vox--2020-05-01--Remdesivir receives emergency approval as a Covid-19 treatment

The US Food and Drug Administration on Friday authorized remdesivir , an experimental antiviral drug , for emergency use to treat Covid-19 .
The authorization allows the intravenous drug to be distributed to doctors to administer to patients with severe disease , namely patients with low blood oxygen or those needing breathing assistance with a mechanical ventilator .
Many health experts have had high hopes for the drug , which was initially developed by Gilead Sciences to treat Ebola , and it has since been used in experiments to treat the coronaviruses SARS and MERS .
That early testing gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a treatment to Covid-19 .
But despite the release of some early study results this week , it ’ s still not clear how effective the drug is at fighting the virus , and more research is needed before it can be used as the default treatment .
Remdesivir previously showed some success in animal models .
Now , early results from a clinical trial at the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) show that Covid-19 patients who took remdesivir recovered 31 percent faster than those prescribed a placebo .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drug was just as effective over five days of use as it is over 10 .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , told reporters at the White House on April 29 that he thought the findings were significant .
“ This is really quite important , ” he said .
“ This will be the standard of care.
” But a randomized trial of the drug in China recently published in the Lancet found that there was no statistical benefit to taking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highlight the need for more studies .
Remdesivir may or may not work , but it ’ s hard to say based on the evidence available at this point .
Trials haven ’ t revealed a clear answer about the effectiveness of remdesivir to treat Covid-19 Remdesivir works by blocking the virus behind Covid-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , from copying its genetic instruction set , or RNA .
These instructions are written in a code made of molecules represented by the letters A , U , G , and C. Remdesivir is designed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adenosine .
When the virus ’ s enzymes make copies of its RNA during an infection , it can take up remdesivir instead of adenosine .
When it does , the copying process comes to a grinding halt , and with it , the infection .
What makes this especially useful is that remdesivir can fool a virus , but a not a human cell , so it has a targeted effect .
But how well does it work against SARS-CoV-2 in an actual human ?
That ’ s where the studies come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial , included 1,063 patients .
The results showed that the median time to recover for patients who randomly received the placebo was 15 days while patients who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days .
Remdesivir also lowered the mortality rate compared to the placebo group , from 11.6 percent to 8 percent .
These results , however , are preliminary , and the data behind them haven ’ t been revealed , let alone published in a peer-reviewed journal .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , ” said John Norrie , a professor of medical statistics at the University of Edinburgh .
“ It ’ s very unusual to say ‘ We ’ ve found some good news but we can ’ t tell you what it is.
’ ” Meanwhile , Gilead ’ s internal study examined 397 patients , dividing them into groups treated with remdesivir for 10 days and groups treated for five days and found little difference between them .
That could be interpreted to mean that remdesivir is just as effective at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be distributed to more patients .
But the study didn ’ t even include a placebo treatment group , making it harder to gauge the impact of the drug .
The Lancet paper , on the other hand , was based on a true randomized controlled trial from Wuhan , China , with 237 patients .
The study was also peer-reviewed by other scientists .
Initially , the authors wanted to include up to 450 patients , but the lockdown imposed in the city meant that patients stopped arriving .
Norrie , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wuhan study , noted that while the study ’ s design was robust , the findings were inconclusive : There was no statistically significant benefit to taking remdesivir .
It may work ; it may not .
Eric Topol , director and founder of the Scripps Research Translational Institute , told Reuters that this study was one of the stronger pieces of research on remdesivir , and it showed its impact was lacking .
“ That ’ s the only thing I ’ ll hang my hat on , and that was negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was expected to be a whopping effect .
It clearly does not have that.
” It ’ s a frustrating result , but Norrie said the urgent need for a treatment to aid in a global pandemic shouldn ’ t be an excuse for weaker research .
However , one way to speed up the process is to pool data from smaller trials around the world into one .
“ I strongly believe that our best chance of getting to the right decisions quickly is to share data , ” Norrie said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There is limited information known about the safety and effectiveness of using remdesivir to treat people in the hospital with Covid-19.
” Still , doctors have been using it to treat some Covid-19 patients under compassionate-use guidelines .
These allow some patients to use experimental drugs if no other options are left .
There are at least 19 studies on remdesivir around the world underway or in planning stages , some recruiting thousands of patients .
It will be several months before they yield definitive answers , but they will , hopefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working treatment .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The US Food and Drug Administration on Friday authorized remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug, for emergency use to treat Covid-19.
The authorization allows the intravenous drug to be distributed to doctors, who can administer it to patients with severe cases of the disease, namely patients with low blood oxygen or those needing breathing assistance from a mechanical ventilator.
Many health experts have had high hopes for the drug, which was initially developed by Gilead Sciences to treat Ebola, and it has since been used in experiments to treat the coronaviruses SARS and MERS. That early testing gave remdesivir a head start in the race toward a treatment for Covid-19.
But despite the release of some early study results this week, it’s still not clear how effective the drug is at fighting the virus, and more research is needed before it can be used as the default treatment.
Remdesivir previously showed some success in animal models. Now, early results from a clinical trial at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) show that Covid-19 patients who took remdesivir recovered 31 percent faster than those prescribed a placebo. An internal study from Gilead also found that the drug was just as effective over five days of use as it is over 10.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told reporters at the White House on April 29 that he thought the findings were significant.
“This is really quite important,” he said. “This will be the standard of care.”
But a randomized trial of the drug in China recently published in the Lancet found that there was no statistical benefit to taking the drug.
Taken together, the studies highlight the need for more studies. Remdesivir may or may not work, but it’s hard to say based on the evidence available at this point.
Trials haven’t revealed a clear answer about the effectiveness of remdesivir to treat Covid-19
Remdesivir works by blocking the virus behind Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, from copying its genetic instruction set, or RNA. These instructions are written in a code made of molecules represented by the letters A, U, G, and C. Remdesivir is designed to mimic the molecule represented by A, adenosine.
When the virus’s enzymes make copies of its RNA during an infection, it can take up remdesivir instead of adenosine. When it does, the copying process comes to a grinding halt, and with it, the infection. What makes this especially useful is that remdesivir can fool a virus, but a not a human cell, so it has a targeted effect.
But how well does it work against SARS-CoV-2 in an actual human? That’s where the studies come in.
The NIH trial, called the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial, included 1,063 patients. The results showed that the median time to recover for patients who randomly received the placebo was 15 days, while patients who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days. Remdesivir also lowered the mortality rate compared to the placebo group, from 11.6 percent to 8 percent.
These results, however, are preliminary, and the data behind them haven’t been revealed, let alone published in a peer-reviewed journal.
“It’s difficult to know what to make of that,” said John Norrie, a professor of medical statistics at the University of Edinburgh. “It’s very unusual to say ‘We’ve found some good news but we can’t tell you what it is.’”
Meanwhile, Gilead’s internal study examined 397 patients, dividing them into groups treated with remdesivir for 10 days and groups treated for five days, and found little difference between them. That could be interpreted to mean that remdesivir is just as effective at a lower dose, so the drug can be distributed to more patients. But the study didn’t even include a placebo treatment group, making it harder to gauge the impact of the drug.
The Lancet paper, on the other hand, was based on a true randomized controlled trial from Wuhan, China, with 237 patients. The study was also peer-reviewed by other scientists. Initially, the authors wanted to include up to 450 patients, but the lockdown imposed in the city meant that patients stopped arriving.
Norrie, who wrote a commentary article about the Wuhan study, noted while the study’s design was robust, the findings were inconclusive: There was no statistically significant benefit to taking remdesivir. It may work; it may not.
Eric Topol, director and founder of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told Reuters that this study was one of the stronger pieces of research on remdesivir, and it showed the drug’s impact was lacking.
“That’s the only thing I’ll hang my hat on, and that was negative,” he said. “It was expected to be a whopping effect. It clearly does not have that.”
It’s a frustrating result, but Norrie said the urgent need for a treatment to aid in a pandemic shouldn’t be an excuse for weaker research. However, one way to speed up the process is to pool data from smaller trials around the world into one. “I strongly believe that our best chance of getting to the right decisions quickly is to share data,” Norrie said.
The FDA observed in its announcement, “There is limited information known about the safety and effectiveness of using remdesivir to treat people in the hospital with Covid-19.”
Still, doctors have been using it to treat some Covid-19 patients under compassionate-use guidelines. These allow some patients to use experimental drugs if no other options are left.
There are at least 19 studies on remdesivir around the world underway or in planning stages, some recruiting thousands of patients. It will be several months before they yield definitive answers, but they will, hopefully, bring the world closer to a working treatment.


vox--2020-05-01--How voting by mail could save the US election

On April 7 , 2020 , as the coronavirus held much of the US under lockdown , Wisconsin held an election .
Many other states had already decided to delay their spring elections to protect voters .
But in Wisconsin , voters were forced to choose between participating in the election and protecting their safety .
Wisconsin ’ s decision sparked outrage , but it also highlighted a question the US really needs to figure out soon : How do you hold an election during a pandemic ?
The answer : voting by mail .
Tens of millions of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state allows it .
And ask any election official ( Republican or Democrat ) : The risk of voter fraud is extremely low .
In some cases , it can be even more secure than voting in person .
Watch the video above to learn more about how voting by mail works and how it ’ s kept secure .
Or read more from Vox ’ s David Roberts .
You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .

On April 7, 2020, as the coronavirus held much of the US under lockdown, Wisconsin held an election. Many other states had already decided to delay their spring elections to protect voters.
But in Wisconsin, voters were forced to choose between participating in the election and protecting their safety. Wisconsin’s decision sparked outrage, but it also highlighted a question the US really needs to figure out soon: How do you hold an election during a pandemic?
The answer: voting by mail. Tens of millions of Americans are already voting by mail. Every state allows it.
And ask any election official (Republican or Democrat): The risk of voter fraud is extremely low. In some cases, it can be even more secure than voting in person.
Watch the video above to learn more about how voting by mail works and how it’s kept secure. Or read more from Vox’s David Roberts.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


vox--2020-05-01--The May Day strike from Amazon, Instacart, and Target workers didn’t stop business. It was still a s

The May Day strike from Amazon, Instacart, and Target workers didn’t stop business. It was still a success.

Essential workers at major companies like Amazon , Instacart , and Target across the United States on Friday protested for better safety protections , working conditions , and pay during the coronavirus pandemic .
The event attracted considerable media attention and political support , pushing companies to respond to the basic demands workers have been asking for since the beginning of the disease ’ s spread in the US and signaling that these workers have a sympathetic ear in the broader public .
By some measures , the protests — along with a recent series of walkouts or “ sickouts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a general strike at Instacart — could be seen as underwhelming .
Participation hasn ’ t been enough to shut down warehouses or , according to companies , slow down overall business .
Both Amazon and Instacart have said they ’ ve seen record sales during the pandemic , and despite labor actions , there seem to be no signs that growth is slowing down .
“ While there is tremendous media coverage of today ’ s protests , we see no measurable impact on operations , ” wrote Rachael Lighty , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recode , which also stated that the company is committed to worker safety has spent $ 800 million on additional worker safety measures since the pandemic hit .
Target and Instacart also sent statements saying that the companies are committed to worker safety ; a spokesperson for Target said the company is aware of fewer than 10 Target workers who attended protests .
But regardless of scale , the protests were historic and , to a degree , effective .
For the first time , organizers brought together a coalition of low-paid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the largest companies in the US .
They gained the backing of major political leaders like Sen. Kamala Harris , Sen. Cory Booker , and Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who tweeted in support of workers .
And more importantly , their protests drew significant media coverage and public support at a time when the customers are more grateful and sympathetic than ever to the workers essential in keeping them supplied with food and necessary goods during the pandemic .
Publications like the Washington Post , the Los Angles Times , and Vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered the event , and social media posts about it were shared widely .
Many of the places where workers gathered to protest , such as New York and California , currently have stay-at-home orders .
In pictures and video of the events from those locations , protesters are largely seen wearing masks and face coverings .
It ’ s unclear if workers were able to maintain social distancing in each protest .
“ We haven ’ t seen anything like this since the 1930s — a crisis like this and workers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kochan , a professor at MIT who leads research on work and employment .
Kochan explained that , in the past , times of severe crisis have led to workers gaining rights , and he thinks the current conditions will “ wake up ” the general public to long-standing labor issues .
Organizers of the protests at different companies have remarkably similar demands : more access to protective gear like masks and gloves , extended time off to recover from sickness , and higher pay .
While companies have changed policies in response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say it isn ’ t enough .
Instacart shoppers , Amazon pickers , and FedEx delivery workers have been meeting virtually through the pandemic on Zoom , Telegram , Facebook , and other platforms to coordinate today ’ s action .
“ We formed this alliance because we all have one common goal , and it ’ s to save our communities and save our families , ” said Christian Smalls , the lead organizer of the strike and a former Amazon warehouse employee at its Staten Island , New York , facility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after he organized a walkout at the facility where he worked .
The company said he was fired for violating social distancing rules , an allegation that Smalls has denied .
After the firing , a top lawyer at Amazon called Smalls “ not smart or articulate ” in leaked notes from an executive meeting .
Amazon ’ s top leaders appeared to view Smalls as a flawed leader who wouldn ’ t be effective in organizing his peers .
.But Amazon may have underestimated Smalls .
In the wake of his dismissal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the support of the mayor of New York City , State Attorney General of New York , and several senators to investigate the circumstances his firing .
And now , with Friday ’ s protests , Smalls has proven that there ’ s an audience for worker issues beyond any one worker or company .
So while we aren ’ t witnessing a strike like the historic and violent May Day worker protests of 1886 , when hundreds of thousands of workers demanded an 8-hour workday , Friday ’ s action was nevertheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , companies can ’ t simply ignore workers ’ demands .
In the age of social media , even small groups of workers can attract huge amounts of attention .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today

Essential workers at major companies like Amazon, Instacart, and Target across the United States on Friday protested for better safety protections, working conditions, and pay during the coronavirus pandemic. The event attracted considerable media attention and political support, pushing companies to respond to the basic demands workers have been asking for since the beginning of the disease’s spread in the US and signaling that these workers have a sympathetic ear in the broader public.
By some measures, the protests — along with a recent series of walkouts or “sickouts” at Amazon’s warehouses and a general strike at Instacart — could be seen as underwhelming. Participation hasn’t been enough to shut down warehouses or, according to companies, slow down overall business. Both Amazon and Instacart have said they’ve seen record sales during the pandemic, and despite labor actions, there seem to be no signs that growth is slowing down.
“While there is tremendous media coverage of today’s protests, we see no measurable impact on operations,” wrote Rachael Lighty, an Amazon spokesperson, in a statement to Recode, which also stated that the company is committed to worker safety has spent $800 million on additional worker safety measures since the pandemic hit. Target and Instacart also sent statements saying that the companies are committed to worker safety; a spokesperson for Target said the company is aware of fewer than 10 Target workers who attended protests.
But regardless of scale, the protests were historic and, to a degree, effective. For the first time, organizers brought together a coalition of low-paid, non-unionized, often temporary employees from some of the largest companies in the US. They gained the backing of major political leaders like Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who tweeted in support of workers. And more importantly, their protests drew significant media coverage and public support at a time when the customers are more grateful and sympathetic than ever to the workers essential in keeping them supplied with food and necessary goods during the pandemic. Publications like the Washington Post, the Los Angles Times, and Vice as well as broadcast networks like CNN covered the event, and social media posts about it were shared widely.
Many of the places where workers gathered to protest, such as New York and California, currently have stay-at-home orders. In pictures and video of the events from those locations, protesters are largely seen wearing masks and face coverings. It’s unclear if workers were able to maintain social distancing in each protest.
“We haven’t seen anything like this since the 1930s — a crisis like this and workers who are hurting badly,” said Thomas Kochan, a professor at MIT who leads research on work and employment. Kochan explained that, in the past, times of severe crisis have led to workers gaining rights, and he thinks the current conditions will “wake up” the general public to long-standing labor issues.
Organizers of the protests at different companies have remarkably similar demands: more access to protective gear like masks and gloves, extended time off to recover from sickness, and higher pay. While companies have changed policies in response to some of their concerns, workers say it isn’t enough. Instacart shoppers, Amazon pickers, and FedEx delivery workers have been meeting virtually through the pandemic on Zoom, Telegram, Facebook, and other platforms to coordinate today’s action.
“We formed this alliance because we all have one common goal, and it’s to save our communities and save our families,” said Christian Smalls, the lead organizer of the strike and a former Amazon warehouse employee at its Staten Island, New York, facility.
In March, Amazon fired Smalls after he organized a walkout at the facility where he worked. The company said he was fired for violating social distancing rules, an allegation that Smalls has denied. After the firing, a top lawyer at Amazon called Smalls “not smart or articulate” in leaked notes from an executive meeting. Amazon’s top leaders appeared to view Smalls as a flawed leader who wouldn’t be effective in organizing his peers.
.But Amazon may have underestimated Smalls. In the wake of his dismissal, the 31-year-old father of three gained the support of the mayor of New York City, State Attorney General of New York, and several senators to investigate the circumstances his firing. And now, with Friday’s protests, Smalls has proven that there’s an audience for worker issues beyond any one worker or company.
So while we aren’t witnessing a strike like the historic and violent May Day worker protests of 1886, when hundreds of thousands of workers demanded an 8-hour workday, Friday’s action was nevertheless a potent reminder that in a pandemic, companies can’t simply ignore workers’ demands. In the age of social media, even small groups of workers can attract huge amounts of attention.


vox--2020-05-01--Lovecraft Country’s first trailer teems with monsters, genre subversion, and social allegory

HBO ’ s upcoming eight-episode horror series Lovecraft Country may not have been on your radar before now .
Although it ’ s co-created by Jordan Peele and executive produced by Peele and J.J. Abrams , Lovecraft Country hasn ’ t really had a lot of mainstream attention .
But HBO just dropped the show ’ s debut trailer , which is full of eerie supernatural creatures , intriguing genre subversions , and lots of socially conscious horror — and it ’ s gotten our full attention .
Based on Matt Ruff ’ s fantastic 2016 horror novel , Lovecraft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follows a young black man named Atticus ( Jonathan Majors ) as he searches for his father ( Michael K. Williams ) , who ’ s gone missing in the New England wilds that his family calls “ Lovecraft country.
” He and his pal Letitia ( Jurnee Smollett-Bell ) go on a road trip to search for him — but they quickly wind up confronting a host of eldritch abominations along the way .
That might sound like a straightforward plot , but it ’ s anything but .
The trailer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ segregation , and police violence , gives us our first indication that many of the monsters in Lovecraft Country are actually human — a theme both Peele and Misha Green , the series ’ co-creator and showrunner , like to play with .
The nomenclature here tells us even more about the complex literary legacies and sociocultural dynamics Lovecraft Country is dealing with : Atticus ’ s name saddles him with a complicated relationship to the flawed white savior of To Kill a Mockingbird , and to that book ’ s own fraught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fictional text on racism , as molded in a white worldview .
The region of “ Lovecraft country ” is another callout to such a white worldview : It ’ s both a reference to H.P .
Lovecraft , the writer , and a setting drawn from the fictional , rural New England that appears throughout Lovecraft ’ s many stories .
Lovecraft was the most influential horror fiction writer of the mid-20th century .
He wrote Weird fiction , a horror subgenre which teems with implied terror , usually intimated by brushes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of vast cosmic worlds beyond ours through which giant , appalling gods sometimes pass .
But Lovecraft ’ s writing itself also was monstrous — monstrously racist .
Lovecraft was a blatant , loud white supremacist .
And despite its wild popularity , the Lovecraftian universe was constructed on an allegorical terror of the mixing of the races .
Miscegenation , or interracial marriage and blending , comes up again and again in his works as a shortcut to demonic horror , madness , or both .
So it ’ s no wonder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Awards for fiction finally took the overdue but highly controversial step of distancing itself from Lovecraft ’ s legacy by discontinuing its use of a Lovecraft bust as an award trophy .
Ruff ’ s novel was published one year later , and it marked one of the first mainstream attempts to wrestle with Lovecraft ’ s legacy in novel form .
Lovecraft Country foregrounds a group of savvy genre-fiction fans who also happen to be black , and allows them to grapple with Lovecraft ’ s racism as an allegory for American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t stint on scenes of actual racism ; the novel ’ s bleakest horror comes not from Lovecraft ’ s most famous monster Cthulhu , but from the sheer terror of very real American horrors , like police brutality , Jim Crow laws , and sunset towns .
Jordan Peele fans already know he loves this kind of allegorical horror , and there ’ s a lot of it going on in the trailer .
But fear not , horror fans — we also get plenty of monsters and badass monster-fighting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

HBO’s upcoming eight-episode horror series Lovecraft Country may not have been on your radar before now. Although it’s co-created by Jordan Peele and executive produced by Peele and J.J. Abrams, Lovecraft Country hasn’t really had a lot of mainstream attention.
But HBO just dropped the show’s debut trailer, which is full of eerie supernatural creatures, intriguing genre subversions, and lots of socially conscious horror — and it’s gotten our full attention.
Based on Matt Ruff’s fantastic 2016 horror novel, Lovecraft Country is set in the 1950s and follows a young black man named Atticus (Jonathan Majors) as he searches for his father (Michael K. Williams), who’s gone missing in the New England wilds that his family calls “Lovecraft country.” He and his pal Letitia (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) go on a road trip to search for him — but they quickly wind up confronting a host of eldritch abominations along the way.
That might sound like a straightforward plot, but it’s anything but. The trailer, with its looming references to racism, segregation, and police violence, gives us our first indication that many of the monsters in Lovecraft Country are actually human — a theme both Peele and Misha Green, the series’ co-creator and showrunner, like to play with.
The nomenclature here tells us even more about the complex literary legacies and sociocultural dynamics Lovecraft Country is dealing with: Atticus’s name saddles him with a complicated relationship to the flawed white savior of To Kill a Mockingbird, and to that book’s own fraught legacy as American culture’s premier fictional text on racism, as molded in a white worldview. The region of “Lovecraft country” is another callout to such a white worldview: It’s both a reference to H.P. Lovecraft, the writer, and a setting drawn from the fictional, rural New England that appears throughout Lovecraft’s many stories.
Lovecraft was the most influential horror fiction writer of the mid-20th century. He wrote Weird fiction, a horror subgenre which teems with implied terror, usually intimated by brushes with unknowable, unnameable monsters and glimpses of vast cosmic worlds beyond ours through which giant, appalling gods sometimes pass.
But Lovecraft’s writing itself also was monstrous — monstrously racist. Lovecraft was a blatant, loud white supremacist. And despite its wild popularity, the Lovecraftian universe was constructed on an allegorical terror of the mixing of the races. Miscegenation, or interracial marriage and blending, comes up again and again in his works as a shortcut to demonic horror, madness, or both.
So it’s no wonder that in 2015, the World Fantasy Awards for fiction finally took the overdue but highly controversial step of distancing itself from Lovecraft’s legacy by discontinuing its use of a Lovecraft bust as an award trophy. Ruff’s novel was published one year later, and it marked one of the first mainstream attempts to wrestle with Lovecraft’s legacy in novel form.
Lovecraft Country foregrounds a group of savvy genre-fiction fans who also happen to be black, and allows them to grapple with Lovecraft’s racism as an allegory for American racism itself. But it also doesn’t stint on scenes of actual racism; the novel’s bleakest horror comes not from Lovecraft’s most famous monster, Cthulhu, but from the sheer terror of very real American horrors, like police brutality, Jim Crow laws, and sunset towns.
Jordan Peele fans already know he loves this kind of allegorical horror, and there’s a lot of it going on in the trailer. But fear not, horror fans — we also get plenty of monsters and badass monster-fighting, too:
Also #LovecraftCountry ... what you doing? Lol whew this is going to be good. pic.twitter.com/qlev6OQfWV — Zalika U. Ibaorimi, MA (The Final Girl) (@ZalUIbaorimi) May 1, 2020
Lovecraft Country premieres in August on HBO.


vox--2020-05-01--Why some labs work on making viruses deadlier — and why they should stop

Earlier this week , Newsweek and the Washington Post reported that the Wuhan Institute of Virology , a lab near the site of the first coronavirus cases in the world , had been studying bat coronaviruses .
The Newsweek report revealed an alarming tidbit : The Wuhan lab at the center of the controversy had for years been engaged in gain-of-function research .
What exactly is it ?
It ’ s a line of research where scientists take viruses and study how they might be modified to become deadlier or more transmissible .
Why would they do this ?
Scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helps them figure out which viruses threaten people so they can design countermeasures .
To be clear , the coronavirus is definitely not a biologically engineered pathogen .
It was not released on purpose , and it is likely to have been the result of accidental transmission through human contact with wild animals , like almost all disease outbreaks in history have been .
But the emerging reports about the lab in Wuhan are making many people aware for the first time that gain-of-function research happens at all .
I wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news is this : The government gives grants to researchers to make potentially pandemic viruses deadlier and to make them transmissible more easily between people ?
Why are we doing that ?
The increased attention to gain-of-function research is a good thing .
This kind of highly controversial research — banned under the Obama administration after safety incidents demonstrated that lab containment is rarely airtight — began again under the Trump administration , and many scientists and public health researchers think that it ’ s a really bad idea .
Our brush with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force us to reconsider the warnings that those experts have been sounding for years .
The US stopped funding gain-of-function research .
Then it started again .
In 2019 , Science magazine broke the news that the US government resumed funding two controversial experiments to make the bird flu more transmissible .
The two experiments had been on hold since 2012 amid a fierce debate in the virology community about gain-of-function research .
In 2014 , the US government under the Obama administration declared a moratorium on such research .
That year was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In June 2014 , as many as 75 scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were exposed to anthrax .
A few weeks later , Food and Drug Administration officials ran across 16 forgotten vials of smallpox in storage .
Meanwhile , the “ largest , most severe , and most complex ” Ebola outbreak in history was raging across West Africa , and the first patient to be diagnosed in the US had just been announced .
It was in that context that scientists and biosecurity experts found themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The scientists who do this kind of research argue that we can better anticipate deadly diseases by making diseases deadlier in the lab .
But many people at the time and since have become increasingly convinced that the potential research benefits — which look limited — just don ’ t outweigh the risks of kicking off the next deadly pandemic ourselves .
While internally divided , the US government came down on the side of caution at the time .
It announced a moratorium on funding gain-of-function research — putting potentially dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discuss the risks that this research entailed .
But in 2017 , the government under the Trump administration released new guidelines for gain-of-function research , signaling an end to the blanket moratorium .
And the news from 2019 suggests that dangerous projects are proceeding .
Experts in biosecurity are concerned the field is heading toward a mistake that could kill innocent people .
They argue that , to move ahead with research like this , there should be a transparent process with global stakeholders at the table .
After all , if anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll face will certainly be a global one .
Should we really be doing this kind of research ?
Advocates of this kind of gain-of-function research ( not all gain-of-function research uses pandemic pathogens ) point to a few things they hope it will enable us to do .
In general , they argue that it will enhance surveillance and monitoring for new potential pandemics .
As part of our efforts to thwart pandemics before they start — or before they get severe — we take samples of the viruses currently circulating .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most dangerous strains out there are , the argument goes , then we ’ ll be able to monitor for them and prepare a response if it looks like such mutations are arising in the wild .
“ As coordination of international surveillance activities and global sharing of viruses improve , ” some advocates wrote in mBio , we ’ ll get better at learning which strains are out there .
Then , gain-of-function research will tell us which ones are close to becoming deadly .
“ GOF data have been used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ e.g.
, H5N1 in Cambodia ) , to develop criteria for the Influenza Risk Assessment Tool , and to make difficult and sometimes costly pandemic planning policy decisions , ” they argue .
“ The United States government weighed the risks and benefits … and developed new oversight mechanisms .
We know that it does carry risks .
We also believe it is important work to protect human health , ” Yoshihiro Kawaoka , an investigator whose gain-of-function research was approved , told Science magazine .
According to this logic , if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARS-nCov-2019 coronavirus — the virus that is now keeping us all indoors — was a particularly dangerous one , maybe we could have had disease surveillance systems out to alert us if it made the jump to humans .
Others are skeptical .
Thomas Inglesby , director of the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins , told me last year that he doesn ’ t think the benefits for vaccine development hold up in most cases .
“ I haven ’ t seen any of the vaccine companies say that they need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make vaccines , ” he pointed out .
“ I have not seen evidence that the information people are pursuing could be put into widespread use in the field.
” Furthermore , there are unimaginably many possible variants on a virus , of which researchers can identify only a few .
Even if we stumble across one way a virus could mutate to become deadly , we might miss thousands of others .
“ It ’ s an open question whether laboratory studies are going to come up with the same solution that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Esvelt told me last year .
“ How predictive are these studies really ?
” As of right now , that ’ s still an open question .
And even in the best case , the utility of this work would be sharply limited .
“ It ’ s important to keep in mind that many countries do not have mechanisms in place at all — much less a real-time way to identify and reduce or eliminate risks as experiments and new technologies are conceived , ” Beth Cameron , the Nuclear Threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biological policy and programs , told me .
With the stakes so high , many researchers are frustrated that the US government was not more transparent about which considerations prompted them to fund the research .
Is it really necessary to study how to make H5N1 , with its eye-popping mortality rate , more transmissible ?
Will precautions be in place to make it harder for the virus to escape the lab ?
What are the expected benefits from the research , and which hazards did the experts who approved the work consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are highly respected virologists , ” Inglesby said .
“ But laboratory systems are not infallible , and even in the greatest laboratories of the world , there are mistakes.
” What measures are in place to prevent that ?
Will potentially dangerous results be published to the whole world , where unscrupulous actors could follow the instructions ?
These are exactly the questions that the review process was supposed to answer but didn ’ t .
Sometimes pathogens escape from the lab .
Here ’ s how it happens .
The reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such heated opposition is because the stakes can be so high .
Pathogens have escaped labs before .
Take smallpox , once one of the deadliest diseases .
In 1977 , the last case of smallpox was diagnosed in the wild .
The victim was Ali Maow Maalin of Somalia .
The World Health Organization tracked down every person he ’ d been in face-to-face contact with to vaccinate everyone at risk and find anyone who might have caught the virus already .
Thankfully , they found no one had .
Maalin recovered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forever .
That moment came at the end of a decades-long campaign to eradicate smallpox — a deadly infectious disease that killed about 30 percent of those who contracted it — from the face of the Earth .
Around 500 million people died of smallpox in the century before it was annihilated .
But in 1978 , the disease cropped back up — in Birmingham , England .
Janet Parker was a photographer at Birmingham Medical School .
When she developed a horrifying rash , doctors initially brushed it off as chicken pox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been chased out of the world — right ?
Parker got worse and was admitted to the hospital , where testing determined she had smallpox after all .
She died of it a few weeks later .
How did she get a disease that was supposed to have been eradicated ?
It turned out that the building Parker worked in also contained a research laboratory , one of a handful where smallpox was studied by scientists who were trying to contribute to the eradication effort .
Some papers reported the lab was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of haste .
( The doctor who ran the lab died by suicide shortly after Parker was diagnosed . )
Somehow , smallpox escaped the lab to infect an employee elsewhere in the building .
Through sheer luck and a rapid response from health authorities , including a quarantine of more than 300 people , the deadly error didn ’ t turn into an outright pandemic .
In 2014 , as the Food and Drug Administration did cleanup for a planned move to a new office , hundreds of unclaimed vials of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ box in the corner of a cold storage room .
Six of them , it turned out , were vials of smallpox .
No one had been keeping track of them ; no one knew they were there .
They may have been there since the 1960s .
Panicked scientists put the materials in a box , sealed it with clear packaging tape , and carried it to a supervisor ’ s office .
( This is not approved handling of dangerous biological materials . )
It was later found that the integrity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not one containing a deadly virus .
The 1979 and 2014 incidents grabbed attention because they involved smallpox , but incidents of unintended exposure to controlled biological agents are actually quite common .
Hundreds of incidents occur every year , though not all involve potentially pandemic pathogens .
In 2014 , a researcher accidentally contaminated a vial of a fairly harmless bird flu with a far-deadlier strain .
The deadlier bird flu was then shipped across the country to a lab that didn ’ t have authorization to handle such a dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research on chickens .
The mistake was discovered only when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted an extensive investigation in the aftermath of a different mistake — the potential exposure of 75 federal employees to live anthrax , after a lab that was supposed to inactivate the anthrax samples accidentally prepared activated ones .
The CDC ’ s Select Agents and Toxins program requires “ theft , loss , release causing an occupational exposure , or release outside of primary biocontainment barriers ” of agents on its watchlist be immediately reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency got 1,059 release reports — an average of one incident every few days .
Here are a few examples : • In 2008 , a sterilization device malfunctioned and unexpectedly opened , exposing a nearby unvaccinated worker to undisclosed pathogens .
• In 2009 , a new high-security bioresearch facility — rated to handle Ebola , smallpox , and other dangerous pathogens — had its decontamination showers fail .
The pressurized chamber kept losing pressure and the door back into the lab kept bursting open while the scientists leaned against it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engineers were eventually called to handle the chemical showers manually .
• In 2011 , a worker at a lab that studied dangerous strains of bird flu found herself unable to shower after a construction contractor accidentally shut off the water .
She removed her protective equipment and left without taking a decontaminating shower .
( She was escorted to another building and showered there , but pathogens could have been released in the meantime . )
Now , the vast majority of these mistakes never infect anyone .
And while 1,059 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually reflects a fairly low rate of accidents — working in a controlled biological agents lab is safe compared to many occupations , like trucking or fishing .
But a trucking or fishing accident will , at worst , kill a few dozen people , while a pandemic pathogen accident could potentially kill a few million .
Considering the stakes and worst-case scenarios involved , it ’ s hard to look at those numbers and conclude that our precautions against disaster are sufficient .
Reviewing the incidents , it looks like there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s part of the containment process malfunctions ; regulations aren ’ t sufficient or aren ’ t followed .
Human error means live viruses are handled instead of dead ones .
Now imagine such an error involving viruses enhanced through gain-of-function research .
“ If an enhanced novel strain of flu escaped from a laboratory and then went on to cause a pandemic , then causing millions of deaths is a serious risk , ” Marc Lipsitch , a professor of epidemiology at Harvard University , told me last year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill the people exposed or a handful of others is vastly different from the cost-benefit analysis for pathogens that could cause a global pandemic — but our current procedures don ’ t really account for that .
As a result , allowing gain-of-function research means running unacceptable risks with millions of lives .
It ’ s high time to rethink that .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Editor’s note, June 7, 2021: Since this article was originally published in May 2020, scientific consensus has shifted. Now some experts say the “lab leak” theory warrants an investigation, along with the natural origin theory. The article has been updated to reflect this, but other information may be out of date. For our most up-to-date coverage of the coronavirus pandemic, visit Vox’s coronavirus hub.
Earlier this week, Newsweek and the Washington Post reported that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a lab near the site of the first coronavirus cases in the world, had been studying bat coronaviruses.
The Newsweek report revealed an alarming tidbit: The Wuhan lab at the center of the controversy had for years been engaged in gain-of-function research. What exactly is it? It’s a line of research where scientists take viruses and study how they might be modified to become deadlier or more transmissible. Why would they do this? Scientists who engage in such research say it helps them figure out which viruses threaten people so they can design countermeasures.
To be clear, there is no evidence that the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was released on purpose, and many experts believe it is likely to have been the result of accidental transmission through human contact with wild animals, like almost all disease outbreaks in history have been.
But the emerging reports about the lab in Wuhan are making many people aware for the first time that gain-of-function research happens at all. I wouldn’t blame you if your response to this news is this: The government gives grants to researchers to make potentially pandemic viruses deadlier and to make them transmissible more easily between people? Why are we doing that?
The increased attention to gain-of-function research is a good thing. This kind of highly controversial research — banned under the Obama administration after safety incidents demonstrated that lab containment is rarely airtight — began again under the Trump administration, and many scientists and public health researchers think it’s a really bad idea. Our brush with the horrors of a pandemic might force us to reconsider the warnings those experts have been sounding for years.
The US stopped funding gain-of-function research. Then it started again.
In 2019, Science magazine broke the news that the US government resumed funding two controversial experiments to make the bird flu more transmissible.
The two experiments had been on hold since 2012 amid a fierce debate in the virology community about gain-of-function research. In 2014, the US government, under the Obama administration, declared a moratorium on such research.
That year was a bad one on the biohazard front. In June 2014, as many as 75 scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were exposed to anthrax. A few weeks later, Food and Drug Administration officials ran across 16 forgotten vials of smallpox in storage. Meanwhile, the “largest, most severe, and most complex” Ebola outbreak in history was raging across West Africa, and the first patient to be diagnosed in the US had just been announced.
It was in that context that scientists and biosecurity experts found themselves embroiled in a debate about gain-of-function research. The scientists who do this kind of research argue that we can better anticipate deadly diseases by making diseases deadlier in the lab. But many people at the time and since have become increasingly convinced that the potential research benefits — which look limited — just don’t outweigh the risks of kicking off the next deadly pandemic ourselves.
While internally divided, the US government came down on the side of caution at the time. It announced a moratorium on funding gain-of-function research — putting potentially dangerous experiments on hold so the world could discuss the risks this research entailed.
But in 2017, the government under the Trump administration released new guidelines for gain-of-function research, signaling an end to the blanket moratorium. And the news from 2019 suggests that dangerous projects are proceeding.
Experts in biosecurity are concerned the field is heading toward a mistake that could kill innocent people. They argue that, to move ahead with research like this, there should be a transparent process with global stakeholders at the table. After all, if anything goes wrong, the mess we’ll face will certainly be a global one.
Should we really be doing this kind of research?
Advocates of this kind of gain-of-function research (not all gain-of-function research uses pathogens that can cause pandemics) point to a few things they hope it will enable us to do.
In general, they argue it will enhance surveillance and monitoring for new potential pandemics. As part of our efforts to thwart pandemics before they start — or before they get severe — we take samples of the viruses currently circulating. If we know what the deadliest and most dangerous strains out there are, the argument goes, then we’ll be able to monitor for them and prepare a response if it looks like such mutations are arising in the wild.
“As coordination of international surveillance activities and global sharing of viruses improve,” some advocates wrote in mBio, we’ll get better at learning which strains are out there. Then, gain-of-function research will tell us which ones are close to becoming deadly.
“GOF data have been used to launch outbreak investigations and allocate resources (e.g., H5N1 in Cambodia), to develop criteria for the Influenza Risk Assessment Tool, and to make difficult and sometimes costly pandemic planning policy decisions,” they argue.
“The United States government weighed the risks and benefits … and developed new oversight mechanisms. We know that it does carry risks. We also believe it is important work to protect human health,” Yoshihiro Kawaoka, an investigator whose gain-of-function research was approved, told Science magazine.
According to this logic, if we’d known for years that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus — the virus now keeping us all indoors — was a particularly dangerous one, maybe we could have had disease surveillance systems out to alert us if it made the jump to humans.
Others are skeptical. Thomas Inglesby, director of the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins, told me last year that he doesn’t think the benefits for vaccine development hold up in most cases. “I haven’t seen any of the vaccine companies say that they need to do this work in order to make vaccines,” he pointed out. “I have not seen evidence that the information people are pursuing could be put into widespread use in the field.”
Furthermore, there are unimaginably many possible variants on a virus, of which researchers can identify only a few. Even if we stumble across one way a virus could mutate to become deadly, we might miss thousands of others. “It’s an open question whether laboratory studies are going to come up with the same solution that nature would,” MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt told me last year. “How predictive are these studies really?” As of right now, that’s still an open question.
And even in the best case, the utility of this work would be sharply limited. “It’s important to keep in mind that many countries do not have mechanisms in place at all — much less a real-time way to identify and reduce or eliminate risks as experiments and new technologies are conceived,” Beth Cameron, the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s vice president for global biological policy and programs, told me.
With the stakes so high, many researchers are frustrated that the US government was not more transparent about which considerations prompted them to fund the research. Is it really necessary to study how to make H5N1, which causes a type of bird flu with an eye-popping mortality rate, more transmissible? Will precautions be in place to make it harder for the virus to escape the lab? What are the expected benefits from the research, and which hazards did the experts who approved the work consider?
“The people proposing the work are highly respected virologists,” Inglesby said. “But laboratory systems are not infallible, and even in the greatest laboratories of the world, there are mistakes.” What measures are in place to prevent that? Will potentially dangerous results be published to the whole world, where unscrupulous actors could follow the instructions?
These are exactly the questions the review process was supposed to answer, but didn’t.
Sometimes pathogens escape from the lab. Here’s how it happens.
The reason the subject of gain-of-function research can inspire such heated opposition is because the stakes can be so high. Pathogens have escaped labs before.
Take smallpox, once one of the deadliest diseases.
In 1977, the last case of smallpox was diagnosed in the wild. The victim was Ali Maow Maalin of Somalia. The World Health Organization tracked down every person he’d been in face-to-face contact with to vaccinate everyone at risk and find anyone who might have caught the virus already. Thankfully, they found no one had. Maalin recovered, and smallpox appeared to be over forever.
That moment came at the end of a decades-long campaign to eradicate smallpox — a deadly infectious disease that killed about 30 percent of those who contracted it — from the face of the Earth. Around 500 million people died of smallpox in the century before it was annihilated.
But in 1978, the disease cropped back up — in Birmingham, England. Janet Parker was a photographer at Birmingham Medical School. When she developed a horrifying rash, doctors initially brushed it off as chicken pox. After all, everyone knew smallpox had been chased out of the world — right?
Parker got worse and was admitted to the hospital, where testing determined she had smallpox after all. She died of it a few weeks later.
How did she get a disease that was supposed to have been eradicated?
It turned out that the building Parker worked in also contained a research laboratory, one of a handful where smallpox was studied by scientists who were trying to contribute to the eradication effort. Some papers reported the lab was badly mismanaged, with important precautions ignored because of haste. (The doctor who ran the lab died by suicide shortly after Parker was diagnosed.) Somehow, smallpox escaped the lab to infect an employee elsewhere in the building. Through sheer luck and a rapid response from health authorities, including a quarantine of more than 300 people, the deadly error didn’t turn into an outright pandemic.
In 2014, as the Food and Drug Administration did cleanup for a planned move to a new office, hundreds of unclaimed vials of virus samples were found in a cardboard box in the corner of a cold storage room. Six of them, it turned out, were vials of smallpox. No one had been keeping track of them; no one knew they were there. They may have been there since the 1960s.
Panicked scientists put the materials in a box, sealed it with clear packaging tape, and carried it to a supervisor’s office. (This is not approved handling of dangerous biological materials.) It was later found that the integrity of one vial was compromised — luckily, not one containing a deadly virus.
The 1979 and 2014 incidents grabbed attention because they involved smallpox, but incidents of unintended exposure to controlled biological agents are actually quite common. Hundreds of incidents occur every year, though not all involve potentially pandemic-causing pathogens.
In 2014, a researcher accidentally contaminated a vial of a fairly harmless bird flu with a far-deadlier strain. The deadlier bird flu was then shipped across the country to a lab that didn’t have authorization to handle such a dangerous virus, where it was used for research on chickens.
The mistake was discovered only when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted an extensive investigation in the aftermath of a different mistake — the potential exposure of 75 federal employees to live anthrax, after a lab that was supposed to inactivate the anthrax samples accidentally prepared activated ones.
The CDC’s Select Agents and Toxins program requires “theft, loss, release causing an occupational exposure, or release outside of primary biocontainment barriers” of agents on its watchlist be immediately reported. Between 2005 and 2012, the agency got 1,059 release reports — an average of one incident every few days. Here are a few examples:
In 2008, a sterilization device malfunctioned and unexpectedly opened, exposing a nearby unvaccinated worker to undisclosed pathogens.
In 2009, a new high-security bioresearch facility — rated to handle Ebola, smallpox, and other dangerous pathogens — had its decontamination showers fail. The pressurized chamber kept losing pressure and the door back into the lab kept bursting open while the scientists leaned against it to try to keep it closed. Building engineers were eventually called to handle the chemical showers manually.
In 2011, a worker at a lab that studied dangerous strains of bird flu found herself unable to shower after a construction contractor accidentally shut off the water. She removed her protective equipment and left without taking a decontaminating shower. (She was escorted to another building and showered there, but pathogens could have been released in the meantime.)
Now, the vast majority of these mistakes never infect anyone. And while 1,059 is an eye-popping number of accidents, it actually reflects a fairly low rate of accidents — working in a controlled biological agents lab is safe compared to many occupations, like trucking or fishing.
But a trucking or fishing accident will, at worst, kill a few dozen people, while a pandemic pathogen accident could potentially kill a few million. Considering the stakes and worst-case scenarios involved, it’s hard to look at those numbers and conclude that our precautions against disaster are sufficient.
Reviewing the incidents, it looks like there are many different points of failure — machinery that’s part of the containment process malfunctions; regulations aren’t sufficient or aren’t followed. Human error means live viruses are handled instead of dead ones.
Now imagine such an error involving viruses enhanced through gain-of-function research. “If an enhanced novel strain of flu escaped from a laboratory and then went on to cause a pandemic, then causing millions of deaths is a serious risk,” Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, told me last year.
The cost-benefit analysis for pathogens that might kill the people exposed or a handful of others is vastly different from the cost-benefit analysis for pathogens that could cause a pandemic — but our current procedures don’t really account for that. As a result, allowing gain-of-function research means running unacceptable risks with millions of lives. It’s high time to rethink that.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-05-01--Kamala Harris’s new bill would set up a task force to address racial disparities in coronavirus resp

Kamala Harris’s new bill would set up a task force to address racial disparities in coronavirus response

A new bill from Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) , the Covid-19 Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force Act , would set up a task force to address the racial disparities that have emerged in coronavirus cases and deaths .
In recent months , data tracking the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted an alarming pattern when it comes to who ’ s affected : According to state-level numbers , people of color are disproportionately dying from the virus .
This pattern , the result of inequities in health care access and systemic discrimination within the health care system , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been released by various places across the country .
In Louisiana , black people make up 57 percent of confirmed coronavirus deaths , and 33 percent of the state ’ s overall population .
In Michigan , black people make up 40 percent of coronavirus fatalities , and 13.6 percent of the state ’ s overall population .
There ’ s been a serious lag in the disclosure of such breakdowns across the board .
According to a tracker by Johns Hopkins University , 41 states are currently releasing data on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve detected .
In April , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released preliminary federal data , though the agency noted that it was incomplete .
Harris ’ s bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a team of health care policy experts , regional leaders , and federal officials that would use demographic data around who ’ s affected by the coronavirus pandemic to develop funding and policy prescriptions for FEMA and other agencies .
The bill wouldn ’ t just stop at data collection , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to better inform the response to the pandemic .
“ The COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force Act is a necessary step to fully understand the impact of this virus in the hardest hit communities , and make targeted investments that correspond with their unique needs , ” Harris said in a statement .
The bill faces a tough road to becoming law ; Senate Republicans have been hostile to most Democratic ideas on tackling the coronavirus crisis aside from rescue for small businesses , and Harris ’ s bill is unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the aisle .
However , some other prominent Democrats , including Sens .
Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) , Michael Bennet ( D-CO ) , and Sherrod Brown ( D-OH ) , are cosponsoring the legislation .
What Harris ’ s bill would do Harris ’ s bill would bring together representatives from different groups that are involved with combating the pandemic : It sets up a task force that ’ s focused on identifying places where there are racial and ethnic disparities in the number of people being tested , diagnosed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then use this information to provide weekly recommendations to FEMA for disaster aid and the allocation of supplies such as personal protective equipment , testing kits , and ventilators .
“ We need to convene health care and policy experts with local leaders in order to allocate the necessary resources to meet everyone ’ s needs — especially in communities that have historically suffered from unfair and insufficient response from the government during times of crisis , ” says Marc Morial , president of the National Urban League , in a statement about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been established in multiple cities including New York City and Boston , in an effort to combat the disproportionate impacts coronavirus has had on residents of color .
The most recent stimulus bill that Congress passed , the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act , requires the HHS Secretary to provide Congress with a report on the demographics of people who have been tested and diagnosed with coronavirus , within 21 days of the legislation ’ s enactment .
A bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren , the Equitable Data and Disclosure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post daily data updates on coronavirus cases , broken out by race , ethnicity , and other demographic traits .
Harris ’ s legislation adds to these efforts in an attempt to set up a team that would direct agency funds to combat such inequities , once more comprehensive data sets are available .
The bill would also establish a permanent Infectious Disease Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force when the pandemic ends , in order to continue monitoring inequities within the health care system .
Every day at Vox , we aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

A new bill from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), the Covid-19 Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force Act, would set up a task force to address the racial disparities that have emerged in coronavirus cases and deaths.
In recent months, data tracking the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted an alarming pattern when it comes to who’s affected: According to state-level numbers, people of color are disproportionately dying from the virus.
This pattern, the result of inequities in health care access and systemic discrimination within the health care system, has been evident in early demographic data that’s been released by various places across the country. In Louisiana, black people make up 57 percent of confirmed coronavirus deaths, and 33 percent of the state’s overall population. In Michigan, black people make up 40 percent of coronavirus fatalities, and 13.6 percent of the state’s overall population.
There’s been a serious lag in the disclosure of such breakdowns across the board. According to a tracker by Johns Hopkins University, 41 states are currently releasing data on race and the number of cases they’ve detected. In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released preliminary federal data, though the agency noted that it was incomplete.
Harris’s bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a team of health care policy experts, regional leaders, and federal officials that would use demographic data about who’s affected by the coronavirus pandemic to develop funding and policy prescriptions for FEMA and other agencies. The bill wouldn’t just stop at data collection; the idea is to use the information to better inform the response to the pandemic.
“The COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force Act is a necessary step to fully understand the impact of this virus in the hardest hit communities, and make targeted investments that correspond with their unique needs,” Harris said in a statement.
The bill faces a tough road to becoming law; Senate Republicans have been hostile to most Democratic ideas on tackling the coronavirus crisis aside from rescue for small businesses, and Harris’s bill is unlikely to attract the necessary support from across the aisle. However, some other prominent Democrats, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH), are cosponsoring the legislation.
What Harris’s bill would do
Harris’s bill would bring together representatives from different groups that are involved with combating the pandemic, and set up a task force focused on identifying places where there are racial and ethnic disparities in the number of people being tested, diagnosed, and hospitalized for coronavirus. The group would then use this information to provide weekly recommendations to FEMA for disaster aid and the allocation of supplies such as personal protective equipment, testing kits, and ventilators.
“We need to convene health care and policy experts with local leaders in order to allocate the necessary resources to meet everyone’s needs — especially in communities that have historically suffered from unfair and insufficient response from the government during times of crisis,” says Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, in a statement about the bill. Task forces have already been established in multiple places including New York City and Boston, in an effort to combat the disproportionate impacts coronavirus has had on residents of color.
The most recent stimulus bill that Congress passed, the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, requires the HHS Secretary to provide Congress with a report on the demographics of people who have been tested and diagnosed with coronavirus, within 21 days of the legislation’s enactment. A bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Equitable Data and Disclosure Act, would also require HHS to post daily data updates on coronavirus cases, broken out by race, ethnicity, and other demographic traits.
Harris’s legislation adds to these efforts in an attempt to set up a team that would direct agency funds to combat such inequities, once more comprehensive data sets are available. The bill would also establish a permanent Infectious Disease Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force when the pandemic ends, in order to continue monitoring inequities within the health care system.


vox--2020-05-01--Pressure mounts on Trump to “drop the hammer” on China

As President Donald Trump weighs ideas for punishing China over its handling of the coronavirus outbreak , some inside and outside the White House want him to respond forcefully .
“ In my personal opinion , we should drop the fucking hammer on them .
Stop being such pussies , ” a senior White House official told me , speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren ’ t authorized to disclose internal deliberations .
Top Trump allies , including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Republican senators , are pushing Trump to castigate China .
Sen. Lindsey Graham , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should “ make China pay big time.
” The Washington Post reported Thursday that US officials from multiple agencies were planning to gather that day to discuss crafting some sort of retaliation against China .
“ President Trump has fumed to aides and others in recent days about China , blaming the country for withholding information about the virus , ” the Post reported .
The Chinese government delayed releasing information about the outbreak of Covid-19 in the city of Wuhan , costing world governments precious time to prepare .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own foreign policy goals .
And on Friday , Sky News reported that the Chinese government is refusing to allow investigators with the World Health Organization to participate in China ’ s inquiries into the virus ’ s origin .
These actions — as well as Trump ’ s likely desire to deflect some of the blame from his own administration ’ s poor response to the coronavirus crisis in the US — are why the Trump administration is looking to formally rebuke China in some way .
The ideas reportedly under consideration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity ” status under US law — which would allow the US government or private citizens to sue the country — and cancelling some or all of the interest payments on the more than $ 1 trillion in debt the US owes to China ( the senior White House official I spoke to said they favor the latter option ) .
“ Punishing China is definitely where the president ’ s head is at right now , ” one senior adviser told the Washington Post on Thursday .
Yet Trump , in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cautious about using these measures .
“ You start playing those games and that ’ s tough , ” Trump said at a press conference on Thursday when asked about the idea of canceling interest payments to China , adding that doing so could undermine the “ sanctity of the [ US ] dollar.
” This echoes comments made the same day by Trump ’ s top economic adviser Larry Kudlow , who called reports the administration was considering canceling debt payments “ absolutely and unequivocally untrue , ” adding that “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obligations is sacrosanct.
” This is why the senior White House official I spoke to said they ’ re “ very doubtful senior advisers will allow ” the debt-payment idea to go forward , acknowledging that Congress would likely try to block such a move anyway .
But some Trump advisers and allies are still pushing the president to retaliate against China in some way .
At the same Thursday press conference , Trump suggested another idea : imposing billions of dollars in additional tariffs on China .
To punish China , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Trump said Thursday .
Yet there ’ s ( at least ) one big , glaring problem with this idea : Though Trump has long believed that China pays these tariffs and the money goes to the US Treasury , that is not at all how tariffs actually work .
Tariffs raise the price of buying Chinese goods for American consumers .
The idea is that by making Chinese products more expensive , American consumers will stop buying them from China and buy them more cheaply from somewhere else instead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the long run , in the short run , it ’ s American consumers who are stuck paying these tariffs , not China .
With US unemployment claims having reached a staggering 30 million and the country facing an economic downturn unseen since the Great Depression , making things more expensive for American consumers would be less a punishment on China and more a self-own .
On top of that , the US has already placed tariffs on nearly every major Chinese product , so it ’ s not even clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be all that meaningful .
Still , it seems some kind of retaliation is coming .
Asked Friday about the administration ’ s China considerations , White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said she wouldn ’ t get ahead of the president on any announcements , but she reiterated Trump ’ s “ displeasure with China , ” adding , “ It ’ s no secret that China mishandled this situation.
” “ The China approach is all over the place ” Some sort of grander planning has already begun .
Multiple sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pompeo has almost every office doing some sort of work involving China .
Whether in Asia , the Middle East , Latin America , or elsewhere , Pompeo has staff looking at ways to counter China ’ s aims , such as having US allies end certain business contracts with Beijing .
However , some in the State Department believe there ’ s no real strategy to the top-down directive .
The entire idea is “ shortsighted , ” said one staffer tasked with finding ways to push back on China , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not authorized to talk to the press .
“ The China approach is all over the place.
” Another State Department staffer pushed back against the notion that the department is in search of a more-robust-than-normal stance against China .
“ It is our standard policy to counter Chinese influence , ” they told me .
What ’ s clear , though , is that the administration is thinking of ways to up the ante against China .
When , and what , Trump decides to do is what everyone ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As President Donald Trump weighs ideas for punishing China over its handling of the coronavirus outbreak, some inside and outside the White House want him to respond forcefully.
“In my personal opinion, we should drop the fucking hammer on them. Stop being such pussies,” a senior White House official told me, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose internal deliberations.
Top Trump allies, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Republican senators, are pushing Trump to castigate China. Sen. Lindsey Graham, for example, has said the US should “make China pay big time.”
The Washington Post reported Thursday that US officials from multiple agencies were planning to gather that day to discuss crafting some sort of retaliation against China.
“President Trump has fumed to aides and others in recent days about China, blaming the country for withholding information about the virus,” the Post reported.
The Chinese government delayed releasing information about the outbreak of Covid-19 in the city of Wuhan, costing world governments precious time to prepare. It’s ruthlessly exploiting the pandemic to further its own foreign policy goals. And on Friday, Sky News reported that the Chinese government is refusing to allow investigators with the World Health Organization to participate in China’s inquiries into the virus’s origin.
These actions — as well as Trump’s likely desire to deflect some of the blame from his own administration’s poor response to the coronavirus crisis in the US — are why the Trump administration is looking to formally rebuke China in some way.
Here’s what’s in the works.
From stripping sovereign immunity to canceling debt
The ideas reportedly under consideration include stripping China of its “sovereign immunity” status under US law — which would allow the US government or private citizens to sue the country — and cancelling some or all of the interest payments on the more than $1 trillion in debt the US owes to China (the senior White House official I spoke to said they favor the latter option).
“Punishing China is definitely where the president’s head is at right now,” one senior adviser told the Washington Post on Thursday.
Yet Trump, in public at least, has sounded far more cautious about using these measures. “You start playing those games and that’s tough,” Trump said at a press conference on Thursday when asked about the idea of canceling interest payments to China, adding that doing so could undermine the “sanctity of the [US] dollar.”
This echoes comments made the same day by Trump’s top economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who called reports the administration was considering canceling debt payments “absolutely and unequivocally untrue,” adding that “the full faith and credit of US debt obligations is sacrosanct.”
This is why the senior White House official I spoke to said they’re “very doubtful senior advisers will allow” the debt-payment idea to go forward, acknowledging that Congress would likely try to block such a move anyway.
But some Trump advisers and allies are still pushing the president to retaliate against China in some way.
At the same Thursday press conference, Trump suggested another idea: imposing billions of dollars in additional tariffs on China.
Why tariffs wouldn’t punish China
To punish China, the US “can do it with tariffs,” Trump said Thursday.
Yet there’s (at least) one big, glaring problem with this idea: Though Trump has long believed that China pays these tariffs and the money goes to the US Treasury, that is not at all how tariffs actually work.
Tariffs raise the price of buying Chinese goods for American consumers. The idea is that by making Chinese products more expensive, American consumers will stop buying them from China and buy them more cheaply from somewhere else instead. While that would ultimately harm Chinese producers in the long run, in the short run, it’s American consumers who are stuck paying these tariffs, not China.
With US unemployment claims having reached a staggering 30 million and the country facing an economic downturn unseen since the Great Depression, making things more expensive for American consumers would be less a punishment on China and more a self-own.
On top of that, the US has already placed tariffs on nearly every major Chinese product, so it’s not even clear that the eventual impact on Chinese manufacturers would be all that meaningful.
Still, it seems some kind of retaliation is coming. Asked Friday about the administration’s China considerations, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said she wouldn’t get ahead of the president on any announcements, but she reiterated Trump’s “displeasure with China,” adding, “It’s no secret that China mishandled this situation.”
“The China approach is all over the place”
Some sort of grander planning has already begun.
Multiple sources at the State Department told me that Pompeo has almost every office doing some sort of work involving China. Whether in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, or elsewhere, Pompeo has staff looking at ways to counter China’s aims, such as having US allies end certain business contracts with Beijing.
However, some in the State Department believe there’s no real strategy to the top-down directive. The entire idea is “shortsighted,” said one staffer tasked with finding ways to push back on China, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press. “The China approach is all over the place.”
Another State Department staffer pushed back against the notion that the department is in search of a more-robust-than-normal stance against China. “It is our standard policy to counter Chinese influence,” they told me.
What’s clear, though, is that the administration is thinking of ways to up the ante against China. When, and what, Trump decides to do is what everyone’s waiting on.