vox--2020-03-20--6 things to know about the coronavirus testing disaster in the US

As of March 19 , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) has reported more than 10,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus Covid-19 in all 50 states , Puerto Rico , Guam , and the US Virgin Islands .
But the actual number of cases is much higher , experts say — and the main reason we don ’ t know how big it is is that the government is still way behind in distributing tests to the health providers who need them .
The Covid Tracking Project — where journalists at the Atlantic and scientists are tallying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that as of March 20 , the US has tested 111,638 people .
That ’ s still far , far short of the million tests promised by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) in early March .
In most areas of the US , tests are still mainly reserved for hospitalized patients with severe illness , health care workers , or patients involved in a known illness cluster .
Some doctors say the ability to expand testing to others is desperately needed .
“ As an ER doctor trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can ’ t underscore enough how much harder the lack of testing is making our job , ” Rob Davidson , an emergency physician in western Michigan , told Vox .
Since hospital staff have to wear protective gear — which is difficult to work in and , increasingly , in limited supply — for every suspected case , they may be wasting some of it on patients who are negative .
Davidson also fears what ’ s coming next : “ With only seven ventilators in my hospital , an overwhelming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to choose one life over another based strictly on resources.
” An emergency room nurse in the Seattle area , one of the country ’ s largest Covid-19 hot spots , who asked not to be identified as she hadn ’ t been authorized to speak publicly , described the scramble to treat patients who haven ’ t been tested as “ running blind in the ER.
” Her emergency department no longer has any masks with face shields , and N95s are in such short supply that they are locked up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get tested , including one nurse in New York , who also wished to remain anonymous .
She told Vox she knows she was exposed while caring for a patient but was told that she should simply continue working until she showed symptoms .
New estimates suggest 20 percent to 30 percent of medical staff in Italy , which has been hard hit by the virus , have been infected , which underscores why testing at scale is incredibly important for the US response .
There ’ s been a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity has lagged so far behind : Major hurdles have included bureaucratic challenges and poor communication between laboratories and central agencies But now that many more labs are able to run tests , the next big problem is the medical supply chain .
Here ’ s what you need to know about the state of testing today .
The most commonly used test is a nasopharyngeal swab , where a special Q-tip is put up your nose to take a sample .
This swab is then sent out to a laboratory that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The virus that causes Covid-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , is an RNA virus , which means it uses ribonucleic acid as its genetic material .
It requires a process called reverse transcription , or RT , to transcribe its RNA into DNA .
Because there ’ s not very much material in one sample , a polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) is used to rapidly make billions of copies so it can be analyzed .
The DNA is dyed a fluorescent color , which glows if SARS-CoV-2 is present .
Most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The virus has about 32,000 nucleotides , so there ’ s a variety of tests , each looking for different parts of the virus ’ s genome , and they use different chemicals — there ’ s not one test every country is using .
In the US , the CDC chose not to follow WHO protocol and made its own test , shipping it to states in early February .
( The CDC has not made a public statement on why it didn ’ t follow WHO protocol . )
The kit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : two for SARS-CoV-2 and one for other known coronaviruses , which cause many common colds .
But laboratories around the country soon reported that the tests didn ’ t work .
By comparison , German scientists developed the first test for Covid-19 in January in line with WHO protocol , and the WHO shipped 250,000 of these tests to the 60 countries that had accepted them by early February — saving valuable weeks of being able to identify people who ’ d been infected .
Despite a nationwide shortage , the need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , private , or academic institutions from developing or producing their own tests .
Although in a crisis the FDA can use something called emergency use authorization to allow unapproved medical tests , the agency waited until February 29 before actually doing so .
Laboratories in the US all have different equipment from academic research institutions , which are different from those used in hospitals , so Covid-19 tests have to be independently verified in each lab to make sure they ’ re working right .
Finally , PCR technology has been around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s time-consuming and complicated to perform , and it ’ s very easy to contaminate samples .
The RT-PCR test itself only takes about a day , but with shortages and the need to ship samples to labs , it ’ s taking most patients days , or even weeks , to get their results back .
2 ) Are there enough Covid-19 tests in the US now ?
The short answer is no .
Eight weeks after the US had its first confirmed Covid-19 case , we still don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still gaining the ability to process results and now because the test materials themselves are in short supply .
Until March 9 , the CDC required laboratories to test two specimens from each patient , so the number of tests some state health departments said were available didn ’ t represent the number of patients who could be tested .
Patients also often need to be tested multiple times , to confirm their infection and to be released from isolation .
The good news is that the FDA is now allowing private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own tests .
The pharmaceutical company Roche got approval to develop an automated test on March 13 ; prior to that , all of the tests had been hand-done .
And as of March 19 , 89 public health laboratories and even more private ones are finally able to run tests for SARS-CoV-2 .
The CDC told Rep. Mark Pocan ( D-WI ) on March 13 that , nationwide , the US had the capacity to run around 7,000 tests per day ; a tracking project run by Scott Gottlieb , a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 18 , more than 36,000 Americans can now be tested in a day .
Surprisingly , the CDC is not publicly reporting state-by-state testing capacity — a critical number to understand public health — so it ’ s difficult to quantify just how much the demand for tests is still outrunning supply , or even to confirm total capacity .
Of the five medical professionals from five states Vox spoke to , each said that limited supplies were preventing adequate testing in their institutions .
For example , the Oregon State Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 80 tests a day ; Oregon Public Broadcasting reports that ’ s only one out of every 4,555 people .
Some states appear to be rolling out drive-through clinics and other support faster than others .
As of March 17 , New York had opened at least one such testing facility and has plans for others in at least four counties ; Mayor Bill de Blasio announced on the 17th that New York City now had the capacity for 5,000 tests a day .
Last Friday , a website intended to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump , but it wasn ’ t actually ready for rollout .
In its California debut over the weekend , users found a few bugs : It told patients with symptoms matching Covid-19 they weren ’ t eligible for screening , it required a Google account , and within hours of launching , its available appointments were full .
( Twenty people were tested on the 17th through the program before it too ran out of tests . )
But Gottlieb is optimistic about the upward testing trend , tweeting that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase nationwide.
” 3 ) What is the primary problem in getting more tests out now ?
There have been many missteps in the quest to get an adequate number of tests for Covid-19 patients , including bureaucracy and leadership problems .
But now that many labs are able to run tests , says Gottlieb , the problem is the supply chain for the materials .
“ We ’ re going to see a surge in testing over the next few weeks , ” says Andy Slavitt , a former acting administrator of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a leader of the team that repaired Healthcare.gov after its problematic rollout .
“ That ’ s all good , but at some point I expect we will see testing growth slow down again as we run out of supplies.
” It turns out the chemical reagents these tests depend on are in short supply , as are the plastic vials patients ’ samples are transported in and the swabs used during the testing process .
( One of the primary manufacturers of these swabs is in Italy ’ s hot zone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this critical equipment when the pandemic broke than they normally do because of Trump ’ s trade war with China .
Politico reports that CDC Director Robert Redfield says he doesn ’ t know what the agency would do if RNA extraction kits and reagents become unavailable .
4 ) Isn ’ t there a better way to do it ?
Probably .
PCR is generally considered to be very accurate , but one study suggests that RT-PCR accuracy varies depending on how samples from your nose , throat , or lungs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Only 3 percent of the patients in this study ended up with false negatives — meaning they had Covid-19 but were told they didn ’ t — but even missing a small number of cases could have deadly consequences .
PCR testing is also slow ; under the best of circumstances , it can take a day to get results .
Dozens of companies have announced plans to develop a “ point of care ” test , which a nurse or doctor can use right in their office and get results back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of these tests will also rely on nose and throat swabs and PCR , while others will look for antibodies to the virus in patients ’ blood , known as a serological test .
This approach could also tell if someone had been previously infected , even if they ’ re not currently sick .
Serological tests are thought to perhaps be less accurate than PCR but are less complicated to perform and easier to automate .
There were no serological tests for Covid-19 until this week when BioAmerica started shipping a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies .
Others , like Mammoth Biosciences , plan to use CRISPR to develop a test that works with paper test strips .
Still others plan to roll out a $ 135 at-home PCR test by March 23 , with results back in 72 hours .
The primary reason we don ’ t already have these new testing strategies up and running yet is there hasn ’ t been a large-scale investment made by companies to commercialize them ; until recently , getting FDA approval for new tests was a long process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to proceed with their diagnostic tests without getting an official clearance — which may bring its own problems .
Roche ’ s test , for example , was approved in less than 24 hours .
5 ) What problems will testing more people solve ?
A March 18 CDC investigation into the Life Care Center , the nursing home at the center of the Kirkland , Washington , outbreak , found that one of the primary problems is that staff weren ’ t promptly tested , so they continued working after being infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home sick .
In contrast , the small town of Vo , Italy , recently decided to test all 3,300 people , including those who didn ’ t have symptoms — twice .
When the study began on March 6 , there were at least 90 people with Covid-19 .
The comprehensive testing allowed those with the disease to be isolated and those who ’ d been exposed to be quarantined .
As of March 18 , there had been no new cases in Vo for days .
Tom Friedman , a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in areas with few cases , testing helps facilitate contact tracing and inform isolation strategies .
Where there is already community transmission , it can help protect vulnerable groups like those in nursing homes , shelters , or prisons .
Testing also helps doctors know when it ’ s safe to discharge patients , and to understand what role people who might be infected but don ’ t have symptoms are playing in the disease ’ s spread .
Widespread testing may also help keep the economy running , as lockdowns can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to keep working .
6 ) What are the limits of testing ?
To be effective , testing needs to be paired with actions to slow the spread of the virus .
“ We have to give the supply chain time to catch up , ” says Slavitt .
“ This is where social distancing is so important.
” Many states are now warning that personal protective equipment is in danger of running out , which may reduce the number of health care workers healthy enough to provide care for others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread testing will expose many health care workers to the virus : When someone sticks a swab up your nose , the natural reaction is to sneeze or cough in their face .
“ Testing isn ’ t a panacea , ” Davidson says .
“ The test isn ’ t a be-all and end-all .
Public behavior is the far more important piece of all of this.
” He works nights and is generally the only doctor in the hospital during his shifts .
“ We ’ ve all heard the horror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says of his colleagues — of doctors being forced to choose between patients because they don ’ t have supplies to care for everyone — and they ’ re concerned the public still isn ’ t taking the situation seriously enough .
They recommend staying home and away from other people before you get sick , quarantining if you think you ’ ve been exposed or are asked by a doctor to so , and isolating if you get sick .
At this point , some models predict Washington will exceed hospital capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For any one doctor or nurse or hospital ’ s reaction , what people do on their own is much more important.
” Davidson adds , “ We ’ re depending on them to do the right thing.
” Lois Parshley is a freelance investigative journalist and the 2019-2020 Snedden chair of journalism at the University of Alaska Fairbanks .
Find her on Twitter @ loisparshley .

As of March 19, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported more than 10,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus Covid-19 in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands.
But the actual number of cases is much higher, experts say — and the main reason we don’t know how big it is is that the government is still way behind in distributing tests to the health providers who need them.
The Covid Tracking Project — where journalists at the Atlantic and scientists are tallying numbers from state public health authorities — says that as of March 20, the US has tested 111,638 people. That’s still far, far short of the million tests promised by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in early March.
Related 11 things everyone should know about getting the novel coronavirus
In most areas of the US, tests are still mainly reserved for hospitalized patients with severe illness, health care workers, or patients involved in a known illness cluster. Some doctors say the ability to expand testing to others is desperately needed.
“As an ER doctor trying to treat patients who may have Covid-19, I can’t underscore enough how much harder the lack of testing is making our job,” Rob Davidson, an emergency physician in western Michigan, told Vox. Since hospital staff have to wear protective gear — which is difficult to work in and, increasingly, in limited supply — for every suspected case, they may be wasting some of it on patients who are negative. Davidson also fears what’s coming next: “With only seven ventilators in my hospital, an overwhelming surge of Covid-19 patients may force me to choose one life over another based strictly on resources.”
An emergency room nurse in the Seattle area, one of the country’s largest Covid-19 hot spots, who asked not to be identified as she hadn’t been authorized to speak publicly, described the scramble to treat patients who haven’t been tested as “running blind in the ER.” Her emergency department no longer has any masks with face shields, and N95s are in such short supply that they are locked up.
Even some health care workers are struggling to get tested, including one nurse in New York, who also wished to remain anonymous. She told Vox she knows she was exposed while caring for a patient but was told that she should simply continue working until she showed symptoms. New estimates suggest 20 percent to 30 percent of medical staff in Italy, which has been hard hit by the virus, have been infected, which underscores why testing at scale is incredibly important for the US response.
There’s been a lot of excellent reporting about why the US testing capacity has lagged so far behind: Major hurdles have included bureaucratic challenges and poor communication between laboratories and central agencies
But now that many more labs are able to run tests, the next big problem is the medical supply chain. Here’s what you need to know about the state of testing today.
1) How does a Covid-19 test work?
The most commonly used test is a nasopharyngeal swab, where a special Q-tip is put up your nose to take a sample. This swab is then sent out to a laboratory that can extract the virus’s RNA. The virus that causes Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, is an RNA virus, which means it uses ribonucleic acid as its genetic material. It requires a process called reverse transcription, or RT, to transcribe its RNA into DNA.
Because there’s not very much material in one sample, a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used to rapidly make billions of copies so it can be analyzed. The DNA is dyed a fluorescent color, which glows if SARS-CoV-2 is present. Most of the available Covid-19 tests use this process. The virus has about 32,000 nucleotides, so there’s a variety of tests, each looking for different parts of the virus’s genome, and they use different chemicals — there’s not one test every country is using.
In the US, the CDC chose not to follow WHO protocol and made its own test, shipping it to states in early February. (The CDC has not made a public statement on why it didn’t follow WHO protocol.) The kit was actually designed to run three tests: two for SARS-CoV-2 and one for other known coronaviruses, which cause many common colds. But laboratories around the country soon reported that the tests didn’t work.
By comparison, German scientists developed the first test for Covid-19 in January in line with WHO protocol, and the WHO shipped 250,000 of these tests to the 60 countries that had accepted them by early February — saving valuable weeks of being able to identify people who’d been infected.
Despite a nationwide shortage, the need for FDA approval kept local, state, private, or academic institutions from developing or producing their own tests. Although in a crisis the FDA can use something called emergency use authorization to allow unapproved medical tests, the agency waited until February 29 before actually doing so.
Laboratories in the US all have different equipment from academic research institutions, which are different from those used in hospitals, so Covid-19 tests have to be independently verified in each lab to make sure they’re working right.
Finally, PCR technology has been around for a long time, but it’s time-consuming and complicated to perform, and it’s very easy to contaminate samples. The RT-PCR test itself only takes about a day, but with shortages and the need to ship samples to labs, it’s taking most patients days, or even weeks, to get their results back.
2) Are there enough Covid-19 tests in the US now?
The short answer is no. Eight weeks after the US had its first confirmed Covid-19 case, we still don’t have enough tests, both because we are still gaining the ability to process results and now because the test materials themselves are in short supply.
Until March 9, the CDC required laboratories to test two specimens from each patient, so the number of tests some state health departments said were available didn’t represent the number of patients who could be tested. Patients also often need to be tested multiple times, to confirm their infection and to be released from isolation.
The good news is that the FDA is now allowing private companies and academic institutions to make their own tests. The pharmaceutical company Roche got approval to develop an automated test on March 13; prior to that, all of the tests had been hand-done. And as of March 19, 89 public health laboratories and even more private ones are finally able to run tests for SARS-CoV-2.
The CDC told Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) on March 13 that, nationwide, the US had the capacity to run around 7,000 tests per day; a tracking project run by Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA commissioner, suggests that as of March 18, more than 36,000 Americans can now be tested in a day.
Surprisingly, the CDC is not publicly reporting state-by-state testing capacity — a critical number to understand public health — so it’s difficult to quantify just how much the demand for tests is still outrunning supply, or even to confirm total capacity.
Of the five medical professionals from five states Vox spoke to, each said that limited supplies were preventing adequate testing in their institutions. For example, the Oregon State Public Health Lab says it is still limited to 80 tests a day; Oregon Public Broadcasting reports that’s only one out of every 4,555 people.
Some states appear to be rolling out drive-through clinics and other support faster than others. As of March 17, New York had opened at least one such testing facility and has plans for others in at least four counties; Mayor Bill de Blasio announced on the 17th that New York City now had the capacity for 5,000 tests a day. Last Friday, a website intended to help people find testing locations was promoted by President Trump, but it wasn’t actually ready for rollout. In its California debut over the weekend, users found a few bugs: It told patients with symptoms matching Covid-19 they weren’t eligible for screening, it required a Google account, and within hours of launching, its available appointments were full. (Twenty people were tested on the 17th through the program before it too ran out of tests.)
But Gottlieb is optimistic about the upward testing trend, tweeting that this week, “testing capacity will substantially increase nationwide.”
3) What is the primary problem in getting more tests out now?
There have been many missteps in the quest to get an adequate number of tests for Covid-19 patients, including bureaucracy and leadership problems. But now that many labs are able to run tests, says Gottlieb, the problem is the supply chain for the materials.
“We’re going to see a surge in testing over the next few weeks,” says Andy Slavitt, a former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a leader of the team that repaired Healthcare.gov after its problematic rollout. “That’s all good, but at some point I expect we will see testing growth slow down again as we run out of supplies.”
It turns out the chemical reagents these tests depend on are in short supply, as are the plastic vials patients’ samples are transported in and the swabs used during the testing process. (One of the primary manufacturers of these swabs is in Italy’s hot zone.)
Many suppliers had even less of this critical equipment when the pandemic broke than they normally do because of Trump’s trade war with China. Politico reports that CDC Director Robert Redfield says he doesn’t know what the agency would do if RNA extraction kits and reagents become unavailable.
4) Isn’t there a better way to do it?
Probably. PCR is generally considered to be very accurate, but one study suggests that RT-PCR accuracy varies depending on how samples from your nose, throat, or lungs are collected and when you are tested. Only 3 percent of the patients in this study ended up with false negatives — meaning they had Covid-19 but were told they didn’t — but even missing a small number of cases could have deadly consequences.
PCR testing is also slow; under the best of circumstances, it can take a day to get results. Dozens of companies have announced plans to develop a “point of care” test, which a nurse or doctor can use right in their office and get results back in as little as 15 minutes. Some of these tests will also rely on nose and throat swabs and PCR, while others will look for antibodies to the virus in patients’ blood, known as a serological test. This approach could also tell if someone had been previously infected, even if they’re not currently sick. Serological tests are thought to perhaps be less accurate than PCR but are less complicated to perform and easier to automate.
There were no serological tests for Covid-19 until this week when BioAmerica started shipping a new, $10 test to government agencies. Others, like Mammoth Biosciences, plan to use CRISPR to develop a test that works with paper test strips. Still others plan to roll out a $135 at-home PCR test by March 23, with results back in 72 hours.
The primary reason we don’t already have these new testing strategies up and running yet is there hasn’t been a large-scale investment made by companies to commercialize them; until recently, getting FDA approval for new tests was a long process. Now, the FDA is allowing companies to proceed with their diagnostic tests without getting an official clearance — which may bring its own problems. Roche’s test, for example, was approved in less than 24 hours.
5) What problems will testing more people solve?
A March 18 CDC investigation into the Life Care Center, the nursing home at the center of the Kirkland, Washington, outbreak, found that one of the primary problems is that staff weren’t promptly tested, so they continued working after being infected, getting more people in the nursing home sick.
In contrast, the small town of Vo, Italy, recently decided to test all 3,300 people, including those who didn’t have symptoms — twice. When the study began on March 6, there were at least 90 people with Covid-19. The comprehensive testing allowed those with the disease to be isolated and those who’d been exposed to be quarantined. As of March 18, there had been no new cases in Vo for days.
Tom Friedman, a former director of the CDC, says that in areas with few cases, testing helps facilitate contact tracing and inform isolation strategies. Where there is already community transmission, it can help protect vulnerable groups like those in nursing homes, shelters, or prisons. Testing also helps doctors know when it’s safe to discharge patients, and to understand what role people who might be infected but don’t have symptoms are playing in the disease’s spread. Widespread testing may also help keep the economy running, as lockdowns can be targeted rather than sweeping, allowing uninfected people to keep working.
6) What are the limits of testing?
To be effective, testing needs to be paired with actions to slow the spread of the virus. “We have to give the supply chain time to catch up,” says Slavitt. “This is where social distancing is so important.” Many states are now warning that personal protective equipment is in danger of running out, which may reduce the number of health care workers healthy enough to provide care for others. There’s also the concern that widespread testing will expose many health care workers to the virus: When someone sticks a swab up your nose, the natural reaction is to sneeze or cough in their face.
“Testing isn’t a panacea,” Davidson says. “The test isn’t a be-all and end-all. Public behavior is the far more important piece of all of this.” He works nights and is generally the only doctor in the hospital during his shifts. “We’ve all heard the horror stories out of Italy,” he says of his colleagues — of doctors being forced to choose between patients because they don’t have supplies to care for everyone — and they’re concerned the public still isn’t taking the situation seriously enough.
They recommend staying home and away from other people before you get sick, quarantining if you think you’ve been exposed or are asked by a doctor to so, and isolating if you get sick. At this point, some models predict Washington will exceed hospital capacity within the next two days. “For any one doctor or nurse or hospital’s reaction, what people do on their own is much more important.”
Davidson adds, “We’re depending on them to do the right thing.”
Lois Parshley is a freelance investigative journalist and the 2019-2020 Snedden chair of journalism at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Find her on Twitter @loisparshley.


vox--2020-03-20--Tiger King, now on Netflix, is 7 scattered but engrossing episodes of WTF

Every week , new original films debut on Netflix , Hulu , and other streaming services , often to much less fanfare than their big-screen counterparts .
Cinemastream is Vox ’ s series highlighting the most notable of these premieres , in an ongoing effort to keep interesting and easily accessible new films on your radar .
The premise : Wow .
Where to begin ?
Tiger King is a sprawling , seven-episode docuseries whose true crime story keeps branching off in weirder and weirder directions .
It ’ s the tale of Joe Exotic , the self-proclaimed “ Tiger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mostly huge cats but is now in prison for having hired someone to kill his animal-rights-activist archrival .
But there ’ s a lot , lot more to the story .
What it ’ s about : Tiger King ’ s biggest flaw is that it ’ s not really about , well , anything .
It ’ s a weird story to gawk at , full of larger-than-life characters who seem like they ’ ve wandered out of some kind of late-night sketch-comedy show .
But what characters they are !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself , who primarily goes by the alias Joe Exotic .
Joe ran the GW Zoo , full of tigers and other exotic animals , in Wynnewood , Oklahoma , about 66 miles outside Oklahoma City .
He also ran for president in 2016 and governor of Oklahoma in 2018 .
He sports a bleached mullet and sometimes outlandish outfits , which are as much an attraction as the big cats themselves .
Conservationist and hotelier Eric Goode started filming Joe five years ago , before eventually teaming up with veteran documentarian Rebecca @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antagonist is Carole Baskin , who runs Big Cat Rescue in Tampa , Florida , and is trying to have the Tiger King ’ s empire shut down .
Her main targets are Joe and Bhagavan “ Doc ” Antle , the proprietor of Myrtle Beach Safari in South Carolina and one of Hollywood ’ s most sought-after animal trainers .
Baskin especially takes issue with the fact that Joe and Doc breed big cats — many of which are endangered species — to live their entire lives in captivity and fund the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” business model , in which visitors to their zoos can buy the opportunity to play and take pictures with the cubs .
All of this is incredibly interesting , and it gets much wilder from there , with compulsively watchable tangents galore and incredible access to the inner workings of Joe ’ s world .
His current and former friends , partners , and colleagues tell engaging , fantastical stories that are backed up by lots and lots of footage , both shot by Goode and gleaned from news stories .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distracted by shiny objects .
Much is made of both zoo owners ’ relationship configurations : Doc keeps a harem of women that many refer to as his “ wives , ” who work for very little money at his zoo , while Joe is in a throuple with two other men who are much younger than him .
But the series merely glances at the implications of these setups — it ’ s not the relationships , but the power dynamics that really matter here .
Similarly , an entire episode is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carole Baskin that is then virtually abandoned for the rest of the series .
Furthermore , footage from five years of shooting is woven together without distinction , so it eventually becomes difficult to figure out what , exactly , you ’ re witnessing and where it exists in the story .
These and other fascinating parts of the tale seem to function either as distractions along the path to the main event — Joe Exotic ’ s conviction — or shallowly tapped aspects of the story that could shed light on some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the table .
For all the exploration of the world of big-cat lovers that Tiger King attempts , it never succeeds in giving us a sense of why things are the way they are .
What draws people so strongly to these huge cats , and to the men who collect them ?
Why should it matter to the audience who wins the fight between conservationists and owners ?
What are the actual stakes of this strange saga ?
And all of that ’ s a shame , because Tiger King doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its possible aims — to convince audiences to care about the fate of big cats , to say something about ego or labor or America , to make its audience think twice about what props up charismatic personalities .
But it ’ s an undeniably entertaining look into an epic American yarn that seems far too strange to not be fiction .
Even though Tiger King wastes some of its best material , it ’ s still a hell of a ride .
Critical reception : Critics have largely praised Tiger King thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lawson writes : “ At its most profound—and engrossing—Tiger King is a portrait of a world that ’ s entirely alien , and yet also reflective , and diagnostic , of this country as a whole .
It ’ s funny , and creepy , and frustrating , and , in the longview , pretty sad .
Which feels just about exactly right at this particular juncture in our national experiment.
” How to watch it : Tiger King is currently streaming on Netflix .

Every week, new original films debut on Netflix, Hulu, and other streaming services, often to much less fanfare than their big-screen counterparts. Cinemastream is Vox’s series highlighting the most notable of these premieres, in an ongoing effort to keep interesting and easily accessible new films on your radar.
Tiger King
The premise: Wow. Where to begin? Tiger King is a sprawling, seven-episode docuseries whose true crime story keeps branching off in weirder and weirder directions. It’s the tale of Joe Exotic, the self-proclaimed “Tiger King” who owned a zoo full of mostly huge cats but is now in prison for having hired someone to kill his animal-rights-activist archrival. But there’s a lot, lot more to the story.
Rating: 3 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
What it’s about: Tiger King’s biggest flaw is that it’s not really about, well, anything. It’s a weird story to gawk at, full of larger-than-life characters who seem like they’ve wandered out of some kind of late-night sketch-comedy show.
But what characters they are! The central figure is the Tiger King himself, who primarily goes by the alias Joe Exotic. Joe ran the GW Zoo, full of tigers and other exotic animals, in Wynnewood, Oklahoma, about 66 miles outside Oklahoma City. He also ran for president in 2016 and governor of Oklahoma in 2018. He sports a bleached mullet and sometimes outlandish outfits, which are as much an attraction as the big cats themselves.
Conservationist and hotelier Eric Goode started filming Joe five years ago, before eventually teaming up with veteran documentarian Rebecca Chaiklin as co-director. Joe’s antagonist is Carole Baskin, who runs Big Cat Rescue in Tampa, Florida, and is trying to have the Tiger King’s empire shut down. Her main targets are Joe and Bhagavan “Doc” Antle, the proprietor of Myrtle Beach Safari in South Carolina and one of Hollywood’s most sought-after animal trainers. Baskin especially takes issue with the fact that Joe and Doc breed big cats — many of which are endangered species — to live their entire lives in captivity and fund the zoo owners’ “pay to play” business model, in which visitors to their zoos can buy the opportunity to play and take pictures with the cubs.
All of this is incredibly interesting, and it gets much wilder from there, with compulsively watchable tangents galore and incredible access to the inner workings of Joe’s world. His current and former friends, partners, and colleagues tell engaging, fantastical stories that are backed up by lots and lots of footage, both shot by Goode and gleaned from news stories.
But it feels like Tiger King keeps getting distracted by shiny objects. Much is made of both zoo owners’ relationship configurations: Doc keeps a harem of women that many refer to as his “wives,” who work for very little money at his zoo, while Joe is in a throuple with two other men who are much younger than him. But the series merely glances at the implications of these setups — it’s not the relationships, but the power dynamics that really matter here. Similarly, an entire episode is devoted to a sordid murder case involving Carole Baskin that is then virtually abandoned for the rest of the series. Furthermore, footage from five years of shooting is woven together without distinction, so it eventually becomes difficult to figure out what, exactly, you’re witnessing and where it exists in the story.
These and other fascinating parts of the tale seem to function either as distractions along the path to the main event — Joe Exotic’s conviction — or shallowly tapped aspects of the story that could shed light on some of the questions it ultimately leaves on the table. For all the exploration of the world of big-cat lovers that Tiger King attempts, it never succeeds in giving us a sense of why things are the way they are. What draws people so strongly to these huge cats, and to the men who collect them? Why should it matter to the audience who wins the fight between conservationists and owners? What are the actual stakes of this strange saga?
And all of that’s a shame, because Tiger King doesn’t quite manage to achieve any of its possible aims — to convince audiences to care about the fate of big cats, to say something about ego or labor or America, to make its audience think twice about what props up charismatic personalities. But it’s an undeniably entertaining look into an epic American yarn that seems far too strange to not be fiction. Even though Tiger King wastes some of its best material, it’s still a hell of a ride.
Critical reception: Critics have largely praised Tiger King thus far. Vanity Fair’s Richard Lawson writes: “At its most profound—and engrossing—Tiger King is a portrait of a world that’s entirely alien, and yet also reflective, and diagnostic, of this country as a whole. It’s funny, and creepy, and frustrating, and, in the longview, pretty sad. Which feels just about exactly right at this particular juncture in our national experiment.”
How to watch it: Tiger King is currently streaming on Netflix.


vox--2020-03-20--5 common questions about social distancing, answered

Well , we ’ ve made it through one week of aggressive social distancing .
We could have many more to go , as Vox ’ s Brian Resnick has written .
With that in mind , I decided to concentrate on the reader questions that I seemed to be getting multiple versions of .
These are the questions a lot of you have as we adjust to our new reality .
First up : What exactly are the dos and don ’ ts of social distancing ?
These two questions seemed of a piece : When we say social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we supposed to be keeping ?
First , we should remember that the novel coronavirus is very contagious ( an infected person will infect 2 to 2.5 others on average , versus about 1.3 others with the flu ) , and there is evidence that people who have only mild symptoms or no symptoms at all are helping spread the disease .
That makes it more difficult to contain and is partly why we are taking such aggressive social isolation tactics : We can not always be sure who has the virus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk it being passed along unwittingly to a more vulnerable person .
That ’ s why the first , second , and third rules of social distancing are obviously : Keep your distance !
Vox ’ s Rebecca Jennings spoke with an expert about some of the alternative ways to connect with people besides in-person interactions .
I know it sounds extreme , but social distancing is really about physical distancing , and it works best when everybody practices it , with as few exceptions as possible .
That said , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re social creatures .
And the prospects of weeks upon weeks without seeing other people just isn ’ t palatable for many of us .
If you do need to get out , it ’ s okay to take a walk .
It ’ s okay to say hi to your neighbors if you see them on your walk .
Just keep a full 6 feet away from other people as much as you can .
The same rules apply for small get-togethers .
Think hard about whether it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you ’ re not feeling well .
If you are going to see other people in person , follow the official guidance ( no gatherings of more than 10 people ) and pay attention to your local health department : Cities and states have started instituting shelter-in-place protocols that discourage even small gatherings with people outside your family .
And no matter what , practice good hygiene : Wash your hands before you go out , while you ’ re out , and when you get home .
Here ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , via Randy M : The topline guidance here is the same : Be thoughtful and consider the well-being of your fellow humans .
The delivery people who are out and about to bring you your Amazon order or that pepperoni pizza are , by definition , not able to practice the kind of social distancing that experts are encouraging .
But I also understand the impulse to support local businesses especially in a time of crisis .
As Recode ’ s Rani Molla reported recently , most US cities were already seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities started to mandate restaurant closures .
There will be a deep economic toll to social distancing , and the occasional delivery or takeout order is a small way each of us can alleviate it .
Experts don ’ t think you are at any particular risk by getting takeout or home delivery .
But take what precautions you can .
Maybe wait until you can get one big Amazon order .
Take advantage of the new settings some food delivery apps have rolled out to accommodate social distancing , which , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your food be left on your doorstep or in your apartment lobby .
That ’ s better protection for you and your delivery person .
These are the golden rules of safe and ethical food delivery , according to The Verge : • Support local businesses and order directly from the restaurant if you can One last question I know a lot of you have , as you eye the various surfaces of your home with distrust ( or is that just me ? )
.
Via Andrea L. : Let me first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the novel coronavirus all the time .
So our knowledge today could be obsolete by next week .
But for now , this is what we know from the preliminary research about how long the virus sticks to common surfaces , according to the Harvard Medical School : • 2 to 3 days on plastic and stainless steel surfaces • Up to 24 hours on cardboard • Up to 3 hours in the air as droplets We don ’ t know , however , how certain conditions ( temperature , exposure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duration .
In general , it ’ s a good rule to clean surfaces you touch a lot through the course of the day , first with soap and water , then with disinfectant .
And as always : Wash your hands , wash your hands , wash your hands .
Let ’ s end with a couple of science questions .
First , from Elizabeth : This is one of the most important unanswered questions we have about the coronavirus , as Vox ’ s Brian Resnick covered today .
The usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you get an infection , your body will build up immunity to it and you ’ re much less likely to get the same infection a second time .
That will probably be broadly true for the novel coronavirus too , experts say .
But some number of people could come down with the virus again , and we just don ’ t know yet what that reinfection rate will be .
Already , there are some anecdotal stories of people who came down with symptoms , seemed to recover , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our bodies have not had any experience fighting off the novel coronavirus , and for some people , the antibodies they built up in their first infection may start to fade away after a time .
In short , there isn ’ t a great answer to this question yet .
But we shouldn ’ t assume that a person who ’ s already caught the virus is totally immune from a second infection .
The risk may be lower , even much lower , but we can ’ t say it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the CDC actually put out the first such statistics for the outbreak in the United States .
This table is a handy answer to this question : As you can see , the risk of hospitalization , intensive care , and death increase steadily as the patients get older .
But being younger doesn ’ t mean you can ’ t get a serious case of Covid-19 : These early returns indicate upward of 20 percent of people under age 55 are being hospitalized and a small but real number of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fewer than 1 percent have died , but it does happen .
This tracks with the age breakdowns we ’ ve seen in other parts of the world and projections from public health experts who have tried to anticipate what the outbreak will ultimately look like in the United States .
We know people with heart disease , lung disease , and diabetes are at higher risk of getting very sick from Covid-19 , according to the CDC .
People who have compromised immune systems may also have a higher chance of developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of these questions , the answer sounds like a shrug .
We still have a lot to learn about the Covid-19 coronavirus .
That ’ s why caution should be the motto for all of us for the time being .
This story appears in VoxCare , a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America ’ s health care debate .
Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news .
Are you interested in more discussions around health care policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and updates .

Well, we’ve made it through one week of aggressive social distancing. We could have many more to go, as Vox’s Brian Resnick has written.
With that in mind, I decided to concentrate on the reader questions that I seemed to be getting multiple versions of. These are the questions a lot of you have as we adjust to our new reality.
First up: What exactly are the dos and don’ts of social distancing?
Questions from Lisa D.:
If we have no symptoms, is there any harm to walking outside with a friend as long as we keep 6 feet apart? How about 3 feet?
And Deirdra M.
If one has no reason to think they’ve had any contact with carriers, is it safe to see one or two people in your home (or theirs)?
These two questions seemed of a piece: When we say social distancing, exactly how much distance are we supposed to be keeping?
First, we should remember that the novel coronavirus is very contagious (an infected person will infect 2 to 2.5 others on average, versus about 1.3 others with the flu), and there is evidence that people who have only mild symptoms or no symptoms at all are helping spread the disease. That makes it more difficult to contain and is partly why we are taking such aggressive social isolation tactics: We cannot always be sure who has the virus, and we don’t want to risk it being passed along unwittingly to a more vulnerable person.
That’s why the first, second, and third rules of social distancing are obviously: Keep your distance!
Vox’s Rebecca Jennings spoke with an expert about some of the alternative ways to connect with people besides in-person interactions. I know it sounds extreme, but social distancing is really about physical distancing, and it works best when everybody practices it, with as few exceptions as possible.
That said, it’s natural to seek human contact. We’re social creatures. And the prospects of weeks upon weeks without seeing other people just isn’t palatable for many of us.
If you do need to get out, it’s okay to take a walk. It’s okay to say hi to your neighbors if you see them on your walk. Just keep a full 6 feet away from other people as much as you can.
The same rules apply for small get-togethers. Think hard about whether it’s really necessary. Don’t mingle if you’re not feeling well. If you are going to see other people in person, follow the official guidance (no gatherings of more than 10 people) and pay attention to your local health department: Cities and states have started instituting shelter-in-place protocols that discourage even small gatherings with people outside your family.
And no matter what, practice good hygiene: Wash your hands before you go out, while you’re out, and when you get home.
Here’s a related question I got several variations of, via Randy M:
I am getting Amazon food boxes and local pizza both delivered to my porch. I never see the delivery people Are the boxes safe? Are dry goods safe in the box? Is delivered pizza safe?
The topline guidance here is the same: Be thoughtful and consider the well-being of your fellow humans. The delivery people who are out and about to bring you your Amazon order or that pepperoni pizza are, by definition, not able to practice the kind of social distancing that experts are encouraging.
But I also understand the impulse to support local businesses especially in a time of crisis. As Recode’s Rani Molla reported recently, most US cities were already seeing a steep drop in dinner reservations before cities started to mandate restaurant closures. There will be a deep economic toll to social distancing, and the occasional delivery or takeout order is a small way each of us can alleviate it. Experts don’t think you are at any particular risk by getting takeout or home delivery.
But take what precautions you can. Maybe wait until you can get one big Amazon order. Take advantage of the new settings some food delivery apps have rolled out to accommodate social distancing, which, for example, allow you to ask that your food be left on your doorstep or in your apartment lobby. That’s better protection for you and your delivery person.
These are the golden rules of safe and ethical food delivery, according to The Verge:
Practice social distancing
Throw out the packaging
Wash your hands
Tip well
Support local businesses and order directly from the restaurant if you can
One last question I know a lot of you have, as you eye the various surfaces of your home with distrust (or is that just me?). Via Andrea L.:
How long does the virus survive on surfaces and potentially pose a risk to individuals?
Let me first say that we are learning new information about the novel coronavirus all the time. So our knowledge today could be obsolete by next week.
But for now, this is what we know from the preliminary research about how long the virus sticks to common surfaces, according to the Harvard Medical School:
2 to 3 days on plastic and stainless steel surfaces
Up to 24 hours on cardboard
4 hours on copper
Up to 3 hours in the air as droplets
We don’t know, however, how certain conditions (temperature, exposure to sunlight, etc.) affect that duration.
In general, it’s a good rule to clean surfaces you touch a lot through the course of the day, first with soap and water, then with disinfectant. And as always: Wash your hands, wash your hands, wash your hands.
Let’s end with a couple of science questions. First, from Elizabeth:
Is there any information on if you gain immunity if you catch it and get better? Or can you catch it twice?
This is one of the most important unanswered questions we have about the coronavirus, as Vox’s Brian Resnick covered today.
The usual rules of the disease road say that if you get an infection, your body will build up immunity to it and you’re much less likely to get the same infection a second time. That will probably be broadly true for the novel coronavirus too, experts say.
But some number of people could come down with the virus again, and we just don’t know yet what that reinfection rate will be. Already, there are some anecdotal stories of people who came down with symptoms, seemed to recover, and then tested positive for Covid-19 again. Our bodies have not had any experience fighting off the novel coronavirus, and for some people, the antibodies they built up in their first infection may start to fade away after a time.
In short, there isn’t a great answer to this question yet. But we shouldn’t assume that a person who’s already caught the virus is totally immune from a second infection. The risk may be lower, even much lower, but we can’t say it is zero.
Today’s last question, from Tom M.:
Are there any reliable statistics on the age distribution of diagnosed cases, perhaps along with some categorization of degree of seriousness by age (including death), and the existence of existing health problems prior to contraction?
A couple of days ago, the CDC actually put out the first such statistics for the outbreak in the United States. This table is a handy answer to this question:
As you can see, the risk of hospitalization, intensive care, and death increase steadily as the patients get older. But being younger doesn’t mean you can’t get a serious case of Covid-19: These early returns indicate upward of 20 percent of people under age 55 are being hospitalized and a small but real number of them have ended up in the ICU. Fewer than 1 percent have died, but it does happen.
This tracks with the age breakdowns we’ve seen in other parts of the world and projections from public health experts who have tried to anticipate what the outbreak will ultimately look like in the United States.
We know people with heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes are at higher risk of getting very sick from Covid-19, according to the CDC. People who have compromised immune systems may also have a higher chance of developing more severe symptoms.
I know with some of these questions, the answer sounds like a shrug. We still have a lot to learn about the Covid-19 coronavirus. That’s why caution should be the motto for all of us for the time being.
This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter VoxCare Dylan Scott guides you through the fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic and the health care policies that matter most. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Join the conversation
Are you interested in more discussions around health care policy? Join our Facebook community for conversation and updates.


vox--2020-03-20--Trump’s expert urged caution about a coronavirus treatment. Trump hyped it up anyway.

President Donald Trump just can ’ t stop contradicting his own public health experts on the coronavirus outbreak .
The latest example , from Friday ’ s coronavirus press briefing , began when reporters asked about chloroquine — a drug typically used for malaria that Trump on Thursday hyped as a potential treatment for Covid-19 , the disease caused by the virus .
As it stands , there are no major clinical trials proving the effectiveness of choloroquine for Covid-19 , but there ’ s some anecdotal and weaker evidence that possibly supports it .
Anthony Fauci , the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Infectious Diseases , first cautioned that the evidence that chloroquine will work for Covid-19 is thin : Then , Trump grabbed the podium and seemed to contradict what Fauci said about chloroquine : “ I ’ m probably more of a fan of that — maybe than anybody .
But I ’ m a big fan , and we ’ ll see what happens .
We all understand what the doctor [ Fauci ] said is 100 percent correct : It ’ s early .
But I have seen things that are impressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re gon na know soon.
” As reporters further questioned him , Trump stood his ground .
He pointed out that the drug has been effective for malaria .
Upon the suggestion there ’ s no “ magic drug ” for Covid-19 , he responded , “ I disagree .
Maybe and maybe not.
” Trump insisted he agreed with Fauci , but he also went on , “ I feel good about it .
That ’ s all it is : Just a feeling .
I ’ m a smart guy.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been right a lot .
Let ’ s see what happens.
” Trump also lashed out at NBC News reporter Peter Alexander for his questions , calling him “ a terrible reporter ” and complaining about “ fake news ” after Alexander cited the death toll from Covid-19 , which is now at more than 200 in the US .
( Trump didn ’ t similarly lash out at Fox News reporter John Roberts , who actually started the line of questioning . )
After , Fauci took to the podium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while trying to assure Trump he ’ s not disagreeing with him much — a common move in the Trump era for public health experts and other administration officials trying to avoid the president ’ s ire .
“ There really isn ’ t that much of a difference in many respects with what we ’ re saying .
The president feels optimistic about something — his feeling about it , ” Fauci said .
“ What I ’ m saying is that it might be effective — I ’ m not saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be effective .
But as a scientist , as we ’ re getting it out there , we need to do it in a way that while we are making it available for people who might want the hope that it might work , you ’ re also collecting data that will ultimately show that it is truly effective and safe under the conditions of Covid-19.
” Previously , Trump suggested that chloroquine was safe , because it had been used for decades for malaria with few problems .
But Fauci offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ What we don ’ t know is when you put it in the context of another disease whether it ’ s safe.
” “ I think it probably is gon na be safe , ” Fauci added .
“ But I like to prove things first.
” The exchange was bizarre : Trump was all but debating one of his public health experts about a public health issue — one in which , obviously , the expert has a lot more expertise .
Yet Trump contradicted Fauci anyway , muddling his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unclear signals to the general public during a national crisis .
We need better leadership right now The moment exposed the conflict Trump faces at these press briefings : What Americans need is factual , actionable information about what they can do to combat the pandemic .
But Trump ’ s instinct is to downplay the outbreak — it ’ s what he did for months , prior to this week — and to assure people that he has everything under control .
So he puts a positive spin on a drug that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it for Covid-19 , and his own expert has to step in and gently correct him .
This kind of situation has played out again and again as the coronavirus pandemic has worsened .
Fauci alone has corrected Trump on whether the outbreak will get worse , how long a vaccine will take to make , whether testing is widely available , and how long social distancing guidelines will remain in effect , among other examples .
During a public health crisis , this kind of misinformation isn ’ t just unhelpful , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Barry told Vox , the government ’ s misinformation and lies during the 1918 flu pandemic likely caused more deaths and suffering : “ It was a disaster .
People lost faith in everything — in their government , in what they were being told , in each other .
It just isolated people even further .
If trust collapses , then it becomes everyone for themselves , and that ’ s the worst instinct in a crisis of this scale.
” Due to the coronavirus pandemic , Americans are being asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being asked to social distance , isolating themselves from their loved ones .
They ’ re being asked to potentially give up income and benefits , as restaurants and other businesses shut down to avoid spreading the disease .
They ’ re being told to abandon activities that previously enriched their lives , from working out at the gym to going out with friends .
It ’ s during these kinds of times , experts say , that people need leaders to provide clear guidance .
“ You really need very strong leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an epidemiologist at New York University , previously told me .
Trump has not done that .
Besides an uncharacteristically competent press conference on Monday , he has downplayed the risks of Covid-19 — comparing it to the common flu , which isn ’ t as dangerous as the novel coronavirus , and suggested that “ one day it ’ s like a miracle , it will disappear.
” At one point , he called concerns about the virus a “ hoax.
” Public health experts have been highly critical of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Harvard Global Health Institute , previously called it “ deeply disturbing , ” adding that it ’ s “ left the country far less prepared than it needs to be for what is a very substantial challenge ahead.
” While Trump has started to take the threat of coronavirus more seriously in his public remarks since Monday , he ’ s used racist , xenophobic language to describe the virus .
That continued on Friday as well .
The result is Americans are less likely to understand what is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help them , and what is expected of all of us to help combat the crisis .
It makes a bad situation even worse .

President Donald Trump just can’t stop contradicting his own public health experts on the coronavirus outbreak.
The latest example, from Friday’s coronavirus press briefing, began when reporters asked about chloroquine — a drug typically used for malaria that Trump on Thursday hyped as a potential treatment for Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus.
As it stands, there are no major clinical trials proving the effectiveness of choloroquine for Covid-19, but there’s some anecdotal and weaker evidence that possibly supports it.
Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, first cautioned that the evidence that chloroquine will work for Covid-19 is thin:
The evidence you are talking about is anecdotal evidence. … We’re trying to strike a balance between making something with a potential of an effect to the American people available. At the same time, we do it under the auspices of a protocol that would give us the information to determine if it’s truly safe and effective. But the information that you are referring to specifically is anecdotal — it was not done in a controlled clinical trial — so you really can’t make any definitive statement about it.
Then, Trump grabbed the podium and seemed to contradict what Fauci said about chloroquine: “I’m probably more of a fan of that — maybe than anybody. But I’m a big fan, and we’ll see what happens. We all understand what the doctor [Fauci] said is 100 percent correct: It’s early. But I have seen things that are impressive. We’ll see. We’re gonna know soon.”
As reporters further questioned him, Trump stood his ground. He pointed out that the drug has been effective for malaria. Upon the suggestion there’s no “magic drug” for Covid-19, he responded, “I disagree. Maybe and maybe not.” Trump insisted he agreed with Fauci, but he also went on, “I feel good about it. That’s all it is: Just a feeling. I’m a smart guy.” Trump later added, “I’ve been right a lot. Let’s see what happens.”
Trump also lashed out at NBC News reporter Peter Alexander for his questions, calling him “a terrible reporter” and complaining about “fake news” after Alexander cited the death toll from Covid-19, which is now at more than 200 in the US. (Trump didn’t similarly lash out at Fox News reporter John Roberts, who actually started the line of questioning.)
After, Fauci took to the podium to give a more level-headed assessment, while trying to assure Trump he’s not disagreeing with him much — a common move in the Trump era for public health experts and other administration officials trying to avoid the president’s ire.
“There really isn’t that much of a difference in many respects with what we’re saying. The president feels optimistic about something — his feeling about it,” Fauci said. “What I’m saying is that it might be effective — I’m not saying that it isn’t. It might be effective. But as a scientist, as we’re getting it out there, we need to do it in a way that while we are making it available for people who might want the hope that it might work, you’re also collecting data that will ultimately show that it is truly effective and safe under the conditions of Covid-19.”
Previously, Trump suggested that chloroquine was safe, because it had been used for decades for malaria with few problems. But Fauci offered a bit of a rebuke, adding, “What we don’t know is when you put it in the context of another disease whether it’s safe.”
“I think it probably is gonna be safe,” Fauci added. “But I like to prove things first.”
The exchange was bizarre: Trump was all but debating one of his public health experts about a public health issue — one in which, obviously, the expert has a lot more expertise. Yet Trump contradicted Fauci anyway, muddling his own administration’s messaging and sending unclear signals to the general public during a national crisis.
We need better leadership right now
The moment exposed the conflict Trump faces at these press briefings: What Americans need is factual, actionable information about what they can do to combat the pandemic. But Trump’s instinct is to downplay the outbreak — it’s what he did for months, prior to this week — and to assure people that he has everything under control. So he puts a positive spin on a drug that doesn’t have much evidence behind it for Covid-19, and his own expert has to step in and gently correct him.
This kind of situation has played out again and again as the coronavirus pandemic has worsened. Fauci alone has corrected Trump on whether the outbreak will get worse, how long a vaccine will take to make, whether testing is widely available, and how long social distancing guidelines will remain in effect, among other examples.
During a public health crisis, this kind of misinformation isn’t just unhelpful, it’s dangerous. As historian John Barry told Vox, the government’s misinformation and lies during the 1918 flu pandemic likely caused more deaths and suffering: “It was a disaster. People lost faith in everything — in their government, in what they were being told, in each other. It just isolated people even further. If trust collapses, then it becomes everyone for themselves, and that’s the worst instinct in a crisis of this scale.”
Due to the coronavirus pandemic, Americans are being asked to make sacrifices. They’re being asked to social distance, isolating themselves from their loved ones. They’re being asked to potentially give up income and benefits, as restaurants and other businesses shut down to avoid spreading the disease. They’re being told to abandon activities that previously enriched their lives, from working out at the gym to going out with friends.
It’s during these kinds of times, experts say, that people need leaders to provide clear guidance. “You really need very strong leadership from the top,” Céline Gounder, an epidemiologist at New York University, previously told me.
Trump has not done that. Besides an uncharacteristically competent press conference on Monday, he has downplayed the risks of Covid-19 — comparing it to the common flu, which isn’t as dangerous as the novel coronavirus, and suggested that “one day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” At one point, he called concerns about the virus a “hoax.”
Public health experts have been highly critical of Trump’s messaging. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, previously called it “deeply disturbing,” adding that it’s “left the country far less prepared than it needs to be for what is a very substantial challenge ahead.”
While Trump has started to take the threat of coronavirus more seriously in his public remarks since Monday, he’s used racist, xenophobic language to describe the virus. That continued on Friday as well.
The result is Americans are less likely to understand what is going on, what the government is doing to help them, and what is expected of all of us to help combat the crisis. It makes a bad situation even worse.


vox--2020-03-21--How to manage anxiety during a pandemic

How to manage anxiety during a pandemic

Anxiety is so idiosyncratic that it ’ s difficult to pinpoint a “ type ” that ’ s most common .
For some , it might feel like vines of dread roping themselves around you the night before a big work deadline , or maybe like a creeping cloud of unease that settles in during your morning commute .
Maybe you cope by taking prescribed medication or going for a run ; maybe you ’ ve gotten suspiciously into baking bread .
No matter what your specific brand of anxiety looks like , it ’ s probably safe to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t helping it .
At the urging of public health officials , large public gatherings have been canceled , obsessive hand-washing is all but mandatory , and much of the world is in an uneasy state of lockdown .
There is a lot of uncertainty and a lot of physical isolation , and being alone with your thoughts may be more distressing than ever .
And while there ’ s no cure for the heightened anxiety that ’ s all but inevitable in these stressful , unprecedented times , there are ways to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can meaningfully reduce your overall sense of helplessness .
Because if we have to sit at home feeling waves of anxiety , we at least can learn how to be experts at managing them .
Know that it ’ s okay to have anxiety .
You ’ re not alone .
In the ancient Chinese military treatise The Art of War , Sun Tzu wrote , “ If you know the enemy and know yourself , you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
” The first step to mastering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is when it happens .
Instead of ignoring it and letting it build up and take over , simply note the anxiety as soon as you feel the buzzing in your heart , the spinning in your brain : This is anxiety .
When we do this , we take the emotion , or the anxiety even , out of anxiety .
Recognizing the feeling of anxiety puts you back in control ; instead of facing an amorphous threat that can feel overwhelming and scary , you ’ re now dealing with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we can explore its source .
Anxiety is an emotional response to an anticipated future threat .
And while there ’ s a lot of panic around the general idea of the coronavirus itself , we can usually get more specific about what we ’ re truly concerned with , says Joel Minden , a psychologist and author of the new book Show Your Anxiety Who ’ s Boss .
Some people might be responding to practical concerns like the threat of job loss , the lack of social contact , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Others might be overwhelmed by future-oriented concerns about the anxiety itself ( “ I ’ m emotionally distressed and can ’ t function ” ) or uncertainty ( “ I don ’ t know what will happen , but I can ’ t stop thinking about how awful things will be ” ) .
“ When we get some perspective on what anxiety is , it ’ s easier to explore new , more productive ways to relate to it , ” Minden says .
“ And when we normalize anxiety , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with knowing that others feel that way , too , and it ’ s okay to have those authentic but difficult feelings.
” As an actionable step , try writing down your worries , getting as granular and close to the root cause as possible .
As you write , what may have seemed like an overwhelming , murky constellation of problems will suddenly come into focus and be narrowed down to a set of realistic concerns .
This will make it easier to problem-solve , eliminate obstacles , and be more accepting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predict or change .
The better we can get at pinpointing the root causes of our anxiety , the more manageable the anxiety becomes .
As scary as it may seem , facing your fears will provide a sense of relief Once you ’ ve identified the contours of your anxiety , it ’ s time to create a plan of attack .
We tend not to run toward the things we fear , but Minden says there are long-term benefits to taking concrete steps to improve your situation , even when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until you ’ re in a better emotional position to cope .
“ When we respond to avoidance urges by taking action , we prioritize personal control and fulfillment over anxiety management , ” he says .
When we normalize anxiety , there ’ s some comfort that comes with knowing that others feel that way , too It ’ s important to sit with your emotions , and to allow any feelings to exist alongside whatever actionable steps you ’ re taking .
The simple acts of picking up groceries or medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or reading up on well-sourced news — despite its ability to provoke anxiety initially — can prove to be worthy challenges that will lead to a greater sense of personal control in the long term .
This is especially true you fall into one of the populations deemed most vulnerable to the virus , like older adults and those with underlying health conditions .
Taking steps to mitigate risk — avoiding large crowds or being extra-vigilant about hand-washing and sanitizing shared living spaces — is necessary ; it can also create a sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel aimless and overwhelming .
“ Action binds anxiety ; that ’ s a research finding , ” Hanson says .
“ If you take appropriate action and you know what you ’ re doing , it ’ ll calm you down.
” On the other hand , be honest with yourself about things that are actually harming your mental health .
It ’ s also okay to deliberately avoid certain situations that can worsen your circumstances or mind space , according to Rick Hanson , a psychologist and author of the forthcoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisdom , and Seven Practices of the Highest Happiness .
This could mean avoiding the onslaught of opinions on Twitter , the rising death tolls in news stories , or the texts from friends and family members that trigger anxious thoughts .
For some , the reality of “ sheltering in place ” is inherently stressful .
Whether it ’ s the idea of crowding into close quarters with roommates or being unable to relieve stress through normal social interaction that ’ s contributing to your anxiety , Hanson says it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tune in to what your mind is telling you .
If you ’ re holed up with someone who differs from you in their evaluation of the severity of the situation or their level of preparedness , for example , it ’ s possible to approach the situation with empathy while also standing firm on your own needs .
Hanson says it ’ s helpful to think of yourself as a sturdy tree weathering a storm : The thoughts and feelings of others blow by while you stand open to them but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean disengaging from someone ’ s riff or rant and not getting into a discussion or argument about it , ” he says .
“ Maybe saying something like , ‘ I respect your right to take the steps you believe are good and necessary for you .
I also have the right to take the steps that I believe are good and necessary for me.
’ Maybe agree to disagree.
” Be easy on yourself .
Some days will be worse than others .
Ultimately , anxiety is an inevitable part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to “ hack ” anxiety , it is still likely to seep in around the edges .
Anxiety isn ’ t something to be conquered but something to acknowledge and manage .
This is why it ’ s important to be realistic about its role in your life , and cut yourself some slack on the days you ’ re feeling bad — days , even , when things do seem unmanageable .
We ’ re living through a global health crisis , after all ; times are tough , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thoughts or overwhelming feelings is to be expected .
“ If you ’ re warm and supportive when other people get overwhelmed , see if you can treat yourself the same way , ” Minden says .
“ A good response to destructive ideas like ‘ What ’ s wrong with me ?
Why am I getting so anxious ?
’ is something like ‘ It ’ s okay to have difficult feelings .
I know where they come from .
I want to be patient and kind with myself because I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that ’ s okay.
’ ” Hanson points out that it ’ s also important to recognize that we might be ultra-sensitive to others ’ anxiety right now .
Our social brains are hardwired through evolution to pick up on other people ’ s fear and absorb it as our own .
“ We look to [ other people ] on social media , walking down the street , standing there with a mask on , it makes us anxious , broadly , ” Hanson says .
“ And that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What we should do from a practical standpoint is to take on reasonable input from others , but meanwhile not let the fear itself be contagious.
” Learn and practice ways to calm and center yourself On top of naming the exact causes of your anxiety and creating actionable steps toward management and self-compassion , Hanson recommends a couple of “ quick and dirty ” natural methods for physically soothing the overworked mind .
First , focus on bringing awareness into your own body , especially through internal sensations like your chest rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Hanson , being mindful about your breathing helps switch off the neural circuitry that anxiety ramps up , leading to an overall feeling of calm .
Whether in a quiet room or in the middle of what feels like a burst of panic , try counting your breaths — one slow inhale through the nose , one long exhale through the mouth , then repeat — relaxing into the process and being mindful of each one , and gradually feeling your heart rate slow .
Second , try to keep yourself grounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after all , based in an uncertainty around and fear of the future — what might happen next .
To help practice physical mindfulness , run your finger from your forehead straight back to the top of your head .
According to Hanson , focusing this attention to the midline of the cortex naturally quiets stress about the future and the past , and tends to bring you into circuits on the other side of the brain that support present-moment mindfulness and a sense of well-being .
There ’ s research that supports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” has calming benefits — it ’ s why activities that require careful , precise hand movements , like knitting and crocheting , are often recommended as possible anxiety relief methods .
Third , he recommends turning to physical remembrances of strength — flashing back to your own moxie and grit .
Think back to when you held your first crow pose in yoga , or when you carried that window AC unit up four flights of stairs , or even when you patiently held a friend close who was going through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somatic memory — the body sense — of being strong and determined , you will remind yourself that if you could get through that , you can get through this , too .
If you ’ re having trouble quieting your mind on your own , there are a ton of great ADAA-reviewed mental health resources that can help .
Apps like Calm , Headspace , and Brain.fm offer relief in the form of guided meditations , algorithmically generated playlists , and mindfulness exercises , all free ( although most offer subscription options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) .
No matter what techniques you turn to in order to soothe your anxiety , Hanson says one of the most important things to remember is that this is just a moment , and it too shall pass .
“ We ’ re all being tested at this time , and we will get to the other side of it , and we ’ ll look back and ask ourselves how we conducted ourselves during this time , including how we treated other people , ” he says .
“ All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best we can do , but we can do the best we can each day .
”

Anxiety is so idiosyncratic that it’s difficult to pinpoint a “type” that’s most common. For some, it might feel like vines of dread roping themselves around you the night before a big work deadline, or maybe like a creeping cloud of unease that settles in during your morning commute. Maybe you cope by taking prescribed medication or going for a run; maybe you’ve gotten suspiciously into baking bread.
No matter what your specific brand of anxiety looks like, it’s probably safe to say that the novel coronavirus pandemic isn’t helping it. At the urging of public health officials, large public gatherings have been canceled, obsessive hand-washing is all but mandatory, and much of the world is in an uneasy state of lockdown. There is a lot of uncertainty and a lot of physical isolation, and being alone with your thoughts may be more distressing than ever.
And while there’s no cure for the heightened anxiety that’s all but inevitable in these stressful, unprecedented times, there are ways to smarten your approach to dealing with it that can meaningfully reduce your overall sense of helplessness. Because if we have to sit at home feeling waves of anxiety, we at least can learn how to be experts at managing them.
Know that it’s okay to have anxiety. You’re not alone.
In the ancient Chinese military treatise The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.”
The first step to mastering your anxiety is to recognize what it is when it happens. Instead of ignoring it and letting it build up and take over, simply note the anxiety as soon as you feel the buzzing in your heart, the spinning in your brain: This is anxiety.
When we do this, we take the emotion, or the anxiety even, out of anxiety. Recognizing the feeling of anxiety puts you back in control; instead of facing an amorphous threat that can feel overwhelming and scary, you’re now dealing with a known entity.
Once we recognize it, we can explore its source. Anxiety is an emotional response to an anticipated future threat. And while there’s a lot of panic around the general idea of the coronavirus itself, we can usually get more specific about what we’re truly concerned with, says Joel Minden, a psychologist and author of the new book Show Your Anxiety Who’s Boss.
Some people might be responding to practical concerns like the threat of job loss, the lack of social contact, or the availability of supplies, Minden says. Others might be overwhelmed by future-oriented concerns about the anxiety itself (“I’m emotionally distressed and can’t function”) or uncertainty (“I don’t know what will happen, but I can’t stop thinking about how awful things will be”).
“When we get some perspective on what anxiety is, it’s easier to explore new, more productive ways to relate to it,” Minden says. “And when we normalize anxiety, there’s some comfort that comes with knowing that others feel that way, too, and it’s okay to have those authentic but difficult feelings.”
As an actionable step, try writing down your worries, getting as granular and close to the root cause as possible. As you write, what may have seemed like an overwhelming, murky constellation of problems will suddenly come into focus and be narrowed down to a set of realistic concerns. This will make it easier to problem-solve, eliminate obstacles, and be more accepting of the things you can’t predict or change.
The better we can get at pinpointing the root causes of our anxiety, the more manageable the anxiety becomes.
As scary as it may seem, facing your fears will provide a sense of relief
Once you’ve identified the contours of your anxiety, it’s time to create a plan of attack. We tend not to run toward the things we fear, but Minden says there are long-term benefits to taking concrete steps to improve your situation, even when it feels more important to put them off until you’re in a better emotional position to cope.
“When we respond to avoidance urges by taking action, we prioritize personal control and fulfillment over anxiety management,” he says.
When we normalize anxiety, there’s some comfort that comes with knowing that others feel that way, too
It’s important to sit with your emotions, and to allow any feelings to exist alongside whatever actionable steps you’re taking. The simple acts of picking up groceries or medical supplies, FaceTiming with a friend, or reading up on well-sourced news — despite its ability to provoke anxiety initially — can prove to be worthy challenges that will lead to a greater sense of personal control in the long term.
This is especially true if you fall into one of the populations deemed most vulnerable to the virus, like older adults and those with underlying health conditions. Taking steps to mitigate risk — avoiding large crowds or being extra-vigilant about hand-washing and sanitizing shared living spaces — is necessary; it can also create a sense of purpose in a time that can feel aimless and overwhelming.
“Action binds anxiety; that’s a research finding,” Hanson says. “If you take appropriate action and you know what you’re doing, it’ll calm you down.”
On the other hand, be honest with yourself about things that are actually harming your mental health. It’s also okay to deliberately avoid certain situations that can worsen your circumstances or mind space, according to Rick Hanson, a psychologist and author of the forthcoming book Neurodharma: New Science, Ancient Wisdom, and Seven Practices of the Highest Happiness. This could mean avoiding the onslaught of opinions on Twitter, the rising death tolls in news stories, or the texts from friends and family members that trigger anxious thoughts.
For some, the reality of “sheltering in place” is inherently stressful. Whether it’s the idea of crowding into close quarters with roommates or being unable to relieve stress through normal social interaction that’s contributing to your anxiety, Hanson says it’s key to establish solid boundaries for yourself and tune in to what your mind is telling you.
If you’re holed up with someone who differs from you in their evaluation of the severity of the situation or their level of preparedness, for example, it’s possible to approach the situation with empathy while also standing firm on your own needs. Hanson says it’s helpful to think of yourself as a sturdy tree weathering a storm: The thoughts and feelings of others blow by while you stand open to them but unbowed.
“Concretely, this could mean disengaging from someone’s riff or rant and not getting into a discussion or argument about it,” he says. “Maybe saying something like, ‘I respect your right to take the steps you believe are good and necessary for you. I also have the right to take the steps that I believe are good and necessary for me.’ Maybe agree to disagree.”
Be easy on yourself. Some days will be worse than others.
Ultimately, anxiety is an inevitable part of life. No matter how hard you try to “hack” anxiety, it is still likely to seep in around the edges. Anxiety isn’t something to be conquered but something to acknowledge and manage.
This is why it’s important to be realistic about its role in your life, and cut yourself some slack on the days you’re feeling bad — days, even, when things do seem unmanageable. We’re living through a global health crisis, after all; times are tough, they’re stressful, and struggling with dark thoughts or overwhelming feelings is to be expected.
“If you’re warm and supportive when other people get overwhelmed, see if you can treat yourself the same way,” Minden says. “A good response to destructive ideas like ‘What’s wrong with me? Why am I getting so anxious?’ is something like ‘It’s okay to have difficult feelings. I know where they come from. I want to be patient and kind with myself because I’m going through a hard time. And that’s okay.’”
Hanson points out that it’s also important to recognize that we might be ultra-sensitive to others’ anxiety right now. Our social brains are hardwired through evolution to pick up on other people’s fear and absorb it as our own.
“We look to [other people] on social media, walking down the street, standing there with a mask on, it makes us anxious, broadly,” Hanson says. “And that’s a perfectly ordinary kind of thing. What we should do from a practical standpoint is to take on reasonable input from others, but meanwhile not let the fear itself be contagious.”
Learn and practice ways to calm and center yourself
On top of naming the exact causes of your anxiety and creating actionable steps toward management and self-compassion, Hanson recommends a couple of “quick and dirty” natural methods for physically soothing the overworked mind.
First, focus on bringing awareness into your own body, especially through internal sensations like your chest rising and falling with your breath. According to Hanson, being mindful about your breathing helps switch off the neural circuitry that anxiety ramps up, leading to an overall feeling of calm. Whether in a quiet room or in the middle of what feels like a burst of panic, try counting your breaths — one slow inhale through the nose, one long exhale through the mouth, then repeat — relaxing into the process and being mindful of each one, and gradually feeling your heart rate slow.
Second, try to keep yourself grounded in the present. Anxiety is, after all, based in an uncertainty around and fear of the future — what might happen next. To help practice physical mindfulness, run your finger from your forehead straight back to the top of your head. According to Hanson, focusing this attention to the midline of the cortex naturally quiets stress about the future and the past, and tends to bring you into circuits on the other side of the brain that support present-moment mindfulness and a sense of well-being.
There’s research that supports the idea that “crossing the midline” has calming benefits — it’s why activities that require careful, precise hand movements, like knitting and crocheting, are often recommended as possible anxiety relief methods.
Third, he recommends turning to physical remembrances of strength — flashing back to your own moxie and grit. Think back to when you held your first crow pose in yoga, or when you carried that window AC unit up four flights of stairs, or even when you patiently held a friend close who was going through a hard time. By bringing up the somatic memory — the body sense — of being strong and determined, you will remind yourself that if you could get through that, you can get through this, too.
If you’re having trouble quieting your mind on your own, there are a ton of great ADAA-reviewed mental health resources that can help. Apps like Calm, Headspace, and Brain.fm offer relief in the form of guided meditations, algorithmically generated playlists, and mindfulness exercises, all free (although most offer subscription options after the first couple of “sessions”).
It also should be noted that not all anxiety can be self-managed — that’s why mental health professionals exist. If the worrying and sleeplessness feel out of control, or you’re suffering from constant panic attacks — or if you are using alcohol or drugs to cope, or have other mental health concerns — call your primary care doctor to put you in touch with a mental health care professional.
If you are concerned about costs and going to the doctor during a time of social distancing, Rebecca Heilweil noted at Recode that Medicare recently announced it would temporarily expand coverage for providers using telehealth-based services, including mental health counseling, and the government is also making it easier for patients to use apps like FaceTime and Skype to meet with doctors and mental health professionals. Meanwhile, the Drug Enforcement Administration is also making it easier to “e-prescribe” certain controlled substances, including those that treat mental health conditions.
And if you or anyone you know is experiencing suicidal thoughts or considering self-harm, you can text CRISIS to 741741 for free to the Crisis Text Line for confidential crisis counseling, or call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, 1-800-273-8255; if it’s an emergency, call 911.
“We’re all being tested at this time, and we will get to the other side of it, and we’ll look back and ask ourselves how we conducted ourselves during this time, including how we treated other people,” Hanson says. “All we can do each day is the best we can do, but we can do the best we can each day.”