more than 2,000 other academics and experts signed a petition requesting that the government pursue a different strategy. “It’s my responsibility as a scientist” to call them out, she told me. “I don’t trust authorities. I trust data.”


vox--2020-04-16--Trump’s denial of his coronavirus failings will be “one of the biggest propaganda battles in America

Trump’s denial of his coronavirus failings will be “one of the biggest propaganda battles in American history”

Americans don ’ t trust the government , and they don ’ t trust the media .
That trend has been evident for years , but the Trump era has accelerated it .
Now we can see the worst-case scenario that trend could create , playing out in front of our eyes : Confronted with a paralyzing coronavirus pandemic , there ’ s deep confusion about the steps the country should be taking to respond .
Don ’ t expect it to get better , says journalism critic Jay Rosen .
That ’ s in large part because the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary political tools .
Right now , it is employing it to create cover for the president , who wants to argue that he shouldn ’ t be blamed for a litany of missteps as the virus moved from China to the US and exploded across the country .
“ The fight to keep Americans from understanding what happened from December to March is going to be one of the biggest propaganda battles in American history ” “ The fight to keep Americans from understanding what happened from December to March is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battles in American history , ” he told me recently .
“ The Republican Party and the Trump campaign and the MAGA coalition are going to have to produce confusion and doubt on a scale that is unlike anything you ’ ve ever seen before.
” That conflict is unfolding in plain sight : The point of that weird campaign video Trump rolled out at a White House press conference this week was to recast himself as bold and decisive in the face of the pandemic — as opposed to convincing reports in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other outlets emerging recently that portray him and his administration as dithering and confused , and slow to make crucial decisions like telling the country to start socially distancing .
It ’ s an extension of the challenge Trump has posed to journalists from the start of his administration , when he ordered his then-press secretary , Sean Spicer , to tell the press that his inauguration had an enormous audience instead of a paltry one .
Or , in Trump ’ s words , delivered to a group of veterans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what ’ s happening.
” Rosen , who teaches journalism at New York University , has been meeting up with me once a year to discuss the challenges the Trump administration poses for the media .
This year , instead of a podcast , we chatted via Skype , and I ’ m presenting edited excerpts of that conversation below .
If you read the story I wrote earlier this week about the media ’ s struggles to report on the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this conversation , which was happening while I was reporting that story ; I ’ m grateful to Rosen for the opportunity to shape my thinking .
There ’ s a giant gap in the way the American public perceives or has perceived the pandemic .
That split is both across political divides and across news consumption divides .
Are you surprised in any way to see what we ’ re seeing today ?
We have talked about this sort of gap for several years .
But did you imagine that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this ?
No , I never imagined a crisis like this .
I did , like lots of other people , worry about what would happen in a truly serious event , combined with the Trump presidency .
But I was thinking a war , a terrorist attack , a natural disaster of epic proportion , something like that .
But something like this , which affects everyone and is invisible and takes both science and imagination to understand — which I think is a very interesting point for us to discuss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
There have been many failures .
I think one of them , for a lot of people — and I include myself here — is a failure of imagination , a failure to see this coming , even though people have literally made books and movies about this for years .
This possibility was talked about a lot .
And warnings for the virus began early , and so there was plenty of information that it was going to become important .
But what I meant by imagination is something additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to understand what is happening now , in order to be informed , you need not only good information , reliable information , but you need imagination to see what it is .
Yeah .
That ’ s why [ Dr. Anthony ] Fauci and others say if it sounds like it ’ s too much , it ’ s just enough .
But it ’ s an incredibly difficult thing to tell people about , because unlike a hurricane or even a war , [ the virus ] is completely abstract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the challenges that journalists faced .
Right .
You can ’ t see it until you either have it or you ’ re looking at someone who has it .
Even now , one of the things that strikes me — and you see this manifesting on Twitter — is that even now when there are [ thousands ] of people who have died , because so much of it is happening in a hospital , or in someone ’ s house or en route to the hospital , that you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s plenty of reporting from inside hospitals ... in terms of visuals , you ’ re still not seeing it .
And so you end up with scenes like people on Twitter saying they ’ re going to the Elmhurst Hospital in Queens to see if they can see these lines with people .
That ’ s a whole meme now — go to your hospital and take video of nothing happening so that you can own the libs .
Are you tracking the percentage of people who say they are worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how that ’ s evolving over time and what their sources of information are ?
It seems like it has changed over time , in part because at various times the president has said this is a serious thing , after saying it was not a serious thing .
Yeah .
And this coheres with political science findings from long ago , that public opinion does follow what political leaders and party leaders are saying .
The recognition that there ’ s a reality there , that this thing is happening , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a story , it ’ s not a fake — I think that has grown .
But as that has grown , so has the attempt to escape responsibility for that .
And I think this is a really important point that I ’ ve been trying to make : The fight to keep Americans from understanding what happened from December to March is going to be one of the biggest propaganda battles in American history .
Because so much of it is public .
We have so many statements from Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are already on the record .
The Republican Party and the Trump campaign and the MAGA coalition are going to have to produce confusion and doubt on a scale that is unlike anything you ’ ve ever seen before .
And that , of course , is going to be a huge challenge for the press .
But it ’ s much more than the press : I think the fight to interpret what happened in those first three months as someone else ’ s fault and to persuade Americans that it wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when there are so many things on the record , like “ giving myself a 10 out of 10 ” or “ this is going to go away , it ’ ll just magically disappear.
” All those things are going to have to be overridden somehow .
And that is going to put a huge strain on the information system .
“ The key for the Trump campaign is to create confusion , not belief .
And that ’ s what we ’ re going to see in the months ahead — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and confusion about things that are overwhelmingly clear from the public record.
” In the pre-Trump era , any politician , let alone the president , who not only said this once but downplayed the virus multiples times — made a whole series of statements that were then not rebutted but actually refuted — that would be the end of the story .
Right ?
It ’ s all on tape .
We know what it is .
There ’ s no doubt about it .
There ’ s no debate .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve become used to the idea that Trump can say something on live TV in front of everyone and then is actually able to make it go away , magically .
And that there is a significant chunk of the population that either will never hear it or refuse to believe it or doesn ’ t care .
So you ’ re describing a fight to come .
But it seems like in some ways , this won ’ t be a fight : Both sides will already be resigned to either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is there any reason to believe it ’ s different this time ?
The Trump base will believe anything that he believes , and there ’ s already polling data indicating that his core supporters trust Trump as a source of information far more than they trust the news media or any other institution .
So for that group , yes .
Then , of course , there ’ s a large group of Trump doubters , who are also , not coincidentally , more likely to think that the mainstream media can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But there are people who are in neither of those camps .
I wouldn ’ t call them centrist .
I wouldn ’ t try to characterize their ideology .
But they ’ re not in either one of those camps .
And for those people , the key for the Trump campaign is to create confusion , not belief .
And that ’ s what we ’ re going to see in the months ahead : the massive effort to create doubt and confusion about things that are overwhelmingly clear from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
The other side says that .
I can ’ t make up my mind ; I ’ m going to either ignore it or shrug my shoulders .
Yeah , it ’ s already happening .
Like , [ New York City Mayor ] Bill de Blasio does not have a great record in himself and warning his public .
He went to the gym way after it was too dangerous to do that .
And so there is some responsibility there , right ?
Compared to Trump ’ s responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , small .
But it ’ s real .
That kind of fact is going to interact with on the one hand/on the other hand journalism .
And they ’ re going to try and , of course , blow that up .
Another thing that has already started happening is people keep sending me this graphic .
I don ’ t know who created it , but I ’ ll send it to you .
That is all the headlines from various sources that minimized the virus , that said it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a deal — some similar things to what Trump said .
The attempt is to say that it was the “ MSM ” — a term I don ’ t use , but they do — it was the mainstream media that misled us .
Why didn ’ t the media do better ?
I did want to ask you about that .
Do you think the mainstream media — I ’ ll use the term — could have done a better job of raising the alarm earlier ?
Probably , yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like the 2008 economic crisis , you can go back and you can find reports that gave the appropriate warnings .
But the overall tone of the coverage did not accomplish that .
I think the same thing will be true here .
There are definitely reports — quite a few — that said this thing is bigger than the political system seems to be acknowledging .
And then even before this particular virus arose , the possibility of a global virus like this , having this kind of effect , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit .
So there is some responsibility there from the news media .
But the news media of course isn ’ t one organism .
“ If the president and the White House [ were ] hair on fire about this , there is no doubt there would be media coverage of the same type ” I ’ ve been thinking about this for a while .
I think there are probably two different reasons that the media , broadly , was not more alarmist about this .
One is a sincere desire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and specifically over a health crisis .
If you ’ re telling people this is going to be terrible , and you quote people who are stocking up on food , you can have a run on markets .
I think it would be part of the reason that you didn ’ t see kind of a “ Time out , nothing else matters .
Pay attention to this.
” That would be one reason .
But another way to look at it would be if the president and the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , there is no doubt there would be media coverage of the same type .
So that ’ s a factor as well .
There ’ s a lot of resistance to reporting on something that is a possibility .
But the other thing is that for many journalists , this reporting involved going to health experts — often the CDC [ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ] or the WHO [ World Health Organization ] , or people like that — and saying , “ What should we think about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they say .
Now we ’ re seeing that , in some cases , those institutions themselves were behind in sounding the alarm , being more vocal about the alarm , and some of their advice and prognostications have changed .
And it seems like that would pose a real challenge if you are a good reporter , and you go to what is supposedly a nonpartisan institution staffed with experts , and they ’ re saying this is our view — that it ’ d be very hard for you to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Journalism scholars say that news reporters are dependent on “ authorized knowers.
” This would be a very good example of that .
When the authorized knowers aren ’ t making a big deal of something , it ’ s extremely difficult for journalists to do that .
“ News ” is a fundamental problem for the news What do you make of the Ben Thompson argument that this is why Twitter was particularly valuable ?
Because you had all sorts of experts on Twitter — sometimes they weren ’ t sanctioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart people in Silicon Valley — and they ’ ve had insight and we should have listened to them more than the CDC or the WHO at various points ?
Well , if the question is the availability of information that warned us that this was coming — yes , that information was available .
And you could find it in part by doing your own research .
That ’ s true .
But the problem is not really the availability of good information that turned out to be right and important .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ information and public attention .
Which is kind of the job of the media .
To contextualize that information and to put it out .
Yes , and to order things .
This is one of the problems we have with our news system .
The news tends to be , to use a colloquial expression , “ one damn thing after another.
” And what it ’ s not that good at — even though people say that front pages do this — it ’ s not that good at helping us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like telling us what ’ s most important to worry about .
And next most important , and maybe third or fourth .
And keeping those priorities both stable , in the sense that they don ’ t change day to day , but also be able to evolve as big events evolve .
We don ’ t really have anything like that .
And so it tends to be one damn thing after another .
If you just think about producing today ’ s news , then a sense of hierarchy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the flow of content .
This is a big problem with our news system .
It ’ s not the fault of any one journalist or any one news organization .
It ’ s a problem with relying on news for our knowledge .
But there are hierarchies .
There ’ s the top of the newscast .
If you know how to interpret the New York Times , you know that the story on the far right is the most important even though it may be under a smaller headline than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is part of the job of media , right ?
Packaging that and ordering it ?
Yes .
But that tends to be a little bit different than what I said .
That ’ s “ here ’ s the most important new thing that happened today.
” But some things are not new , but they are the most important thing .
So some things are persistent and still the most important thing today .
And when you have things like that , where actually the news of the day doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be worried about X , Y , and Z first — that ’ s where the system breaks down .
Does this get better ?
I want to come back to the original idea here that I had when I was talking to you , which was : Is there anything we can do about a partisan divide and a news source divide that is now literally a life-and-death situation ?
Is there any practical solution to this problem today in 2020 ?
Well , as the reality of the virus grows and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely practical questions like , “ What do I do ?
How do I protect my family ?
” the news at the local level becomes extremely important because people need to know where to go , what to do .
So it ’ s possible that local news providers will experience kind of a rebirth of both use and trust from the many questions and crises that arise from this situation .
And a relationship with a local news provider is basic to how people develop trust in journalism and in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so if people ’ s connection to local news providers is strengthened by this — which does happen sometimes in civic emergencies , like hurricanes , for example — that could change things a little bit .
I don ’ t think it ’ s going to change opinion at the level of Fox versus NBC and Trump versus Jonathan Karl .
It doesn ’ t touch that .
But reestablishing trust and utility with local publics could help journalism quite a lot .
That would be great .
And it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are still around to perform that function .
Well , this is part of the problem .
Those newsrooms are themselves impoverished .
And so it makes it extremely difficult .
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 .

Americans don’t trust the government, and they don’t trust the media. That trend has been evident for years, but the Trump era has accelerated it.
Now we can see the worst-case scenario that trend could create, playing out in front of our eyes: Confronted with a paralyzing coronavirus pandemic, there’s deep confusion about the steps the country should be taking to respond.
Don’t expect it to get better, says journalism critic Jay Rosen. That’s in large part because the Trump administration uses confusion as one of its primary political tools. Right now, it is employing it to create cover for the president, who wants to argue that he shouldn’t be blamed for a litany of missteps as the virus moved from China to the US and exploded across the country.
“The fight to keep Americans from understanding what happened from December to March is going to be one of the biggest propaganda battles in American history”
“The fight to keep Americans from understanding what happened from December to March is going to be one of the biggest propaganda battles in American history,” he told me recently. “The Republican Party and the Trump campaign and the MAGA coalition are going to have to produce confusion and doubt on a scale that is unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.”
That conflict is unfolding in plain sight: The point of that weird campaign video Trump rolled out at a White House press conference this week was to recast himself as bold and decisive in the face of the pandemic — as opposed to convincing reports in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other outlets emerging recently that portray him and his administration as dithering and confused, and slow to make crucial decisions like telling the country to start socially distancing.
It’s an extension of the challenge Trump has posed to journalists from the start of his administration, when he ordered his then-press secretary, Sean Spicer, to tell the press that his inauguration had an enormous audience instead of a paltry one. Or, in Trump’s words, delivered to a group of veterans in 2018: “Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what’s happening.”
Rosen, who teaches journalism at New York University, has been meeting up with me once a year to discuss the challenges the Trump administration poses for the media. This year, instead of a podcast, we chatted via Skype, and I’m presenting edited excerpts of that conversation below.
If you read the story I wrote earlier this week about the media’s struggles to report on the pandemic, you’ll recognize similar themes in this conversation, which was happening while I was reporting that story; I’m grateful to Rosen for the opportunity to shape my thinking.
The Trump-era information gap
Peter Kafka
There’s a giant gap in the way the American public perceives or has perceived the pandemic. That split is both across political divides and across news consumption divides. Are you surprised in any way to see what we’re seeing today?
Jay Rosen
No.
Peter Kafka
We have talked about this sort of gap for several years. But did you imagine that this would manifest in a literal life-and-death crisis like this?
Jay Rosen
No, I never imagined a crisis like this. I did, like lots of other people, worry about what would happen in a truly serious event, combined with the Trump presidency. But I was thinking a war, a terrorist attack, a natural disaster of epic proportion, something like that.
But something like this, which affects everyone and is invisible and takes both science and imagination to understand — which I think is a very interesting point for us to discuss — I never conceived of something like this.
Peter Kafka
There have been many failures. I think one of them, for a lot of people — and I include myself here — is a failure of imagination, a failure to see this coming, even though people have literally made books and movies about this for years.
Jay Rosen
This possibility was talked about a lot. And warnings for the virus began early, and so there was plenty of information that it was going to become important.
But what I meant by imagination is something additional to that, which is: In order to understand what is happening now, in order to be informed, you need not only good information, reliable information, but you need imagination to see what it is.
Peter Kafka
Imagination buttressed with science ...
Jay Rosen
Yeah. That’s why [Dr. Anthony] Fauci and others say if it sounds like it’s too much, it’s just enough.
But it’s an incredibly difficult thing to tell people about, because unlike a hurricane or even a war, [the virus] is completely abstract. So that’s one of the challenges that journalists faced.
Peter Kafka
Right. You can’t see it until you either have it or you’re looking at someone who has it. Even now, one of the things that strikes me — and you see this manifesting on Twitter — is that even now when there are [thousands] of people who have died, because so much of it is happening in a hospital, or in someone’s house or en route to the hospital, that you’re not seeing it.
And while there’s plenty of reporting from inside hospitals ... in terms of visuals, you’re still not seeing it. And so you end up with scenes like people on Twitter saying they’re going to the Elmhurst Hospital in Queens to see if they can see these lines with people.
Jay Rosen
That’s a whole meme now — go to your hospital and take video of nothing happening so that you can own the libs.
Confusion and doubt as a strategy
Peter Kafka
Are you tracking the percentage of people who say they are worried [or] not worried, and how that’s evolving over time and what their sources of information are? It seems like it has changed over time, in part because at various times the president has said this is a serious thing, after saying it was not a serious thing.
Jay Rosen
Yeah. And this coheres with political science findings from long ago, that public opinion does follow what political leaders and party leaders are saying.
The recognition that there’s a reality there, that this thing is happening, it’s real, it’s not a story, it’s not a fake — I think that has grown. But as that has grown, so has the attempt to escape responsibility for that.
And I think this is a really important point that I’ve been trying to make: The fight to keep Americans from understanding what happened from December to March is going to be one of the biggest propaganda battles in American history. Because so much of it is public. We have so many statements from Trump minimizing the danger. So many things are already on the record.
The Republican Party and the Trump campaign and the MAGA coalition are going to have to produce confusion and doubt on a scale that is unlike anything you’ve ever seen before. And that, of course, is going to be a huge challenge for the press.
But it’s much more than the press: I think the fight to interpret what happened in those first three months as someone else’s fault and to persuade Americans that it wasn’t Trump’s responsibility — when there are so many things on the record, like “giving myself a 10 out of 10” or “this is going to go away, it’ll just magically disappear.” All those things are going to have to be overridden somehow. And that is going to put a huge strain on the information system.
“The key for the Trump campaign is to create confusion, not belief. And that’s what we’re going to see in the months ahead — is the massive effort to create doubt and confusion about things that are overwhelmingly clear from the public record.”
Peter Kafka
In the pre-Trump era, any politician, let alone the president, who not only said this once but downplayed the virus multiples times — made a whole series of statements that were then not rebutted but actually refuted — that would be the end of the story. Right? It’s all on tape. We know what it is. There’s no doubt about it. There’s no debate.
In the Trump era, sadly, we’ve become used to the idea that Trump can say something on live TV in front of everyone and then is actually able to make it go away, magically. And that there is a significant chunk of the population that either will never hear it or refuse to believe it or doesn’t care.
So you’re describing a fight to come. But it seems like in some ways, this won’t be a fight: Both sides will already be resigned to either believe Trump or not believe Trump. Is there any reason to believe it’s different this time?
Jay Rosen
I think that’s a little oversimplified.
The Trump base will believe anything that he believes, and there’s already polling data indicating that his core supporters trust Trump as a source of information far more than they trust the news media or any other institution. So for that group, yes.
Then, of course, there’s a large group of Trump doubters, who are also, not coincidentally, more likely to think that the mainstream media can be trusted as a source of information.
But there are people who are in neither of those camps. I wouldn’t call them centrist. I wouldn’t try to characterize their ideology. But they’re not in either one of those camps. And for those people, the key for the Trump campaign is to create confusion, not belief. And that’s what we’re going to see in the months ahead: the massive effort to create doubt and confusion about things that are overwhelmingly clear from the public record.
Peter Kafka
One side says this. The other side says that. I can’t make up my mind; I’m going to either ignore it or shrug my shoulders.
Jay Rosen
Yeah, it’s already happening. Like, [New York City Mayor] Bill de Blasio does not have a great record in himself and warning his public. He went to the gym way after it was too dangerous to do that. And so there is some responsibility there, right? Compared to Trump’s responsibility, it’s, you know, small. But it’s real.
That kind of fact is going to interact with on the one hand/on the other hand journalism. And they’re going to try and, of course, blow that up.
Another thing that has already started happening is people keep sending me this graphic. I don’t know who created it, but I’ll send it to you. That is all the headlines from various sources that minimized the virus, that said it’s not going to be that big of a deal — some similar things to what Trump said.
The attempt is to say that it was the “MSM” — a term I don’t use, but they do — it was the mainstream media that misled us.
Why didn’t the media do better?
Peter Kafka
I did want to ask you about that. Do you think the mainstream media — I’ll use the term — could have done a better job of raising the alarm earlier?
Jay Rosen
Probably, yes. As with other very big crises, like the 2008 economic crisis, you can go back and you can find reports that gave the appropriate warnings. But the overall tone of the coverage did not accomplish that.
I think the same thing will be true here. There are definitely reports — quite a few — that said this thing is bigger than the political system seems to be acknowledging. And then even before this particular virus arose, the possibility of a global virus like this, having this kind of effect, was very well known and discussed quite a bit.
So there is some responsibility there from the news media. But the news media of course isn’t one organism.
“If the president and the White House [were] hair on fire about this, there is no doubt there would be media coverage of the same type”
Peter Kafka
I’ve been thinking about this for a while. I think there are probably two different reasons that the media, broadly, was not more alarmist about this. One is a sincere desire not to be alarmist — in general, and specifically over a health crisis. If you’re telling people this is going to be terrible, and you quote people who are stocking up on food, you can have a run on markets.
Jay Rosen
I think it would be part of the reason that you didn’t see kind of a “Time out, nothing else matters. Pay attention to this.” That would be one reason.
But another way to look at it would be if the president and the White House [were] hair on fire about this, there is no doubt there would be media coverage of the same type. So that’s a factor as well.
There’s a lot of resistance to reporting on something that is a possibility.
Peter Kafka
But the other thing is that for many journalists, this reporting involved going to health experts — often the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] or the WHO [World Health Organization], or people like that — and saying, “What should we think about this?” and then reporting what they say.
Now we’re seeing that, in some cases, those institutions themselves were behind in sounding the alarm, being more vocal about the alarm, and some of their advice and prognostications have changed.
And it seems like that would pose a real challenge if you are a good reporter, and you go to what is supposedly a nonpartisan institution staffed with experts, and they’re saying this is our view — that it’d be very hard for you to run against that.
Jay Rosen
I agree with that. Journalism scholars say that news reporters are dependent on “authorized knowers.” This would be a very good example of that. When the authorized knowers aren’t making a big deal of something, it’s extremely difficult for journalists to do that.
“News” is a fundamental problem for the news
Peter Kafka
What do you make of the Ben Thompson argument that this is why Twitter was particularly valuable? Because you had all sorts of experts on Twitter — sometimes they weren’t sanctioned by the CDC, sometimes they were smart people in Silicon Valley — and they’ve had insight and we should have listened to them more than the CDC or the WHO at various points?
Jay Rosen
Well, if the question is the availability of information that warned us that this was coming — yes, that information was available. And you could find it in part by doing your own research. That’s true.
But the problem is not really the availability of good information that turned out to be right and important. It’s the combination of good information and public attention.
Peter Kafka
Which is kind of the job of the media. To contextualize that information and to put it out.
Jay Rosen
Yes, and to order things. This is one of the problems we have with our news system. The news tends to be, to use a colloquial expression, “one damn thing after another.” And what it’s not that good at — even though people say that front pages do this — it’s not that good at helping us organize stories in order of priority.
Like telling us what’s most important to worry about. And next most important, and maybe third or fourth. And keeping those priorities both stable, in the sense that they don’t change day to day, but also be able to evolve as big events evolve. We don’t really have anything like that. And so it tends to be one damn thing after another.
If you just think about producing today’s news, then a sense of hierarchy, a sense of relative importance, disappears from the flow of content. This is a big problem with our news system. It’s not the fault of any one journalist or any one news organization. It’s a problem with relying on news for our knowledge.
Peter Kafka
But there are hierarchies. There’s the top of the newscast. If you know how to interpret the New York Times, you know that the story on the far right is the most important even though it may be under a smaller headline than the rest of the page. That is part of the job of media, right? Packaging that and ordering it?
Jay Rosen
Yes. But that tends to be a little bit different than what I said. That’s “here’s the most important new thing that happened today.”
But some things are not new, but they are the most important thing. So some things are persistent and still the most important thing today. And when you have things like that, where actually the news of the day doesn’t change the fact that you should be worried about X, Y, and Z first — that’s where the system breaks down.
Does this get better?
Peter Kafka
I want to come back to the original idea here that I had when I was talking to you, which was: Is there anything we can do about a partisan divide and a news source divide that is now literally a life-and-death situation? Is there any practical solution to this problem today in 2020?
Jay Rosen
Well, as the reality of the virus grows and everyday life is affected and people have extremely practical questions like, “What do I do? How do I protect my family?” the news at the local level becomes extremely important because people need to know where to go, what to do.
So it’s possible that local news providers will experience kind of a rebirth of both use and trust from the many questions and crises that arise from this situation.
And a relationship with a local news provider is basic to how people develop trust in journalism and in the news media as an institution. And so if people’s connection to local news providers is strengthened by this — which does happen sometimes in civic emergencies, like hurricanes, for example — that could change things a little bit.
I don’t think it’s going to change opinion at the level of Fox versus NBC and Trump versus Jonathan Karl. It doesn’t touch that. But reestablishing trust and utility with local publics could help journalism quite a lot.
Peter Kafka
That would be great. And it would be great if we have local news outlets that are still around to perform that function.
Jay Rosen
Well, this is part of the problem. Those newsrooms are themselves impoverished. And so it makes it extremely difficult.


vox--2020-04-16--Apple and Google look like problematic heroes in the pandemic

Apple and Google are a month away from launching a series of updates to their smartphone operating systems that will use Bluetooth signals to track potential coronavirus cases .
This week , the companies confirmed to Recode that the contact-tracing technology will go away when the pandemic does , which should assuage some privacy concerns .
But as two of the world ’ s tech superpowers prepare to embed new surveillance features into their devices , skepticism mounts .
Will Apple and Google ’ s joint effort to fight the virus have unintended consequences ?
When the contact-tracing tool was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the software required to make it work would be temporary .
That it involved changes to mobile operating systems actually made it seem more likely that it would be a permanent fixture .
Apple and Google have said this deep integration was the only way to enable the nonstop tracking necessary for the contact-tracing tool to function properly .
Nevertheless , the permanency of such a tool could lead to its features being used for other purposes , once its intended use was no longer needed .
So it seems to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sunset the contact-tracing tool at the end of the pandemic , though details about exactly which software features will go away and what qualifies as the “ end of the pandemic ” still need to be explained .
By promising an expiration date , Apple and Google have addressed a chief concern for privacy advocates , some of whom have been uncharacteristically amenable to certain types of tracking during the pandemic .
But many more questions remain .
How will Apple and Google prevent their tool from being abused by governments with access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that contact-tracing systems remain optional for smartphone users ?
Will the tool be effective enough to warrant the privacy compromises it requires ?
“ This is an extraordinary time , ” Bennett Cyphers , staff technology at the Electronic Frontier Foundation , told Recode before the time limit was announced .
“ It means that we would accept some pretty extraordinary things that EFF would normally never endorse .
But that has to come with some kind of limit on how it can be used and for how long it can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answered the “ how long ” question , Apple and Google have so far provided limited information about the tool itself .
The companies have released some technical documents showing how the system works , and they ’ ve answered a few questions from the media .
But that ’ s about it .
Beyond confirming that the tool would end , neither Apple nor Google has responded to Recode ’ s requests for comment .
The new Apple-Google tool sounds miraculous at first blush .
Starting in mid-May , the companies plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iOS and Android phones to exchange anonymized keys through Bluetooth to any other phones that come within a certain proximity .
These feature will enable interoperability between iOS and Android phones , and public health authorities will exclusively build apps based on an application programming interface ( API ) built by Apple and Google .
If a user tests positive for coronavirus , they will inform the app , which will then alert people who have been close enough to the infected person for their phones to exchange Bluetooth keys .
The alert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in contact with an infected person , without revealing the person ’ s identity .
Although this talk of tracking and tracing might sound daunting , the Apple-Google tool includes specific privacy protections , such as using anonymized keys that change every 15 minutes to prevent anyone from tracing a specific key back to an individual ; storing data on users ’ devices rather than on a central server ; using proximity detection instead of location data ; and making the entire program opt-in .
Apple and Google have said privacy and user @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collective minds when developing the tool .
Not everyone believes these good intentions can hold .
Apple and Google ’ s privacy promises ring hollow to people who have seen how both companies have built themselves on the back of privacy compromises , many of which were made without the consumer ’ s knowledge .
“ Two corporations , Apple and Google , have come to dominate the smartphone software ecosystem , and they have spent years spying on users and enabling consumer surveillance in their app stores , ” Michael Kwet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Information Society Project , told Recode .
“ In the world we built , we now have to weigh the fate of our lives and economy against trust in Apple and Google , the ad-tech industry they support , and government intelligence agencies .
… This is a nightmare.
” Just look at how well the tools hidden in many apps available through Apple and Google marketplaces can track you .
And Google has trackers installed all over the internet , gathering first- and third-party data about potentially everything you do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone from location-data brokers to law enforcement can get access to a lot of your data through these companies ’ devices .
Apple and Google have made several efforts to combat some of these intrusions , but such intervention only shows that the companies can ’ t foresee all of the unintended consequences their innovations may have .
They can only respond to them after the fact .
We also don ’ t yet know which countries , states , or cities will be participating in the Apple-Google contact-tracing effort .
We do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available only to those governments ’ public health authorities , though it ’ s unclear if the companies will take measures to prevent authoritarian governments from using the technology in unintended ways .
Along those lines , while users must opt-in to the contact-tracing feature , we don ’ t know if health authorities will be able build apps on top of the Apple-Google technology that could enable more invasive tracking .
We ’ ve already seen systems like this in other parts of the world .
The Chinese government , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health code to users , who must then show a healthy code in order to move around freely .
The Apple-Google tool doesn ’ t do this , but it could be used to perform a similar function .
“ I think there ’ s a very real possibility that businesses could , for example , require that their employees show proof of ‘ non-infection ’ before they ’ re permitted to return to work — voluntarily , of course , ” Ashkan Soltani , a former Federal Trade Commission chief technologist who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracking , told Recode .
Soltani also wondered what Apple and Google will do to prevent developers from adding identifiers in the apps they build using the contact-tracing API , such as location information and names .
On Thursday , the European Union released a list of privacy requirements for member states developing contact-tracing apps , suggesting the EU has some privacy concerns with regard to the Apple-Google tool .
On the list is “ urgent engagement with owners of the mobile operating systems ” to ensure that the tool is “ compatible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the United Kingdom ’ s National Health Service was reportedly looking into ways to identify supposedly anonymous users of the contact-tracing app it is developing .
The NHS plans to integrate the Apple-Google tool into that app , according to the BBC .
It ’ s not inconceivable that something like this could happen in the United States , where there are already instances of public health authorities sharing positive coronavirus tests with the police .
Sen. Richard Blumenthal , an advocate of data-privacy legislation , said in a statement that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how Apple and Google will assure that consumers ’ privacy interests are strongly balanced with the legitimate needs of public health officials during the coronavirus pandemic , ” adding that “ a public health crisis can not be a pretense to pave over our privacy laws or legitimize tech companies ’ intrusive data collection about American ’ s personal lives.
” Bluetooth technology may not be up to the job Privacy and security are chief among the concerns with the Apple-Google tool , but there are also issues with the technology itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bluetooth signals may not be good enough to determine the proximity of other devices with the accuracy needed for contact tracing .
The precision of these signals can depend on several factors , but some estimates suggest the technology could struggle with the 6-foot social distancing recommendation .
If a Bluetooth signal can only determine your location to within 30 feet , for example , you ’ d get a notification that you were in proximity to an infected person when you might actually be at a safe distance .
( Exactly how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air remains unclear . )
These false positives could happen in a densely populated location with such frequency that they become meaningless .
Bluetooth signals can also travel through physical barriers , so the Apple-Google contact-tracing tool might get mixed up if there ’ s a wall between two devices .
That means you could get a notification about being exposed to the coronavirus when , in reality , you and the other person are in two separate apartments .
The opposite could also be true : You might not get a notification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way the Bluetooth-based system didn ’ t register .
“ The false negatives are the ones that concern me more , ” Susan Landau , a cybersecurity and policy professor at The Fletcher School at Tufts University , told Recode .
False negatives could happen in many different ways .
The infected person might not use the tool , or they may not have their phone on them when they came near you .
Or someone with the virus might sneeze or cough more than 6 feet away from you .
They wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but you still could have been exposed .
Meanwhile , if this data is then used by governments to justify lifting shelter-in-place ordinances , any inaccuracies could be very costly .
“ It ’ s essentially going to give us a false sense of safety while simultaneously infringing on people ’ s rights , ” Soltani said .
Voluntary participation may not be enough Finally , assuming the privacy issues don ’ t lead to any sinister outcomes and the Bluetooth technology pulls through , the Apple-Google contact-tracing tool might fail due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage of the population that will have to participate in digital contact tracing in order for it to be effective .
An Oxford University study puts the minimum at about 60 percent .
And while having it integrated into the vast majority of smartphone operating systems — an estimated 3 billion people worldwide own an Apple or Android smartphone — is one of the better ways to encourage that , it still leaves out billions of people who don ’ t have smartphones .
Even in America , where 81 percent of adults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tricky from both a cultural and practical perspective .
Smartphones are still less accessible to lower-income people and seniors , populations that have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic and will increasingly be left behind .
Those who do have phones will have to download the latest software updates ( and have newer-model phones that can support the updates ) , download the app from the relevant public health authority , carry their phones with them everywhere they go , and want to participate in the first place .
The bar to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many people .
“ We can not solve a pandemic by coding the perfect app , ” the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in its report about such digital contact-tracing tools .
“ Hard societal problems are not solved by magical technology , among other reasons because not everyone will have access to the necessary smartphones and infrastructure to make this work.
” Even if the Google-Apple tool achieves the necessary widespread adoption , it alone may not be enough to eliminate or reduce the spread of the virus .
Michael Osterholm , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota , said in a recent Project on Government Oversight panel discussion that contact tracing alone was a “ somewhat superficial and not very meaningful ” solution .
“ When your house is on fire , there ’ s no way to do contact tracing , ” Osterholm said .
“ [ Coronavirus ] is everywhere ...
The only thing we know that really will work is a primary shutdown.
” This is especially true when you consider that many people who have the virus and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never get tested at all .
Only a mass-testing program , experts say , will allow people to safely stop social distancing .
We need to significantly increase our testing capabilities for this ; estimates range from 750,000 tests a week to 35 million a day .
We aren ’ t anywhere near even the lower end yet , and there are many factors preventing us from achieving it anytime soon , from a shortage of basic materials like testing swabs to questions about the tests ’ accuracy .
Landau , the Tufts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Google use the tool only for the duration of the pandemic , we don ’ t know how they ’ ll define the end of the pandemic , and no one knows when that will be .
“ It ’ s tempting to say after a certain time , the app will die , ” she said .
“ We don ’ t know how long that will be .
We don ’ t know if we ’ ll have a vaccine .
We don ’ t know what percentage of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s all sorts of unknowns.
” Even assuming Apple and Google have the most altruistic of intentions , their tool likely won ’ t be the pandemic-fighting silver bullet we all want .
If we don ’ t know that it will solve this problem , it ’ s harder to justify the additional problems it will create .
Altering their phones ’ operating systems — even if that change is temporary — is a big deal .
We can only hope the ends justify the means .
Open Sourced is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Apple and Google are a month away from launching a series of updates to their smartphone operating systems that will use Bluetooth signals to track potential coronavirus cases. This week, the companies confirmed to Recode that the contact-tracing technology will go away when the pandemic does, which should assuage some privacy concerns. But as two of the world’s tech superpowers prepare to embed new surveillance features into their devices, skepticism mounts. Will Apple and Google’s joint effort to fight the virus have unintended consequences?
When the contact-tracing tool was announced, there was no indication that the software required to make it work would be temporary. That it involved changes to mobile operating systems actually made it seem more likely that it would be a permanent fixture. Apple and Google have said this deep integration was the only way to enable the nonstop tracking necessary for the contact-tracing tool to function properly. Nevertheless, the permanency of such a tool could lead to its features being used for other purposes, once its intended use was no longer needed. So it seems to be a relief that Apple and Google plan to sunset the contact-tracing tool at the end of the pandemic, though details about exactly which software features will go away and what qualifies as the “end of the pandemic” still need to be explained.
By promising an expiration date, Apple and Google have addressed a chief concern for privacy advocates, some of whom have been uncharacteristically amenable to certain types of tracking during the pandemic. But many more questions remain. How will Apple and Google prevent their tool from being abused by governments with access to it? How will the companies ensure that contact-tracing systems remain optional for smartphone users? Will the tool be effective enough to warrant the privacy compromises it requires?
“This is an extraordinary time,” Bennett Cyphers, staff technology at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Recode before the time limit was announced. “It means that we would accept some pretty extraordinary things that EFF would normally never endorse. But that has to come with some kind of limit on how it can be used and for how long it can be used.”
Although they seem to have answered the “how long” question, Apple and Google have so far provided limited information about the tool itself. The companies have released some technical documents showing how the system works, and they’ve answered a few questions from the media. But that’s about it. Beyond confirming that the tool would end, neither Apple nor Google has responded to Recode’s requests for comment.
The tool could leave a dangerous door open
The new Apple-Google tool sounds miraculous at first blush. Starting in mid-May, the companies plan to release software updates that will allow iOS and Android phones to exchange anonymized keys through Bluetooth to any other phones that come within a certain proximity. These feature will enable interoperability between iOS and Android phones, and public health authorities will exclusively build apps based on an application programming interface (API) built by Apple and Google. If a user tests positive for coronavirus, they will inform the app, which will then alert people who have been close enough to the infected person for their phones to exchange Bluetooth keys. The alert will tell them they’ve been in contact with an infected person, without revealing the person’s identity.
Although this talk of tracking and tracing might sound daunting, the Apple-Google tool includes specific privacy protections, such as using anonymized keys that change every 15 minutes to prevent anyone from tracing a specific key back to an individual; storing data on users’ devices rather than on a central server; using proximity detection instead of location data; and making the entire program opt-in. Apple and Google have said privacy and user trust was at the forefront of their collective minds when developing the tool.
Not everyone believes these good intentions can hold. Apple and Google’s privacy promises ring hollow to people who have seen how both companies have built themselves on the back of privacy compromises, many of which were made without the consumer’s knowledge.
“Two corporations, Apple and Google, have come to dominate the smartphone software ecosystem, and they have spent years spying on users and enabling consumer surveillance in their app stores,” Michael Kwet, a visiting fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, told Recode. “In the world we built, we now have to weigh the fate of our lives and economy against trust in Apple and Google, the ad-tech industry they support, and government intelligence agencies. … This is a nightmare.”
Just look at how well the tools hidden in many apps available through Apple and Google marketplaces can track you. And Google has trackers installed all over the internet, gathering first- and third-party data about potentially everything you do online. One way or another, everyone from location-data brokers to law enforcement can get access to a lot of your data through these companies’ devices. Apple and Google have made several efforts to combat some of these intrusions, but such intervention only shows that the companies can’t foresee all of the unintended consequences their innovations may have. They can only respond to them after the fact.
We also don’t yet know which countries, states, or cities will be participating in the Apple-Google contact-tracing effort. We do know that the API will be made available only to those governments’ public health authorities, though it’s unclear if the companies will take measures to prevent authoritarian governments from using the technology in unintended ways.
Along those lines, while users must opt-in to the contact-tracing feature, we don’t know if health authorities will be able build apps on top of the Apple-Google technology that could enable more invasive tracking. We’ve already seen systems like this in other parts of the world. The Chinese government, for example, made an app that assigns a health code to users, who must then show a healthy code in order to move around freely. The Apple-Google tool doesn’t do this, but it could be used to perform a similar function.
“I think there’s a very real possibility that businesses could, for example, require that their employees show proof of ‘non-infection’ before they’re permitted to return to work — voluntarily, of course,” Ashkan Soltani, a former Federal Trade Commission chief technologist who has written about privacy issues and Bluetooth tracking, told Recode.
Soltani also wondered what Apple and Google will do to prevent developers from adding identifiers in the apps they build using the contact-tracing API, such as location information and names.
On Thursday, the European Union released a list of privacy requirements for member states developing contact-tracing apps, suggesting the EU has some privacy concerns with regard to the Apple-Google tool. On the list is “urgent engagement with owners of the mobile operating systems” to ensure that the tool is “compatible with the EU common approach.” Meanwhile, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service was reportedly looking into ways to identify supposedly anonymous users of the contact-tracing app it is developing. The NHS plans to integrate the Apple-Google tool into that app, according to the BBC.
It’s not inconceivable that something like this could happen in the United States, where there are already instances of public health authorities sharing positive coronavirus tests with the police. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, an advocate of data-privacy legislation, said in a statement that he “urgently want[ed] to know how Apple and Google will assure that consumers’ privacy interests are strongly balanced with the legitimate needs of public health officials during the coronavirus pandemic,” adding that “a public health crisis cannot be a pretense to pave over our privacy laws or legitimize tech companies’ intrusive data collection about American’s personal lives.”
Bluetooth technology may not be up to the job
Privacy and security are chief among the concerns with the Apple-Google tool, but there are also issues with the technology itself. While more precise than GPS, Bluetooth signals may not be good enough to determine the proximity of other devices with the accuracy needed for contact tracing. The precision of these signals can depend on several factors, but some estimates suggest the technology could struggle with the 6-foot social distancing recommendation. If a Bluetooth signal can only determine your location to within 30 feet, for example, you’d get a notification that you were in proximity to an infected person when you might actually be at a safe distance. (Exactly how far the coronavirus can travel in the air remains unclear.) These false positives could happen in a densely populated location with such frequency that they become meaningless.
Bluetooth signals can also travel through physical barriers, so the Apple-Google contact-tracing tool might get mixed up if there’s a wall between two devices. That means you could get a notification about being exposed to the coronavirus when, in reality, you and the other person are in two separate apartments. The opposite could also be true: You might not get a notification when you have been exposed in a way the Bluetooth-based system didn’t register.
“The false negatives are the ones that concern me more,” Susan Landau, a cybersecurity and policy professor at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, told Recode.
False negatives could happen in many different ways. The infected person might not use the tool, or they may not have their phone on them when they came near you. Or someone with the virus might sneeze or cough more than 6 feet away from you. They wouldn’t trigger the proximity alert, but you still could have been exposed. Meanwhile, if this data is then used by governments to justify lifting shelter-in-place ordinances, any inaccuracies could be very costly.
“It’s essentially going to give us a false sense of safety while simultaneously infringing on people’s rights,” Soltani said.
Voluntary participation may not be enough
Finally, assuming the privacy issues don’t lead to any sinister outcomes and the Bluetooth technology pulls through, the Apple-Google contact-tracing tool might fail due to statistics. There’s the minimum percentage of the population that will have to participate in digital contact tracing in order for it to be effective. An Oxford University study puts the minimum at about 60 percent. And while having it integrated into the vast majority of smartphone operating systems — an estimated 3 billion people worldwide own an Apple or Android smartphone — is one of the better ways to encourage that, it still leaves out billions of people who don’t have smartphones.
Even in America, where 81 percent of adults own smartphones, mass adoption will be tricky from both a cultural and practical perspective. Smartphones are still less accessible to lower-income people and seniors, populations that have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic and will increasingly be left behind. Those who do have phones will have to download the latest software updates (and have newer-model phones that can support the updates), download the app from the relevant public health authority, carry their phones with them everywhere they go, and want to participate in the first place. The bar to entry might simply be too high for too many people.
“We cannot solve a pandemic by coding the perfect app,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in its report about such digital contact-tracing tools. “Hard societal problems are not solved by magical technology, among other reasons because not everyone will have access to the necessary smartphones and infrastructure to make this work.”
Even if the Google-Apple tool achieves the necessary widespread adoption, it alone may not be enough to eliminate or reduce the spread of the virus. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said in a recent Project on Government Oversight panel discussion that contact tracing alone was a “somewhat superficial and not very meaningful” solution.
“When your house is on fire, there’s no way to do contact tracing,” Osterholm said. “[Coronavirus] is everywhere ... The only thing we know that really will work is a primary shutdown.”
This is especially true when you consider that many people who have the virus and are contagious are asymptomatic, meaning they never get tested at all. Only a mass-testing program, experts say, will allow people to safely stop social distancing. We need to significantly increase our testing capabilities for this; estimates range from 750,000 tests a week to 35 million a day. We aren’t anywhere near even the lower end yet, and there are many factors preventing us from achieving it anytime soon, from a shortage of basic materials like testing swabs to questions about the tests’ accuracy.
Landau, the Tufts professor, noted that even if Apple and Google use the tool only for the duration of the pandemic, we don’t know how they’ll define the end of the pandemic, and no one knows when that will be.
“It’s tempting to say after a certain time, the app will die,” she said. “We don’t know how long that will be. We don’t know if we’ll have a vaccine. We don’t know what percentage of the population will respond to that vaccine. There’s all sorts of unknowns.”
Even assuming Apple and Google have the most altruistic of intentions, their tool likely won’t be the pandemic-fighting silver bullet we all want. If we don’t know that it will solve this problem, it’s harder to justify the additional problems it will create. Altering their phones’ operating systems — even if that change is temporary — is a big deal. We can only hope the ends justify the means.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.