vox--2020-03-15--We finally know some details about the Google and Verily coronavirus websites

Two days after President Donald Trump announced that Google was racing to build a site to help Americans find coronavirus testing , people are still confused about what ’ s actually going on .
In the aftermath of the announcement , reports emerged that Google was not fully aware of the plan Trump said the company was participating in .
Given the threat the novel coronavirus poses to the US , this is not a good sign .
At a Sunday press conference , Trump said his earlier comments about Google had been “ substantiated ” and thanked “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It ’ s increasingly clear , however , that Google itself is not building the website that Trump described last week .
Here ’ s what ’ s really going on : Google does have a plan for responding to the coronavirus , but it ’ s not what the president said it was .
Rather than creating a site that guides people to testing locations , Google is building something much simpler .
The company announced on Saturday that it is “ partnering with the US Government in developing a nationwide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , risk , and testing information.
” The site Trump promised on Friday sounds much more like what ’ s being developed by the life sciences research company Verily , which is related to Google but is a distinct company .
Verily said on Friday after Trump ’ s speech that it “ is in the early stages of development ” of a tool to triage potential coronavirus patients and “ is planning to roll testing out in the Bay Area , with the hope of expanding more broadly over time.
” Verily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but now both Google and Verily are subsidiaries of their parent company Alphabet .
Since Google and Verily are separate companies , it ’ s hard to know how closely the two are collaborating on the efforts .
When Recode contacted Verily for more details about the project , the company directed us to a blog post about the project it published on Sunday .
According to Verily , the new coronavirus triage site will work through the company ’ s existing Project Baseline website and will launch on Monday , March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how it will work do not match up with the site that Trump described on Friday .
Trump announced a website that did not exist In a bold declaration on Friday , Trump said that “ Google has 1,700 engineers working on ” a website that would help people figure out if they needed a coronavirus test and to direct them to testing sites .
As we now know , this statement was not entirely true .
The reality of Google ’ s role in addressing the coronavirus outbreak is more complex and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Within an hour of the president ’ s Rose Garden speech on Friday , the company ’ s press team pushed back against Trump ’ s announcement and tweeted a statement from Verily , drawing a distinction between the two companies and clarifying that the Verily site was only nearing a testing phase , rather than being almost ready to launch .
This is actually a generous depiction of the truth behind the Trump declaration .
According to the New York Times , the plan for Verily to build a website to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its infancy.
” And Verily only has about 1,000 employees .
The 1,700 number that Trump claimed in his speech actually refers to the number of Google engineers who , the Thursday before Trump ’ s speech , filled out a form volunteering to help Verily with its coronavirus triage site in the coming “ days and weeks.
” Even then , the Verily project was only meant to be used by health care workers .
Suffice it to say , Trump ’ s Rose Garden speech altered these plans .
It wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech that Google announced plans for its information website , and it appears the launch of Verily ’ s triage site was expedited as a result of Trump ’ s remarks .
The Trump administration also sent an updated statement on Saturday , saying that the triage site could be rolled out in nine hot spots for coronavirus cases in the US .
Then , when asked directly about the Google website and the timing of its launch at a press conference on Sunday , Vice President Mike Pence said that “ at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a website go up.
” He did not specifically say that this would be a Google website but rather alluded to state governments and local retailers would be collaborators .
This is not the same reality that Trump described in his Friday speech — there ’ s little reason to believe that most Americans will be able to access a website that will direct them to a nearby testing site in the near future — but it ’ s a start .
Easier access to information about the outbreak is certainly a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to evolve in the US .
Maybe , if everything works out , Google and its affiliates will develop all kinds of websites that can someday save lives .
For now , Verily says it will roll out one pilot site for Bay Area residents on Monday .
Jared Kushner talked to Verily ’ s CEO , who described a project in the works So it ’ s not quite accurate to say that Trump lied last Friday .
It ’ s worse than that .
Really , Trump gave a sales pitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son-in-law and senior adviser to the president Jared Kushner .
The backstory of how the president publicly shared this twisted mess of misinformation is a wild but familiar ride .
In dueling reports published Saturday night , the New York Times and the Washington Post both explained how Kushner had asked tech executives for help in fighting the coronavirus outbreak .
Kushner found a promising pitch after conversations with Verily ’ s chief executive Andy Conrad , who described a project in the works .
It wasn ’ t until Thursday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garden announcement , that Google CEO Sundar Pichai put out the call for Google engineers to volunteer in “ a planning effort ” to help with coronavirus testing .
At some point before that , Kushner and his cohort had decided to make the half-baked Verily plan public — and put Google ’ s name on it .
Part of this public announcement included a poster with a very simple flow chart to illustrate how the hypothetical Google site might work .
Dr. Deborah Birx , the White House ’ s coronavirus response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and described how testing would start with a “ screening website … facilitated by Google.
” According to the Washington Post , “ Pence and Kushner personally worked with digital staffers to design the graphic elements of the poster.
” There ’ s no indication that Google was involved in this part of the planning process .
Yet Trump ’ s overpromising sales pitch worked in a way .
On Sunday , Verily announced a new “ collaboration with the California Governor ’ s office , federal , state and local public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s unclear when Verily had originally planned to launch its pilot site , and who knows how quickly Google would have made its internal volunteer efforts public if Trump hadn ’ t misinterpreted them in an extremely public speech .
Then again , the philosophy of moving fast and breaking things doesn ’ t hold up all that well in a public health crisis .
“ It ’ s going to be very quickly done , unlike websites of the past , ” Trump said of the Google website that Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time of his speech .
There ’ s a case to be made that a hastily built coronavirus site could do more harm than good , if it doesn ’ t work properly .
Trump ’ s coronavirus misinformation shows why it ’ s essential to prevent even more misinformation The awful irony of all this is that much of Google ’ s real efforts to fight the coronavirus outbreak are focused on protecting people from misinformation .
The company says it ’ s working to stop “ phishing , conspiracy theories , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while “ promoting authoritative information through Google Search and YouTube.
” There ’ s also a new box on Google ’ s home page that offers five tips for what people can do to stop the spread of the coronavirus .
That the company responded so quickly to the misinformation Trump shared — it was within an hour of the president ’ s speech — is similarly heartening .
Still , it remains to be seen if the now-rushed Verily website will do much good .
Based on what we know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Area residents to any of three local coronavirus testing sites .
If we believe the Trump administration ’ s latest statements , the site could be put to use in up to nine hot spots around the country , though it ’ s not yet clear where those hot spots are .
The informational website that Google announced and that Trump failed to mention , meanwhile , sounds like it could be most useful to the most people .
The value of a boring-but-useful website feels like the most optimistic takeaway from all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ambitious website that didn ’ t exist , Google and other tech companies have been building smaller but much more productive solutions , including simple but authoritative links to the World Health Organization ( WHO ) and other trustworthy resources .
It would be wonderful if Silicon Valley giants could solve America ’ s testing problem overnight , just like it would be remarkable if banning all international travel would prevent the virus from spreading further within US borders .
But that ’ s just not how this works .
A magic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel ban — is no panacea .
Experts say that social distancing is key to help slow the spread of the pandemic .
Other basic precautions like washing your hands and staying informed are also productive .
If tech companies can focus their resources on anything , for now , it makes sense that those efforts focus on spreading valid information about the coronavirus outbreak and how to slow it down .
Despite Trump ’ s misleading remarks , it sounds like Google is making progress in doing just that .
Updated , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ET : This story has been updated with details from the White House press conference on Sunday , including statements from Vice President Pence .

Nearly two weeks after President Donald Trump announced on March 13 that Google was racing to build a site to help Americans find coronavirus testing, people are still confused about what’s actually going on. In the aftermath of the announcement, reports emerged that Google was not fully aware of the plan Trump said the company was participating in. Given the threat the novel coronavirus poses to the US, this is not a good sign.
Trump said at a March 15 press conference that his earlier comments about Google had been “substantiated” and thanked “the head of Google, a great gentleman.” A few hours later, a site made by Google’s sister company Verily went live with a tool for coronavirus risk screening that directed residents of two counties in Northern California to test centers. It wasn’t long before the Verily site ran into trouble. People with symptoms were told they weren’t eligible for the screening program, and those who were needed a Google login to use the tool. On top of that, the Verily site reached capacity the morning after launch. Google announced a week later that it would expand to two more testing sites in Northern California.
After being delayed by several days, Google finally launched its coronavirus portal on March 21. The informational website includes “state-based information, safety and prevention tips, search trends related to COVID-19, and further resources for individuals, educators and businesses,” according to Google’s announcement. It does not include the things Trump said the site would include, like information about local testing sites. The belated launch came not long after Vanity Fair reported that President Trump was angry at Jared Kushner for overselling Google’s plans, before the president announced the new website at a White House press conference.
Now that the Verily and Google sites are live, it’s more clear than ever that the website Trump described is not what the American public will use to find coronavirus testing. The situation is much more complicated than that.
Here’s what’s really going on
Google does have a plan for responding to the coronavirus, but it’s not what the president said it was. Rather than creating a dynamic site that guides people to testing locations, what Google built is much simpler. The company announced on March 15 that it was “partnering with the US Government in developing a nationwide website that includes information about COVID-19 symptoms, risk, and testing information.” The new Google site includes plenty of information culled from sources like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). It does not include much information about how to find testing centers.
The site Trump initially promised sounds much more like what’s being developed by the life sciences research company Verily, which is related to Google but is a distinct company. After Trump’s speech, Verily said that it was “in the early stages of development” of a tool to triage potential coronavirus patients and “is planning to roll testing out in the Bay Area, with the hope of expanding more broadly over time.” Verily used to be a subsidiary of Google, but now both Google and Verily are subsidiaries of their parent company Alphabet. Since Google and Verily are separate companies, it’s hard to know how closely the two are collaborating on the efforts.
When Recode contacted Verily for more details about the project, the company directed us to a blog post it published shortly before the pilot site went live on March 15. The new Verily coronavirus triage site works through the company’s existing Project Baseline website, and it launched ahead of schedule. The screening process starts by asking people if they’re symptomatic, though only those who say they have severe symptoms are directed to log in with a Google account to find a testing site.
The Verily screening site now serves residents of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Riverside, and Sacramento counties in California. With limitations like this in mind, it’s clear that Verily’s new tool is quite different from the site Trump described in mid March.
Trump announced a website that did not exist
In his bold but unexpected announcement on March 13, Trump said that “Google has 1,700 engineers working on” a website that would help people figure out if they needed a coronavirus test and to direct them to testing sites. As we now know, this statement was not entirely true. The reality of Google’s role in addressing the coronavirus outbreak is more complex and, in some ways, more productive.
Within an hour of the president’s Rose Garden speech, the company’s press team pushed back against Trump’s announcement and tweeted a statement from Verily, drawing a distinction between the two companies and clarifying that the Verily site was only nearing a testing phase, rather than being almost ready to launch.
This is actually a generous depiction of the truth behind the Trump declaration. According to the New York Times, the plan for Verily to build a website to help with coronavirus testing was “in its infancy” at the time of Trump’s announcement. And Verily only has about 1,000 employees. The 1,700 number that Trump claimed in his speech actually refers to the number of Google engineers who, the Thursday before Trump’s speech, filled out a form volunteering to help Verily with its coronavirus triage site in the coming “days and weeks.” Even then, the Verily project was only meant to be used by health care workers.
Suffice it to say, Trump’s Rose Garden speech altered these plans. It wasn’t until after Trump’s speech that Google announced plans for its informational website, and it appears the launch of Verily’s triage site was expedited as a result of Trump’s remarks. The Trump administration also sent an updated statement on March 16, saying that the triage site could be rolled out in nine hotspots for coronavirus cases in the US. Then, when asked directly about the Google website and the timing of its launch at a press conference on March 15, Vice President Mike Pence said that “at some point early next week we will have a website go up.” He did not specifically say that this would be a Google website but rather implied that state governments and local retailers would be collaborators.
The CDC and the WHO recommend several basic measures to help prevent the spread of Covid-19: Wash your hands often for at least 20 seconds.
Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects.
Practice social distancing, and stay home when you are sick.
Contact a health worker if you have symptoms; fever and a dry cough are most common. Guidance may change. Stay informed, and stay safe, with Vox’s coronavirus coverage hub.
This is not the same reality that Trump described in his original speech — there’s little reason to believe that most Americans will be able to access a website that will direct them to a nearby testing site in the near future — but it’s a start. Easier access to information about the outbreak is certainly a positive thing as it continues to evolve in the US. But more than a week after Trump’s speech, Google told The Verge that its informational website was still not ready but that it would “surface authoritative information for people in the US, including on screening and testing.”
Again, the informational Google site launched on March 21 and included very little information on screening and testing.
Maybe, if everything works out, Google and its affiliates will continue to develop all kinds of websites that can someday save lives. For now, Verily has rolled out a pilot site for a limited number of residents, and its plans for future expansion remain unclear. Google’s informational website is not at all what Trump described.
Jared Kushner talked to Verily’s CEO, who described a project in the works
So it’s not quite accurate to say that Trump lied about the Google site. It’s worse than that. Really, Trump gave a sales pitch based on piecemeal information collated by his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner.
The backstory of how the president publicly shared this twisted mess of misinformation is a wild but familiar ride. In dueling reports published on March 14, the New York Times and the Washington Post both explained how Kushner had asked tech executives for help in fighting the coronavirus outbreak. Kushner found a promising pitch in conversations with Verily’s chief executive Andy Conrad, who described a project in the works. It wasn’t until the day before Trump’s big Rose Garden announcement that Google CEO Sundar Pichai put out the call for Google engineers to volunteer in “a planning effort” to help with coronavirus testing. At some point before that, Kushner and his cohort had decided to make the half-baked Verily plan public — and put Google’s name on it.
Part of this public announcement included a poster with a very simple flow chart to illustrate how the hypothetical Google site might work. Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, presented the chart on Friday and described how testing would start with a “screening website … facilitated by Google.” According to the Washington Post, “Pence and Kushner personally worked with digital staffers to design the graphic elements of the poster.” There’s no indication that Google was involved in this part of the planning process.
Yet Trump’s overpromising sales pitch worked in a way. Two days after his speech, Verily announced a new “collaboration with the California Governor’s office, federal, state and local public health authorities.” The company said:
Californians will be able to take an online COVID-19 screener survey through Project Baseline beginning Monday, March 16. People who meet eligibility and requirements for testing will be directed to mobile testing sites based on capacity, where they will complete a nasal swab test. Once tested, individuals will be informed of their COVID-19 test results within a few days.
It’s unclear when Verily had originally planned to launch its pilot site, and who knows how quickly Google would have made its internal volunteer efforts public if Trump hadn’t misinterpreted them in an extremely public speech.
Then again, the philosophy of moving fast and breaking things doesn’t hold up all that well in a public health crisis. “It’s going to be very quickly done, unlike websites of the past,” Trump said of the Google website that Google wasn’t actually building at the time of his speech. There’s a case to be made that a hastily built coronavirus site could do more harm than good if it doesn’t work properly.
Trump’s coronavirus misinformation shows why it’s essential to prevent even more misinformation
The awful irony of all this is that much of Google’s real efforts to fight the coronavirus outbreak are focused on protecting people from misinformation. The company says it’s working to stop “phishing, conspiracy theories, malware and misinformation” on its platforms while “promoting authoritative information through Google Search and YouTube.” There’s also a new box on Google’s homepage that offers five tips for what people can do to stop the spread of the coronavirus. That the company responded so quickly to the misinformation Trump shared — it was within an hour of the president’s speech — is similarly heartening.
Still, it remains to be seen if the now-rushed Verily website will do much good. The site is currently designed to direct Bay Area residents to any of five local coronavirus testing sites. If we believe the Trump administration’s latest statements, the site could be put to use in as many as nine hotspots around the country, though it’s not yet clear where those hotspots are or when this might happen. The informational Google website — which, again, is not what Trump described — sounds like it could be most useful to the most people.
The value of a boring-but-useful website feels like the most optimistic takeaway from all this. While Trump described a transformative and ambitious website that didn’t exist, Google and other tech companies have been building smaller but much more productive solutions, including simple but authoritative links to the World Health Organization (WHO) and other trustworthy resources. It would be wonderful if Silicon Valley giants could solve America’s testing problem overnight, just like it would be remarkable if banning all international travel would prevent the virus from spreading further within US borders. But that’s just not how this works.
A magic website — much like a poorly planned travel ban — is no panacea. Experts say that social distancing is key to help slow the spread of the pandemic. Other basic precautions like washing your hands and staying informed are also productive. If tech companies can focus their resources on anything for now, it makes sense that those efforts focus on spreading valid information about the coronavirus outbreak and how to slow it down. Despite Trump’s misleading remarks, it sounds as though Google is making progress in doing just that.
Updated, March 23, 2020, 1:10 pm ET: This story has been updated with details about the informational Google website and expansion of the Verily site.


vox--2020-03-15--The White House reportedly tried to poach a German company working on a coronavirus vaccine

The Trump administration has reportedly attempted to convince a German-based pharmaceutical company to bring its coronavirus research to the US — and to make its potential vaccine available exclusively to Americans .
According to reporting from Reuters ’ s Paul Carrel and Andreas Rinke , President Donald Trump reportedly offered “ large sums of money ” to CureVac , a biopharmaceutical company based in the southwest Germany city of Tübingen , to relocate their coronavirus vaccine research to the United States .
And according to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag , Trump wanted the vaccine to be “ only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the German Health Ministry confirmed Welt ’ s reporting to Reuters , but in a statement on Sunday , the company pushed back against any speculation of a takeover .
“ Internal efforts are focused on the development of a coronavirus vaccine with the goal to reach , help and to protect people and patients worldwide , ” a statement from CureVac read .
The company “ rejects allegations about offers for acquisition of the company or its technology.
” According to Reuters , German lawmakers reportedly made counteroffers to convince the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the German Economy Ministry told Reuters that attempts by other countries to poach German companies could lead to Berlin invoking a law allowing it to review takeover attempts by non-EU countries “ if national or European security interests are at stake.
” The US has said such a measure won ’ t be necessary — a Trump administration official also pushed back against notions that the White House has attempted to poach the vaccine .
“ This story is wildly overplayed , ” the official told Reuters .
“ The US government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can help with a vaccine .
Most of these companies already received seed funding from US investors.
” The official added that “ any solution found would be shared with the world.
” Trump has promised a vaccine will be available “ soon ” — but that ’ s unlikely As Katelyn Burns has explained for Vox , Trump has pushed aggressively for a vaccine for weeks — and has promised to deliver one in a time frame that isn ’ t realistic : On February 25 , Trump promised that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now they have it , they have studied it , they know very much , in fact , we ’ re very close to a vaccine , ” Trump said during a state visit to India .
That simply isn ’ t possible even if development of a vaccine were prioritized and pushed through the regulatory process as fast as possible — as pharmaceutical executives explained to Trump himself .
Dr. Fauci estimates that it would be at least a year or a year and a half before a vaccine would be available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine solutions for coronavirus are in early development in China , but Daniel O ’ Day , CEO of Gilead Sciences , told Trump that those are only now entering clinical trials .
It ’ s likely that a vaccine will eventually be developed and available to the general public , but it ’ s not going to save us from this current outbreak .
In general , even the timeline Fauci outlined is ambitious : Typically , vaccines take two to five years to develop ; however , the World Health Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of global urgency , it is reasonable to expect a vaccine in 18 months .
Although Trump has been told this by pharmaceutical executives , he has continued to promise both a vaccine and a treatment will be available soon .
“ We had a great meeting today with a lot of the great companies , and they ’ re going to have vaccines , I think , relatively soon , ” he said at a campaign rally in Charlotte , North Carolina , on March 2 .
“ And they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you better , and that ’ s going to actually take place we think even sooner.
” CureVac reportedly has vaccine candidates that it believes could be ready for clinical trials in humans by June or July .
But as Burns wrote , a vaccine won ’ t prevent the current spread — and researchers still have many hurdles to overcome before a vaccine will become available .
As Vox ’ s Julia Belluz , Umair Irfan , and Brian Resnick have written : The world is in better shape to come up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug or vaccine — than it ’ s ever been .
Within a couple of weeks of discovering the outbreak , Chinese scientists sequenced the virus ’ s genome and shared it with the world .
Pharmaceutical companies and research centers then began mobilizing and developing new ways to prevent and treat Covid-19 .
The viral genetics now hold the key to creating what could end this outbreak for good : vaccines and pharmaceutical treatments .
The bad news is that these efforts will likely face the perennial hurdles of medical innovation : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since they ’ re used in healthy people ) , fickle funding , and changing political priorities .
On Friday , international researchers put out an “ urgent call ” to raise $ 2 billion for vaccine development against Covid-19 .
It ’ s all a reminder we need a better way to keep up consistent pressure against sporadic but deadly threats .

The Trump administration has reportedly attempted to convince a German-based pharmaceutical company to bring its coronavirus research to the US — and to make its potential vaccine available exclusively to Americans.
According to reporting from Reuters’s Paul Carrel and Andreas Rinke, President Donald Trump reportedly offered “large sums of money” to CureVac, a biopharmaceutical company based in the southwest Germany city of Tübingen, to relocate their coronavirus vaccine research to the United States. And according to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, Trump wanted the vaccine to be “only for the United States.”
A spokesperson for the German Health Ministry confirmed Welt’s reporting to Reuters, but in a statement on Sunday, the company pushed back against any speculation of a takeover.
“Internal efforts are focused on the development of a coronavirus vaccine with the goal to reach, help and to protect people and patients worldwide,” a statement from CureVac read. The company “rejects allegations about offers for acquisition of the company or its technology.”
According to Reuters, German lawmakers reportedly made counteroffers to convince the company to remain. And a spokesperson for the German Economy Ministry told Reuters that attempts by other countries to poach German companies could lead to Berlin invoking a law allowing it to review takeover attempts by non-EU countries “if national or European security interests are at stake.”
The US has said such a measure won’t be necessary — a Trump administration official also pushed back against notions that the White House has attempted to poach the vaccine.
“This story is wildly overplayed,” the official told Reuters. “The US government has spoken with many companies that claim they can help with a vaccine. Most of these companies already received seed funding from US investors.”
The official added that “any solution found would be shared with the world.”
Trump has promised a vaccine will be available “soon” — but that’s unlikely
As Katelyn Burns has explained for Vox, Trump has pushed aggressively for a vaccine for weeks — and has promised to deliver one in a time frame that isn’t realistic:
On February 25, Trump promised that a vaccine would be available soon. “Now they have it, they have studied it, they know very much, in fact, we’re very close to a vaccine,” Trump said during a state visit to India. That simply isn’t possible even if development of a vaccine were prioritized and pushed through the regulatory process as fast as possible — as pharmaceutical executives explained to Trump himself. Dr. Fauci estimates that it would be at least a year or a year and a half before a vaccine would be available to the general public. Several potential vaccine solutions for coronavirus are in early development in China, but Daniel O’Day, CEO of Gilead Sciences, told Trump that those are only now entering clinical trials. It’s likely that a vaccine will eventually be developed and available to the general public, but it’s not going to save us from this current outbreak.
In general, even the timeline Fauci outlined is ambitious: Typically, vaccines take two to five years to develop; however, the World Health Organization (WHO) has said that, because of global urgency, it is reasonable to expect a vaccine in 18 months.
Although Trump has been told this by pharmaceutical executives, he has continued to promise both a vaccine and a treatment will be available soon.
“We had a great meeting today with a lot of the great companies, and they’re going to have vaccines, I think, relatively soon,” he said at a campaign rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, on March 2. “And they’re going to have something that makes you better, and that’s going to actually take place we think even sooner.”
CureVac reportedly has vaccine candidates that it believes could be ready for clinical trials in humans by June or July. But as Burns wrote, a vaccine won’t prevent the current spread — and researchers still have many hurdles to overcome before a vaccine will become available. As Vox’s Julia Belluz, Umair Irfan, and Brian Resnick have written:


vox--2020-03-15--A new poll shows a startling partisan divide on the dangers of the coronavirus

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has revealed sharp partisan divides between Americans over the coronavirus pandemic .
The poll found 68 percent of Democrats are worried that someone in their family could catch the virus , while just 40 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of independents share that concern .
The gulf in perception over an outwardly nonpolitical issue underscores how signals from politicians and media outlets have played a critical role in shaping how seriously Americans are taking a viral outbreak that has overwhelmed health care systems and triggered mass quarantines in several countries around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe the worst is yet to come , but just 40 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents believe that .
Overall , 53 percent of all voters are concerned that someone in their immediate family might contract the coronavirus , and 60 percent believe the worst is yet to come .
The poll also found 56 percent of Democrats believe their day-to-day lives will change in a major way in the future — while just 26 percent of Republicans hold that view .
In response to every question about whether a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to others , like travel , eating out at restaurants , and attending large gatherings , Democratic voters consistently responded affirmatively at much higher rates than Republicans .
For example , 61 percent of Democrats said they ’ ve stopped or plan to stop attending large public gatherings , but only 30 percent of Republicans said the same .
The partisan disconnect is not due to a lack of information among conservatives or a function of not hearing much about the outbreak in certain regions of the country .
NBC reports that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve seen , heard , or read about the spread of the coronavirus and 89 percent say they ’ ve heard “ a lot ” about it — the highest percentage that one of their polls has found for a major event since 2009 .
The more likely explanation is that , as with so many other issues , people with different political ideologies consume different kinds of information and take cues on how to think about events from different political figures and institutions .
Given that President Donald Trump and media institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News , have been downplaying the issue from day one , it ’ s not surprising that Republican voters are not nearly as alarmed as Democrats .
Still , as the virus spreads and more people know someone affected , the typical partisan divides might not hold .
Ever since it has been clear that the US was at risk of a serious outbreak of the novel coronavirus , Trump has continually downplayed the risks it poses and dragged his feet on policy responses that would help contain and mitigate the spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has done this in part because he ’ s worried about the political damage that would accompany treating the situation as a full-blown crisis .
As Vox ’ s German Lopez has explained , Trump has underplayed what ’ s at stake on many occasions : Trump himself has tweeted comparisons of Covid-19 to the common flu — which [ director of the Harvard Global Health Institute Ashish ] Jha describes as “ really unhelpful , ” because the novel coronavirus appears to be much worse .
Trump also called concerns about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said on national television that , based on nothing more than a self-admitted “ hunch , ” the death rate of the disease is much lower than public health officials projected .
And Trump has rejected any accountability for the botched testing process : “ I don ’ t take responsibility at all , ” he said on Friday .
Jha described the Trump administration ’ s messaging so far as “ deeply disturbing , ” adding that it ’ s “ left the country far less prepared than it needs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead.
” Trump also downplayed the issue by initially declining to get tested for it despite close contact with people who tested positive for the virus last week .
He also never self-isolated despite being at risk of carrying the virus and spreading it to others ( public health experts say it is possible to spread the virus even if you ’ re not showing symptoms ) .
Trump did eventually get tested days after his exposure — and on Saturday , the White House physician said the test was negative .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas , who has self-quarantined after learning he came in contact with people who have tested positive for the coronavirus .
Cruz reports he is currently showing no symptoms .
Conservative news outlets like Fox News have also promoted skepticism of the seriousness of the coronavirus as a serious health hazard as part of an effort to shield the Trump administration from criticism .
Here are just a few examples , via progressive watchdog Media Matters : - Fox prime-time host Sean Hannity claimed people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bludgeon Trump with this new hoax.
” - On her Saturday night show , Fox host Jeanine Pirro downplayed the possibility that the coronavirus is more deadly than the flu , arguing that “ that ’ s only because there ’ s a flu vaccine ” and if not for the vaccine , “ the flu would be a pandemic.
” Pirro somehow drew the conclusion that this means that “ the talk about coronavirus being so much more deadly [ than the flu ] doesn ’ t reflect reality.
” - Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus : “ I feel like the more I learn about this , the less there is to worry about.
” - On Hannity , Fox News medical correspondent Marc Siegel said that the “ worst case scenario ” with coronavirus is that “ it could be the flu.
” Other prominent right-wing commentators like radio personality Rush Limbaugh have painted coronavirus fears as a ploy to stop Trump rallies .
Messaging from Trump and hard-right news outlets like Fox News has diverged from the consensus among scientists and public health experts around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a serious health hazard that could easily overwhelm the US health care system and kill millions of Americans if not taken seriously by the federal government .
While mainstream and liberal media outlets have focused on pleas from the public health and scientific communities about the serious risks posed by the coronavirus , some conservative outlets and the Trump administration have gone the opposite way .
And that in turn has led to a gap between liberals and conservatives on how seriously to take it .
Experts say that by the time everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too late to mitigate risks .

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has revealed sharp partisan divides between Americans over the coronavirus pandemic.
The poll found 68 percent of Democrats are worried that someone in their family could catch the virus, while just 40 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of independents share that concern.
The gulf in perception over an outwardly nonpolitical issue underscores how signals from politicians and media outlets have played a critical role in shaping how seriously Americans are taking a viral outbreak that has overwhelmed health care systems and triggered mass quarantines in several countries around the world.
Nearly 80 percent of Democrats believe the worst is yet to come, but just 40 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents believe that. Overall, 53 percent of all voters are concerned that someone in their immediate family might contract the coronavirus, and 60 percent believe the worst is yet to come.
The poll also found 56 percent of Democrats believe their day-to-day lives will change in a major way in the future — while just 26 percent of Republicans hold that view.
In response to every question about whether a respondent would change plans that would expose them to others, like travel, eating out at restaurants, and attending large gatherings, Democratic voters consistently responded affirmatively at much higher rates than Republicans. For example, 61 percent of Democrats said they’ve stopped or plan to stop attending large public gatherings, but only 30 percent of Republicans said the same.
The partisan disconnect is not due to a lack of information among conservatives or a function of not hearing much about the outbreak in certain regions of the country. NBC reports that 99 percent of respondents said they’ve seen, heard, or read about the spread of the coronavirus and 89 percent say they’ve heard “a lot” about it — the highest percentage that one of their polls has found for a major event since 2009.
The more likely explanation is that, as with so many other issues, people with different political ideologies consume different kinds of information and take cues on how to think about events from different political figures and institutions. Given that President Donald Trump and media institutions that cater to conservative audiences, like Fox News, have been downplaying the issue from day one, it’s not surprising that Republican voters are not nearly as alarmed as Democrats.
Still, as the virus spreads and more people know someone affected, the typical partisan divides might not hold.
Coronavirus has been politicized
Ever since it has been clear that the US was at risk of a serious outbreak of the novel coronavirus, Trump has continually downplayed the risks it poses and dragged his feet on policy responses that would help contain and mitigate the spread of the virus. Reporting indicates that he has done this in part because he’s worried about the political damage that would accompany treating the situation as a full-blown crisis.
As Vox’s German Lopez has explained, Trump has underplayed what’s at stake on many occasions:
Trump himself has tweeted comparisons of Covid-19 to the common flu — which [director of the Harvard Global Health Institute Ashish] Jha describes as “really unhelpful,” because the novel coronavirus appears to be much worse. Trump also called concerns about the virus a “hoax.” He said on national television that, based on nothing more than a self-admitted “hunch,” the death rate of the disease is much lower than public health officials projected. And Trump has rejected any accountability for the botched testing process: “I don’t take responsibility at all,” he said on Friday. Jha described the Trump administration’s messaging so far as “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.”
Trump also downplayed the issue by initially declining to get tested for it despite close contact with people who tested positive for the virus last week. He also never self-isolated despite being at risk of carrying the virus and spreading it to others (public health experts say it is possible to spread the virus even if you’re not showing symptoms).
Trump did eventually get tested days after his exposure — and on Saturday, the White House physician said the test was negative. But his behavior stood in stark contrast to Republican politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who has self-quarantined after learning he came in contact with people who have tested positive for the coronavirus. Cruz reports he is currently showing no symptoms.
Conservative news outlets like Fox News have also promoted skepticism of the seriousness of the coronavirus as a serious health hazard as part of an effort to shield the Trump administration from criticism. Here are just a few examples, via progressive watchdog Media Matters:
- Fox prime-time host Sean Hannity claimed people are faking concern about coronavirus just to “bludgeon Trump with this new hoax.” - On her Saturday night show, Fox host Jeanine Pirro downplayed the possibility that the coronavirus is more deadly than the flu, arguing that “that’s only because there’s a flu vaccine” and if not for the vaccine, “the flu would be a pandemic.” Pirro somehow drew the conclusion that this means that “the talk about coronavirus being so much more deadly [than the flu] doesn’t reflect reality.” - Fox host Pete Hegseth downplayed the impact of coronavirus: “I feel like the more I learn about this, the less there is to worry about.” - On Hannity, Fox News medical correspondent Marc Siegel said that the “worst case scenario” with coronavirus is that “it could be the flu.”
Other prominent right-wing commentators like radio personality Rush Limbaugh have painted coronavirus fears as a ploy to stop Trump rallies.
Messaging from Trump and hard-right news outlets like Fox News has diverged from the consensus among scientists and public health experts around the world who have indicated coronavirus is a serious health hazard that could easily overwhelm the US health care system and kill millions of Americans if not taken seriously by the federal government.
While mainstream and liberal media outlets have focused on pleas from the public health and scientific communities about the serious risks posed by the coronavirus, some conservative outlets and the Trump administration have gone the opposite way. And that in turn has led to a gap between liberals and conservatives on how seriously to take it.
Experts say that by the time everyone takes it seriously, it may be too late to mitigate risks.


vox--2020-03-15--NIH’s Fauci calls for “dramatic diminution” of personal interactions to fight coronavirus

Americans need to be more aggressive in their approach to halting the spread of the novel coronavirus , Dr. Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said on Sunday .
Fauci appeared on multiple news programs Sunday morning , and on each , he repeated a similar message : Americans need to do more to limit their social interactions to restrict the virus ’ s spread .
He also said that young people are not inherently safe , simply because older and immunocompromised people are statistically at greater risk .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said on CNN ’ s State of the Union .
“ There are going to be people who are young who are going to wind up getting seriously ill .
So , protect yourself.
” Fauci was also asked if he would like to see a national lockdown like those that have taken place in Spain and Italy — and he stopped short of expressing support for such a measure .
“ I would like to see a dramatic diminution of the personal interaction that we see in restaurants and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whatever it takes to do that , that ’ s what I ’ d like to see.
” Rather than calling for specific governmental action to close down these businesses , however , Fauci called on individuals to change their behavior .
“ We got ta make sure that the vulnerable ones are the ones we protect — the vulnerable , the elderly , and those with underlying conditions , ” Fauci said on ABC ’ s This Week .
“ Those are the people that if you say , ‘ Should you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not go to a movie , not go to a restaurant ?
’ … the ones who really shouldn ’ t do that are the vulnerable ones.
” With that said , however , on NBC ’ s Meet the Press Sunday , Fauci added that Americans “ should be prepared that they ’ re going to have to hunker down significantly more than we as a country are doing.
” Fauci says aggressive measures are needed because the situation is in flux The Trump administration ’ s response to the novel coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor coordination , delays in testing , and the president ’ s downplaying of the seriousness of the situation .
As Vox ’ s German Lopez has explained , the administration has increased its coronavirus efforts in recent days but may have been too slow to do so : On Sunday , Fauci defended the steps the government has taken so far , but also said that the speed at which the pandemic is unfolding means aggressive action is needed .
“ When people look at what we ’ re doing and say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ...
If you think you ’ re in line with the outbreak , you ’ re already three weeks behind .
So you ’ ve got to be almost overreacting a bit to keep up with it , ” he told This Week .
And the administration ’ s recent measures are in line with this way of thinking .
President Donald Trump declared a national emergency on Friday , freeing up $ 42.6 billion in emergency funds , and unveiled new travel bans on Saturday while also hinting at the possibility of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the administration does not yet plan to institute restrictions on domestic travel , but said , “ Remember , we are very open-minded about whatever it takes to preserve the health of the American public.
” The reason for this openness is simple , Fauci told This Week : “ People need to understand that things will get worse before they get better .
... What we ’ re trying to do is to make sure they don ’ t get to the worst-case scenario .
”

Americans need to be more aggressive in their approach to halting the spread of the novel coronavirus, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on Sunday.
Fauci appeared on multiple news programs Sunday morning, and on each, he repeated a similar message: Americans need to do more to limit their social interactions to restrict the virus’s spread. He also said that young people are not inherently safe, simply because older and immunocompromised people are statistically at greater risk.
“The virus is not a mathematical formula,” he said on CNN’s State of the Union. “There are going to be people who are young who are going to wind up getting seriously ill. So, protect yourself.”
Fauci was also asked if he would like to see a national lockdown like those that have taken place in Spain and Italy — and he stopped short of expressing support for such a measure.
“I would like to see a dramatic diminution of the personal interaction that we see in restaurants and in bars,” Fauci said. “Whatever it takes to do that, that’s what I’d like to see.”
Rather than calling for specific governmental action to close down these businesses, however, Fauci called on individuals to change their behavior.
“We gotta make sure that the vulnerable ones are the ones we protect — the vulnerable, the elderly, and those with underlying conditions,” Fauci said on ABC’s This Week. “Those are the people that if you say, ‘Should you kind of stay in your house, not go to a movie, not go to a restaurant?’ … the ones who really shouldn’t do that are the vulnerable ones.”
With that said, however, on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, Fauci added that Americans “should be prepared that they’re going to have to hunker down significantly more than we as a country are doing.”
Fauci says aggressive measures are needed because the situation is in flux
The Trump administration’s response to the novel coronavirus has faced significant criticism over concerns of poor coordination, delays in testing, and the president’s downplaying of the seriousness of the situation. As Vox’s German Lopez has explained, the administration has increased its coronavirus efforts in recent days but may have been too slow to do so:
The administration has in recent days taken steps to combat criticisms about its slow and muddled response to the coronavirus, with Trump giving a televised Oval Office address on Wednesday and declaring a national emergency on Friday. But experts say the damage has been done: The federal government is only now playing catch-up, as thousands of new cases of coronavirus are confirmed and the death toll steadily increases every day.
On Sunday, Fauci defended the steps the government has taken so far, but also said that the speed at which the pandemic is unfolding means aggressive action is needed.
“When people look at what we’re doing and say, ‘You’re overreacting’ ... If you think you’re in line with the outbreak, you’re already three weeks behind. So you’ve got to be almost overreacting a bit to keep up with it,” he told This Week.
And the administration’s recent measures are in line with this way of thinking. President Donald Trump declared a national emergency on Friday, freeing up $42.6 billion in emergency funds, and unveiled new travel bans on Saturday while also hinting at the possibility of domestic travel restrictions to come.
Fauci said the administration does not yet plan to institute restrictions on domestic travel, but said, “Remember, we are very open-minded about whatever it takes to preserve the health of the American public.”
The reason for this openness is simple, Fauci told This Week: “People need to understand that things will get worse before they get better. ... What we’re trying to do is to make sure they don’t get to the worst-case scenario.”


vox--2020-03-15--Washington Democratic debate: March 15, 2020

Just two candidates will take the stage in Washington , DC , for the 11th debate of the Democratic primary .
With just days until another major round of primaries — in Arizona , Florida , Illinois , and Ohio on March 17 — former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders will take the debate stage in Washington , DC , this Sunday , March 15 , for the 11th — and possibly last — debate of the Democratic presidential primary .
The debate will start at 8 pm ET and is scheduled to run for two hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN site and app .
CNN and Univision are co-hosting the debate , which the Democratic National Committee is holding in partnership with CHC Bold , a political action committee affiliated with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus .
CNN ’ s Dana Bash and Jake Tapper , along with Univision ’ s Ilia Calderón , will moderate .
The debate was originally scheduled to be held in Phoenix , Arizona , ahead of that state ’ s primary but was moved over concerns about the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic .
The qualifying standard for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have earned at least 20 percent of the pledged delegates that have been already awarded — means that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard , the only other candidate still in the race , failed to qualify .
As Biden and Sanders take the stage , the stakes are high .
Biden is in a good position to potentially claim the Democratic nomination after a strong performance last week in six states , including crucial Michigan , and the states holding contests Tuesday , particularly the delegate-heavy Florida , favor him .
If Sanders wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he ’ ll need a good debate performance to revitalize his campaign heading into the final stretch of the race .
This debate could also be the last : While the DNC ’ s framework calls for 12 debates , with the last in April , No .
12 hasn ’ t been scheduled yet .
And there ’ s a very real possibility that a candidate could have the nomination sewn up by then .
Follow along below for Vox ’ s debate coverage , including how to watch , breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Just two candidates will take the stage in Washington, DC, for the 11th debate of the Democratic primary.
With just days until another major round of primaries — in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio on March 17 — former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders will take the debate stage in Washington, DC, this Sunday, March 15, for the 11th — and possibly last — debate of the Democratic presidential primary.
The debate will start at 8 pm ET and is scheduled to run for two hours. It will stream live on the CNN site and app.
CNN and Univision are co-hosting the debate, which the Democratic National Committee is holding in partnership with CHC Bold, a political action committee affiliated with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. CNN’s Dana Bash and Jake Tapper, along with Univision’s Ilia Calderón, will moderate.
The debate was originally scheduled to be held in Phoenix, Arizona, ahead of that state’s primary but was moved over concerns about the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic.
The qualifying standard for the 11th debate — candidates are required to have earned at least 20 percent of the pledged delegates that have been already awarded — means that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the only other candidate still in the race, failed to qualify.
As Biden and Sanders take the stage, the stakes are high. Biden is in a good position to potentially claim the Democratic nomination after a strong performance last week in six states, including crucial Michigan, and the states holding contests Tuesday, particularly the delegate-heavy Florida, favor him. If Sanders wants to keep his shot at the nomination alive, he’ll need a good debate performance to revitalize his campaign heading into the final stretch of the race.
This debate could also be the last: While the DNC’s framework calls for 12 debates, with the last in April, No. 12 hasn’t been scheduled yet. And there’s a very real possibility that a candidate could have the nomination sewn up by then.
Follow along below for Vox’s debate coverage, including how to watch, breaking news updates, analysis, and more.


vox--2020-03-15--The math behind why we need social distancing, starting right now

Health officials and citizens in the United States and Europe are desperately trying to slow the spread of the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak and are pleading with each other to practice social distancing and good hygiene .
Canceling events and family gatherings , closing schools , and reducing visits to public spaces and businesses are simple , powerful , and effective tactics to control disease transmission alongside testing to identify sick patients and isolate them from others .
And since the novel coronavirus is already spreading locally in several communities , epidemiologists say measures to limit the spread of Covid-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are most effective right now in the early stage of the outbreak , when few people are infected and the most lives can be saved .
Conversely , the disease becomes vastly more dangerous the longer the country waits to implement such measures , particularly since it can spread even before an infected person shows symptoms .
Countries like China and Italy found this out the hard way when they , seemingly overnight , experienced massive increases in the number of Covid-19 infections and deaths .
The math behind the outbreak explains why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 transmission are following an exponential growth trajectory .
That is , the rate of the spread of the infection is proportional to the number of people infected .
Each infected person is expected to infect a certain number of people — around 2.5 right now — who each in turn go on to infect 2.5 more , and on and on , unless drastic measures are taken to reduce social contact and isolate the infected from others .
Think about counting doubles — 1 , 2 , 4 , 8 , 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would you have to double to get to more than 1 million ?
20 .
How many doubles to get to more than 16 million ?
24 .
So that ’ s why Covid-19 appears to spread very slowly , and then all at once .
As epidemiologist Adam Kucharski pointed out on Twitter , this trend also shows how important it is to reduce the rate of infection early .
And individual actions can make a big difference .
Reuters showed how one Covid-19 patient in South Korea , so-called Patient 31 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and created new clusters of the infection .
The lesson : Don ’ t be Patient 31 .
Of course , Covid-19 can ’ t spread exponentially forever .
There are upper limits to the population and over time , people start to build immunity to the disease and the infected start to recover , so there ’ s a natural ceiling .
As with many other disease outbreaks , there will likely be a peak and decline in the number of cases .
Nonetheless , it ’ s important to lower that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much as possible .
That buys valuable time for health providers , allowing them to acquire the tools they need like beds and ventilators while avoiding being overwhelmed by patients .
Flattening the curve of cases over time can therefore save lives , and in places where the health care system is already close to capacity , it ’ s critical .
Taking drastic measures to limit the transmission rate of Covid-19 , like closing schools , canceling public events , and sending people home from work , may seem like an overreaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state are infected .
However , early in the outbreak is exactly when such measures are most effective .
Using data from Hubei province , China , where the virus originated and where the vast majority of the Chinese cases were seen , designer Tomas Pueyo posted on Medium a conceptual model he created showing the difference even one day of social distancing can make in reducing the burden of cases .
Vox has recreated the chart here ( note that this is based on a theoretical model and not actual reported figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , the peak number of infections in the United States could reach 9.4 million with no interventions .
But with aggressive public health interventions starting today , that peak could fall to 3 million .
So the sooner such measures start , the bigger impact they will have .

Health officials and citizens in the United States and Europe are desperately trying to slow the spread of the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak and are pleading with each other to practice social distancing and good hygiene.
Canceling events and family gatherings, closing schools, and reducing visits to public spaces and businesses are simple, powerful, and effective tactics to control disease transmission alongside testing to identify sick patients and isolate them from others.
And since the novel coronavirus is already spreading locally in several communities, epidemiologists say measures to limit the spread of Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus, are most effective right now in the early stage of the outbreak, when few people are infected and the most lives can be saved. Conversely, the disease becomes vastly more dangerous the longer the country waits to implement such measures, particularly since it can spread even before an infected person shows symptoms.
Countries like China and Italy found this out the hard way when they, seemingly overnight, experienced massive increases in the number of Covid-19 infections and deaths.
The math behind the outbreak explains why.
Right now, many places seeing Covid-19 transmission are following an exponential growth trajectory. That is, the rate of the spread of the infection is proportional to the number of people infected. Each infected person is expected to infect a certain number of people — around 2.5 right now — who each in turn go on to infect 2.5 more, and on and on, unless drastic measures are taken to reduce social contact and isolate the infected from others.
Think about counting doubles — 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and so on. How many times would you have to double to get to more than 1 million? 20. How many doubles to get to more than 16 million? 24.
So that’s why Covid-19 appears to spread very slowly, and then all at once.
As epidemiologist Adam Kucharski pointed out on Twitter, this trend also shows how important it is to reduce the rate of infection early.
Early in outbreak, each COVID-19 case infects ~2.5 others on average. There's ~5 days between one infection and next, so we'd expect one case to lead to 2.5^6 = 244 more cases in a month. If we can halve transmission, so each infects 1.25 others instead, we'd expect 4 more cases. — Adam Kucharski (@AdamJKucharski) March 15, 2020
And individual actions can make a big difference. Reuters showed how one Covid-19 patient in South Korea, so-called Patient 31, had direct contact with 1,160 people and created new clusters of the infection. The lesson: Don’t be Patient 31.
Of course, Covid-19 can’t spread exponentially forever. There are upper limits to the population and over time, people start to build immunity to the disease and the infected start to recover, so there’s a natural ceiling. As with many other disease outbreaks, there will likely be a peak and decline in the number of cases.
Nonetheless, it’s important to lower that peak and spread out the cases as much as possible. That buys valuable time for health providers, allowing them to acquire the tools they need like beds and ventilators while avoiding being overwhelmed by patients. Flattening the curve of cases over time can therefore save lives, and in places where the health care system is already close to capacity, it’s critical.
Taking drastic measures to limit the transmission rate of Covid-19, like closing schools, canceling public events, and sending people home from work, may seem like an overreaction when few people in a city or state are infected. However, early in the outbreak is exactly when such measures are most effective.
Using data from Hubei province, China, where the virus originated and where the vast majority of the Chinese cases were seen, designer Tomas Pueyo posted on Medium a conceptual model he created showing the difference even one day of social distancing can make in reducing the burden of cases. Vox has recreated the chart here (note that this is based on a theoretical model and not actual reported figures):
According to an epidemiological model visualized by the New York Times, one scenario is with no interventions, the number of infections in the United States reach 9.4 million. But with aggressive public health interventions starting today, that peak could fall to 3 million, according to the model. So the sooner such measures start, the bigger impact they will have.


vox--2020-03-15--The rules of social distancing

The rules of social distancing

Many Americans in recent days have received emails directing them to start working remotely , or announcing that schools would be canceled for weeks in light of the coronavirus pandemic .
Major events are also being called off with a domino-like effect , including Coachella and South by Southwest , March Madness and virtually all sports events , business conferences , even religious services across the country .
In many cases , the action is prophylactic — no one at work or school may be sick yet — though with each passing day , more of these decisions are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing positive for Covid-19 , or the risk that contact with large groups of people could exacerbate transmission of the virus .
The closures are a way to enforce social distancing , a crucially important public health intervention that can help stop coronavirus transmission by avoiding crowds and large gatherings such as weddings , concerts , conferences , sporting events , and mass transit .
Best practice requires maintaining at least a six-foot distance between yourself and others .
You may have already come into contact with an infected person — the woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SoulCycle , the kindly fellow who coughed while standing next to you in line at Costco , or someone who touched your mail as it made its way to your mailbox .
With Covid-19 , “ many people in the US will at some point , either this year or next , get exposed to this virus , ” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s immunization czar announced this month .
Social distancing , health authorities argue , can dramatically slow the rate at which the infection is spreading , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system .
But how should social distancing affect your visits to the gym ?
Your weekly manicure ?
Play dates for your kids ?
Your weekend reservation at the buzzy Michelin-starred omakase spot you ’ ve been dying to try ?
Are those risky for an ostensibly healthy person like yourself ?
What do you , as a responsible , socially conscious human being , owe to your fellow men and women — particularly those who are sick , immunocompromised , and older ?
Are you breaking the social contract by going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going , are you overreacting and hurting the economy ?
Vox spoke with six experts in public health , medicine , psychology , and bioethics for answers .
( Please remember that as the Covid-19 landscape transforms week by week , so , too , will the advice . )
I feel healthy .
Why shouldn ’ t I get out a little bit to make this time pass easier ?
Vox ’ s Kelsey Piper makes a strong argument for choosing to stay home as much as possible , inconvenient as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human .
“ If you are young and healthy , you ought to take precautions because doing so can end up saving someone ’ s life , ” she writes .
Leah Lagos , a New York City-based psychologist and author of Heart , Breath , Mind , agrees .
“ Now is the time to do something for your fellow community members , ” she says .
Staying home as much as possible , even if you believe you aren ’ t infected , is the type of altruistic decision that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential to slow the infection rate , Lagos says .
Considering — and prioritizing — the welfare of strangers is difficult , she acknowledges , but it helps to think of them instead as someone else ’ s parent , grandparent , or child .
“ It can be an interesting experiment in compassion for people we don ’ t know.
” “ A lot of us might be relatively healthy and think we might be able to withstand the rigors of an infection , ” adds Jonathan Kimmelman , director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montreal , “ but there ’ s the concern about spreading it to vulnerable individuals , as well as the pressure this outbreak will place on our health care system.
” Kimmelman invokes the idea of “ social solidarity , ” saying “ we have an ethical obligation to curtail activities , practice social distancing , and substitute activities with safer alternatives , ” like teleconferencing instead of in-person work meetings , or changing a first date from a wine bar to a walk outside .
But should you even be going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are confusing , understand that “ there are different levels of social distancing ” in effect around the world , and that local health departments ’ recommendations vary currently depending on known cases , says Syra Madad , an NYC-based special pathogens specialist who was featured in Netflix ’ s docuseries Pandemic : How to Prevent an Outbreak .
In Washington state ’ s King County , for example , the current recommendation is that “ social interaction is still vitally important to the mental health of young people , and it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gatherings among children and parents.
” The county recommends , however , limiting indoor groups to 10 or fewer children and outdoor groups to 50 or fewer , and for residents to avoid parties , retail spaces , and movie theaters .
Still , Madad notes , “ It is better to operate under the pretense that there is transmission in your community already .
There ’ s going to be disruption to daily life , but we want people to feel empowered by this .
The decisions you make will ultimately affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have to go out , how can I do it in the safest way possible — to protect myself as well as others ?
Kate Vergara , a public health and infectious disease specialist based in Chicago and New York City , has spent time fighting polio in Ethiopia and helping Ebola survivors in Sierra Leone ( without contracting either disease ) .
In order to even begin to approach the ethics of social distancing , she says , we must have a firm grip on how the virus is spreading .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ she says .
“ It is transmitted through droplets — being coughed on , or touching something that someone coughed on , for example , and then touching your face and allowing that pathogen to get into your system through your eyes , nose , or mouth.
” It ’ s important to practice good hygiene , like hand-washing — which protects not only you but others as well .
When considering the ethics of spending time out and about , Vergara suggests reframing your view of hand-washing in the following way : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to protect others , and wash them again after the activity to protect yourself.
” If you ’ re low-risk and itching to hit the gym , wash your hands first so you ’ re touching machines and weights with pristine hands ; that protects others .
Then , after your workout , wash them again to scrub off anything you may have picked up .
And wipe down your exercise equipment , or anything else you might have touched .
The same goes for getting a haircut , visiting the ATM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel guilty for wanting to go to the gym , or on a date ?
Between the relentless news alerts , social media memes , and gossipy texts , it ’ s easy to feel overwhelmed , anxious , and scared .
We need self-care more than ever , says LaMar Hasbrouck , a public health physician and past medical epidemiologist with the CDC .
“ It ’ s important during these times to hold fast to any sense of normalcy that you can.
” But try to find prudent ways to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exercise to minimize contact with others ; other options include walking , jogging , or biking outdoors .
The more ventilated an area , the lower the risk of transmission , plus “ if you cough , nobody is around and the droplets just fall and hit the ground , ” he says .
Better yet : breaking a sweat at home with help from an app or online video .
Grocery shopping will need to happen , but instead of going at noon on a Saturday when the place is sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early on a weekday morning .
If it ’ s still possible , order online .
And wipe down any deliveries , just to be safe .
Should I keep using grocery delivery services ... and ride-hailing companies … and restaurants ?
Hasbrouck encourages those who have access to services such as Postmates , Grubhub , Lyft , and Instacart to use them .
“ It ’ s a good way to social distance , ” he says , noting that two main factors when it comes to Covid-19 transmission are closeness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is five seconds , you go inside and wash your hands .
Or just have them leave it at your doorstep.
” ( Last week , Instacart introduced a “ Leave at My Door Delivery ” option . )
This poses some ethical questions , however : Having milk and bread delivered is convenient for you , minimizing your exposure to the virus .
But what about the person doing your grocery shopping or picking up your Thai food ?
Or the Uber driver ferrying you to your significant other ’ s apartment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to assume the risk of being out and about ?
Yes , say both Hasbrouck and Vergara .
However , contaminated hands pose a risk to drivers and riders , so be ultra-diligent about hand hygiene , washing or sanitizing hands before getting in the car and not touching your face at all .
Cracking a window is a smart move for both you and the driver , as it promotes airflow .
As for restaurants , honor upcoming reservations or attend gatherings as necessary .
Unlike norovirus or hepatitis A , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way of transmitting this or other respiratory viruses , ” says Benjamin Chapman , a professor and food safety extension specialist at North Carolina State University .
“ You mainly need to be mindful about the surfaces you touch : menus , the table , condiments , things that other patrons might have used.
” Chapman , who continues to dine out , says that while he might not know who touched that soy sauce bottle or pepper shaker before him , “ I do know I can break the pathway of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my hands.
” With social distancing in mind , opt for establishments where it ’ s easy to keep six to eight feet between yourself and other diners ( maybe save sitting at the packed bar for after the pandemic ends ) and feel free to be “ a public health nerd ” like Chapman and ask if they ’ re using Environmental Protection Agency-approved sanitizing products , which they should be .
Chapman notes that he lives in North Carolina , which is not currently a Covid-19 hot spot .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was in New Rochelle , New York , or Seattle , ” he says , two cities where the risk of transmission is greater due to higher numbers of community-acquired infections .
In cities such as those , he would advocate taking advantage of the “ great infrastructure we have set up for home delivery of food.
” Should I cancel play dates ?
What are the rules for my kids ?
In Ireland , public health officials are encouraging a “ no parties , no playdates , no playground ” policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ní Chrónín , a consultant respiratory pediatrician at Cork University Hospital , told the paper : “ Children will get through this no problem .
[ But ] remember with corona , children are vectors , not victims .
In most epidemics , young children are the transmitters.
” “ The risks of underreaction are so much more catastrophic than the risks of overreaction ” Here in the US , school closures are smart , Vergara says .
“ It ’ s a responsible practice for schools to shut down .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarters , and kids aren ’ t known for washing their hands very well.
” But that leaves millions of working parents frantic about career responsibilities , and unsure of whether it ’ s appropriate to schedule play dates or try to split child care duties with friends .
The experts interviewed for this story had differing opinions about whether play dates should continue in a pandemic .
Vergara says that , if following healthy practices , small play dates are feasible , but before the kids come over , use disinfecting wipes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remote controls , and the table where they ’ ll be playing .
Replace the hand towel in the bathroom with a fresh one , and when the visiting kiddos show up , everyone — your children included — should wash their hands thoroughly .
Lagos worries that play dates during school closures are essentially “ quasi-quarantines , defeating the purpose of social distancing.
” Kimmelman concurs , and though he says no one knows the exact right answer , “ we don ’ t know how things are going to unfold , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of underreaction are so much more catastrophic than the risks of overreaction.
” Alyssa F. Westring and Stewart D. Friedman , co-authors of Parents Who Lead , writing in the Harvard Business Review , recommended finding inventive ways for children to play together virtually .
“ While it may not be feasible to trade-off childcare responsibilities ( depending on quarantine restrictions ) , ” they wrote , “ consider other ways in which you can make things easier for one another — whether it ’ s sharing creative activities to keep the kids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … Be open to new ways of doing things.
” The CDC has issued recommendations for travelers arriving from dozens of countries with widespread cases to stay home for 14 days .
If someone at your work or school was definitely exposed , it ’ s also time to assess your own risk of exposure , and of spreading the coronavirus .
“ If you say , ‘ Well , I know I ’ ve been mostly in my office , avoiding meetings and conference rooms , and I ’ ve been washing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably go about your daily routine with some social distancing to protect yourself , not so much to avoid infecting others , ” Hasbrouck says .
But if you have a fever or receive new information — that it was John , in the cubicle next to you , who was exposed — “ you ’ re going to want to radically change your assessment.
” That likely means self-quarantining , because that ’ s “ the ethical decision and you don ’ t want to expose others .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more of an art than a science .
It ’ s about protecting yourself but also being socially responsible.
” How far should we take social distancing advice ?
“ Look at the trajectory of what ’ s happening in Italy .
We ’ re 11 days behind Italy , ” where a national lockdown that began March 10 has curtailed all travel and shuttered nearly all shops , schools , museums , movie theaters , and bars , says Madad .
“ Measures like travel bans and quarantining entire localities — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she says .
But we can undertake distancing measures ourselves .
“ One of the things we ’ ve learned from the H1N1 pandemic is that if you educate people , they will listen .
You have to give them the facts , and speak with one voice.
” Leslie Goldman has a master ’ s degree in public health and is a health writer based in Chicago .
She is frequent contributor of feature stories and essays to Prevention , Women ’ s Health , O : The Oprah Magazine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Many Americans in recent weeks have begun working remotely, if they haven’t been furloughed or laid off; schools have canceled classes for weeks; and restaurants, retail stores, bars, gyms, and other gathering places in dozens of states have shuttered. Major events were called off with a domino-like effect, including Coachella and South by Southwest, March Madness and virtually all national sporting events, and many religious services across the country. Now at least 42 states have stay-at-home directives.
These closures are all attempts to force social distancing, a crucially important public health intervention that can help stop transmission of the coronavirus. With Covid-19, “many people in the US will at some point, either this year or next, get exposed to this virus,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s immunization czar announced this month. Social distancing, health authorities argue, can dramatically slow the rate at which the infection spreads, helping to ease the burden on the health care system. Best practices require maintaining at least a six-foot distance between yourself and others.
The closures nationally are largely preventive — in some places, no one from work or school may have even been sick — though increasingly, these decisions are being made in response to the rapidly ballooning number of cases of Covid-19; the risk that contact with large groups of people will exacerbate transmission of the virus; and the growing understanding that the disease can be transmitted by those who are asymptomatic or appear to be relatively healthy. (At least one study estimated that about 25 percent of coronavirus transmissions may have occurred in pre-symptomatic stages — meaning it can be spread by people who don’t yet know they have it.) In the United States, these efforts have taken on particular urgency: As of April 9, the US has the highest number of confirmed cases of the illness.
To that end, the US government has warned against all gatherings of more than 10 people. But even with so many public places shuttered for now, simple acts in our daily lives — even a run in the park — raise questions about how social distancing works: How should social distancing affect your workouts? Your weekly manicure? Play dates for your kids? Are those risky for an ostensibly healthy person like yourself?
What do you — as a responsible, socially conscious human being — owe to your fellow men and women, particularly those who are sick, immunocompromised, and older? Are you breaking the social contract by going to the grocery store?
Or, by not going, are you overreacting and hurting the economy?
Vox spoke with six experts in public health, medicine, psychology, and bioethics for answers. (Please remember that as the Covid-19 landscape transforms week by week, so too will the advice; this story has been updated to reflect the latest closures as of April 9.)
I feel healthy. Why shouldn’t I get out a little bit to make this time pass easier?
Vox’s Kelsey Piper makes a strong argument for choosing to stay home as much as possible, inconvenient as it may seem, to help your fellow human. “If you are young and healthy, you ought to take precautions because doing so can end up saving someone’s life,” she writes.
Leah Lagos, a New York City-based psychologist and author of the upcoming Heart, Breath, Mind: Train Your Heart to Conquer Stress and Achieve Success, agrees. “Now is the time to do something for your fellow community members,” she says. Staying home as much as possible, even if you believe you aren’t infected, is the type of altruistic decision that, when performed en masse, has the potential to slow the infection rate, Lagos added. It’s a term known as “flattening the curve,” and the way it works can be seen below:
Considering — and prioritizing — the welfare of strangers is difficult, Lagos acknowledges, but it helps to think of them instead as someone else’s parent, grandparent, or child. “It can be an interesting experiment in compassion for people we don’t know.”
“A lot of us might be relatively healthy and think we might be able to withstand the rigors of an infection,” adds Jonathan Kimmelman, director of the Biomedical Ethics Unit at McGill University in Montreal, “but there’s the concern about spreading it to vulnerable individuals, as well as the pressure this outbreak will place on our health care system.”
Kimmelman invokes the idea of “social solidarity,” saying that “we have an ethical obligation to curtail activities, practice social distancing, and substitute activities with safer alternatives,” like teleconferencing instead of in-person work meetings or, even if you live in a city where bars are still open, changing a date from a wine bar to a walk outside (or just FaceTime).
But should you even be going on dates, period?
If the messages are confusing, understand that “there are different levels of social distancing” in effect around the world, and that local health departments’ recommendations currently vary depending on known cases, says Syra Madad, an NYC-based pathogens specialist who was featured in Netflix’s docuseries Pandemic: How to Prevent an Outbreak.
Still, Madad notes, “It is better to operate under the pretense that there is transmission in your community already. There’s going to be disruption to daily life, but we want people to feel empowered by this. The decisions you make will ultimately affect the trajectory of this outbreak.”
If I have to go out, how can I do it in the safest way possible — to protect myself as well as others?
Kate Vergara, a public health and infectious disease specialist based in Chicago and New York City, has spent time fighting polio in Ethiopia and helping Ebola survivors in Sierra Leone (without contracting either disease). In order to even begin to approach the ethics of social distancing, she says, we must have a firm grip on how the virus is spreading.
“Covid-19 is not airborne,” she says. “It is transmitted through droplets — being coughed on or touching something that someone coughed on, for example, and then touching your face and allowing that pathogen to get into your system through your eyes, nose, or mouth.”
It’s important to practice good hygiene, like hand-washing — which protects not only you but also others. When considering the ethics of spending time out and about, Vergara suggests reframing your view of hand-washing in the following way: “Wash your hands before you go out to protect others, and wash them again after the activity to protect yourself.” That goes for visiting the ATM, the grocery store, and the like.
The CDC has also advised people in certain public settings (like stores selling essential goods) to wear a cloth mask.
The CDC and the WHO recommend several basic measures to help prevent the spread of Covid-19: Wash your hands often for at least 20 seconds.
Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects.
Practice social distancing, and stay home when you are sick.
Contact a health worker if you have symptoms; fever and a dry cough are most common. Guidance may change. Stay informed, and stay safe, with Vox’s coronavirus coverage hub.
Should I feel guilty for wanting to go for a run or to a store?
Between the relentless news alerts, social media memes, and gossipy texts, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed, anxious, and scared. We need self-care more than ever, says LaMar Hasbrouck, a public health physician and former CDC medical epidemiologist. “It’s important during these times to hold fast to any sense of normalcy that you can.”
But try to find prudent ways to do so. Hasbrouck now picks off-peak hours to exercise to minimize contact with others; other options include walking, jogging, or biking outdoors, while making sure to maintain distance from others. The more ventilated an area, the lower the risk of transmission, plus, “If you cough, nobody is around, and the droplets just fall and hit the ground,” he says. Better yet: breaking a sweat at home with help from an app or online video.
Grocery shopping will need to happen, but instead of going at noon on a Saturday when the place is sure to be packed, try going really early on a weekday morning. If it’s still possible, order online. Wash your hands after handling any deliveries, just to be safe.
Should I keep using grocery delivery services ... and ride-hailing companies … and restaurants?
Hasbrouck encourages those who have access to services such as Postmates, Grubhub, Lyft, and Instacart to use them. “It’s a good way to social distance,” he says, noting that two main factors when it comes to Covid-19 transmission are closeness of contact and duration. “The handoff is five seconds, you go inside and wash your hands. Or just have them leave it at your doorstep.” (Instacart, Uber Eats, and other delivery services are offering contactless delivery.)
Related How to get groceries when delivery services are slammed
This poses some ethical questions, however: Having milk and bread delivered is convenient for you, minimizing your exposure to the virus. But what about the person doing your grocery shopping or picking up your Thai food? Or the Uber driver ferrying you to your significant other’s apartment? Is it right to ask them to assume the risk of being out and about?
For now, many services continue, but some are questioning the ethics of ride-hailing in particular, both because of the impetus to stay home and the risk to drivers. If you are sick or feeling unwell, companies are urging you not to ride. If you do need to use such a service, remember that contaminated hands pose a risk to drivers and riders, so be ultra-diligent about hand hygiene, washing or sanitizing your hands before getting in the car and not touching your face at all. Cracking a window is a smart move for both you and the driver, as it promotes airflow.
If restaurants in your area reopen in coming weeks, or if they remain open, here are a few things to remember: “You mainly need to be mindful about the surfaces you touch: menus, the table, condiments, things that other patrons might have used,” says Benjamin Chapman, a professor and food safety extension specialist at North Carolina State University.
Chapman says that while he might not know who touched that soy sauce bottle or pepper shaker before him, “I do know I can break the pathway of transmission by using hand sanitizer or washing my hands.” With social distancing in mind, opt for establishments where it’s easy to keep 6 to 8 feet between yourself and other diners and feel free to be “a public health nerd” like Chapman and ask if they’re using Environmental Protection Agency-approved sanitizing products, which they should be.
Should I cancel play dates? What are the rules for my kids?
In Ireland, public health officials are encouraging a “no parties, no playdates, no playground” policy, per the Irish Times. Muireann Ní Chrónín, a consultant respiratory pediatrician at Cork University Hospital, told the paper: “In most epidemics, young children are the transmitters.” With Covid-19, older people are most at risk, but children can spread the disease, and at least a small risk of severe illness is present for all age groups.
In the US, school closures are smart, Vergara says. “It’s a responsible practice for schools to shut down. That’s several hundred kids interacting in close quarters, and kids aren’t known for washing their hands very well.” But that leaves millions of working parents frantic about career responsibilities, and unsure of whether it’s appropriate to schedule play dates or try to split child care duties with friends.
Lagos worries that play dates during school closures are essentially “quasi-quarantines, defeating the purpose of social distancing.” Kimmelman concurs, and though he says no one knows the exact right answer, “we don’t know how things are going to unfold, and from my standpoint, the risks of underreaction are so much more catastrophic than the risks of overreaction.”
Alyssa F. Westring and Stewart D. Friedman, co-authors of Parents Who Lead, writing in the Harvard Business Review, recommended finding inventive ways for children to play together virtually. “While it may not be feasible to trade-off childcare responsibilities (depending on quarantine restrictions),” they wrote, “consider other ways in which you can make things easier for one another — whether it’s sharing creative activities to keep the kids entertained or taking turns grocery shopping. … Be open to new ways of doing things.”
When should I completely self-quarantine?
The CDC has issued recommendations for travelers arriving from dozens of countries with widespread cases to stay home for 14 days. The White House has also encouraged anyone who has been in New York in recent days and left to self-quarantine for 14 days because of the rapidly growing number of cases there.
But if you have a fever or receive new information — that someone you know was exposed — you’re also going to want to “radically change your assessment,” Hasbrouck says. That likely means self-quarantining, because that’s “the ethical decision and you don’t want to expose others. It’s a constant risk assessment, and it’s more of an art than a science. It’s about protecting yourself but also being socially responsible.”
How far should we take social distancing advice?
“Look at the trajectory of what’s happening in Italy. We’re 11 days behind Italy,” where a national lockdown that began March 10 has curtailed all travel and shuttered nearly all shops, schools, museums, movie theaters, and bars, says Madad. Some states and cities are observing less stringent measures than others, and a federal mandatory quarantine isn’t likely, but we can undertake distancing measures ourselves. “One of the things we’ve learned from the H1N1 pandemic is that if you educate people, they will listen. You have to give them the facts, and speak with one voice.”
Leslie Goldman has a master’s degree in public health and is a health writer based in Chicago. She is frequent contributor of feature stories and essays to Prevention, Women’s Health, O: The Oprah Magazine, Real Simple Parents, and more.
Support Vox’s explanatory journalism