vox--2020-03-07--How does the coronavirus outbreak end?

How does the coronavirus outbreak end?

In late January , I posed a simple question to several experts in public health and epidemiology : How does the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak end ?
Back then , the virus was still mainly just spreading in China , and the scientists we spoke with outlined a hopeful scenario : containment .
The idea is that through identifying and isolating the sick , the virus could be kept from spreading in communities around the globe .
It seemed reasonable : Containment was how the 2003 SARS outbreak — also caused by a member of the coronavirus family — ended .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that scenario seems impossible .
“ Two or three weeks ago , we were still hoping for containment , ” says Tara Smith , an epidemiologist at Kent State University .
“ We ’ re really past that .
...
The horse is out of the barn.
” One reason has to do with what we ’ ve learned about the virus itself : There ’ s now evidence that people who do not show severe symptoms can spread it silently .
Another reason is the slow rollout of diagnostic tests in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Iran : We don ’ t have a precise case count or know where the virus might be spreading .
Currently , the World Health Organization reports there are more than 100,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 across the globe , and more than 3,400 deaths .
There could be many more undetected and unconfirmed both here and abroad .
Given this new , uncertain phase , I decided to go back to some of the same virologists , immunologists , and epidemiologists ( and a few new ones ) with my question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The most uncomfortable answer they gave is the possibility that Covid-19 keeps spreading at a high rate and becomes endemic — regularly infecting humans , like the common cold .
“ Without an effective vaccine , I don ’ t know how this ends before millions of infections , ” Nathan Grubaugh , an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health , says .
To be sure , much is uncertain about the virus and how it will spread .
There ’ s still no single , accurate death rate for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ susceptibility of children .
So much can still change .
But we asked these experts to weigh in with the best available evidence in mind .
Just because the virus isn ’ t being contained doesn ’ t mean we ’ re powerless to prevent serious illness and deaths among the most vulnerable .
There ’ s still a lot communities can do to slow the spread , save lives , and buy crucial time for either a cure or a vaccine to be developed .
There are many forking paths on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can still be saved , and the worst-case scenario can still be avoided .
Why scientists think the containment scenario is now unlikely Earlier this week , World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said he believes containment is still possible and should be a top priority for all countries .
What the epidemiologists and virologists told me is that containment , in the US at least , so far isn ’ t working .
And the longer containment efforts fail , the harder they become to implement .
The biggest failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports as of March 6 that it has counted 164 cases of Covid-19 in the US , with 110 of those cases under investigation .
( The New York Times is reporting 308 cases , including those who were infected overseas , as of March 7 . )
Epidemiologists fear the actual case count is a lot higher .
The CDC has been slow to get Covid-19 diagnostic testing out to labs ( due in part to a production error ) .
And initially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who had known travel to affected countries .
This all means “ we don ’ t know what the prevalence actually is ” in the US , Angela Rasmussen , a Columbia virologist , says .
Two weeks ago , she says , “ I probably would have said that there ’ s a possibility that this will become endemic.
” Now , “ I think given our government ’ s public health response , I ’ m much more alarmed that this probably will become endemic.
” And still , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to produce tests .
As cases of Covid-19 in China were increasing dramatically in January and February , a lot of the US response was focused on travel restrictions and travel-focused testing .
In retrospect , there should have been more planning for a pandemic .
“ Once it was established this virus was spreading efficiently between people ... we immediately should ’ ve realized that this was not going to be containable , ” Amesh Adalja , a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , writes in an email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the world should [ have begun ] pandemic preparation .
This would include scaling up diagnostic testing , preparing hospitals , and crafting public health messages.
” Meanwhile , the virus spreads .
Genetic detective work from Washington state suggests the virus has been circulating there for at least six weeks .
Statistical modeling suggests there could be 500 to 600 cases of Covid-19 in the Seattle area , STAT reports .
The biology of the virus also makes it hard to contain , since it ’ s possible to spread the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I don ’ t think we quite know the extent of how often that happens , but it is happening , ” Grubaugh says .
With SARS in 2003 , infected people did not spread the virus without symptoms .
They also tended to get sicker , often contracting pneumonia .
That made cases easier to detect and isolate .
All of the above is a recipe for an outbreak to become endemic , or a disease that sticks around .
Humans haven ’ t seen this virus before , which means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also a recipe for millions of potential infections in a pandemic — a worldwide outbreak of a new disease .
What might happen : A huge portion of the world could become infected You might have seen an alarming headline in the Atlantic recently : You ’ re likely to get the coronavirus .
The assertion was based off an estimate from Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch , who predicted some 40 to 70 percent of all adults around the world would catch the virus within a year .
Lipsitch has since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater range : He now estimates it ’ s “ plausible ” that 20 to 60 percent of adults will catch the disease .
( If this comes to pass , while being bad , it ’ s not apocalyptic : Most cases of Covid-19 .
are mild .
But it does mean millions could die . )
In an email , Lipsitch says his model “ assumes that the transmission in the rest of the world is at least fairly similar to that in China.
” But “ projections should be made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as there ’ s a lot still to uncover that will impact the forecast ( like the role children play in spreading the disease ) .
The bottom line of his modeling , though , is that a sizable portion of the human population is at risk of catching this virus .
It might not come to pass — especially if a vaccine or other treatment is developed .
But it is possible .
If the virus can not be contained , Lipsitch says , the only way for this to get under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to become immune to it .
That could happen if the outbreak truly grows into a pandemic .
If enough people get Covid-19 , and develop an immune response , “ essentially it creates its own herd immunity , ” Grubaugh says .
“ But that ’ s after causing , you know , millions of worldwide infections.
” Obviously , that ’ s far from an ideal situation .
( It ’ s also possible , hypothetically , that the virus becomes less deadly over time , through evolution : The most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves when they kill their hosts . )
There is still a ways to go from the current outbreak to the numbers projected above .
Some of the paths are worse than others .
The risk is high , and we may not be able to contain the virus .
But we do have tools to slow it down .
The worst-case scenario for the outbreak in the United States is if there are sudden spikes in infections among many communities across the country .
A spike could overwhelm our health care system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most dangerous things about this , ” Ron Klain , who led the response to the 2014 Ebola epidemic under the Obama administration , said in February .
“ What if all of a sudden 10,000 sick people needed hospitalization in a major city ?
There ’ s no 10,000 extra beds sitting around someplace.
” Hospitals are already worried about equipment shortages .
And as sick people rush into the hospital system , they could infect health care workers — as well as other vulnerable patients , particularly the elderly — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straits .
“ We saw in Wuhan 1,000 health care providers get sick and we had at least 15 percent severely ill and in ICUs , ” Peter Hotez , a vaccine expert with the Baylor College of Medicine , testified before a House committee Thursday .
“ And that is very dangerous , because not only do you subtract those people out of the health care workforce , but the demoralizing effect of colleagues taking care of colleagues ... the whole thing can fall apart if that starts to happen.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen over 10 or 12 months instead of over one month , that ’ s going to make a big difference as far as how many people seriously infected , how many people may end up hospitalized , and how many they end up dying , ” Smith says .
“ We talk about it as ‘ flattening the epidemic curve ’ — so that it ’ s not a big , sudden peak in cases , but it ’ s a more moderate plateau over time.
” And that ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The better scenario : Public health measures slow the spread and buy scientists time to work on treatments New cases in China are now declining thanks to the government ’ s dramatic measures to contain the virus — mainly case finding , contact tracing , and suspension of public gatherings — as WHO epidemiologist Bruce Aylward , who led a recent mission there , told my colleague Julia Belluz .
In the US , there ’ s still time to put those efforts in place to flatten that curve .
In Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community groups to cancel events that bring together more than 10 people , and are recommending that people telework if they can .
Pregnant people , people older than 60 , and those who have underlying health conditions are being asked to stay home .
More states and communities may have to impose such measures in the coming weeks .
So be prepared for them .
“ We also need to stop panicking and stigmatizing people of different ethnicities— this will only make people more hesitant to speak out and seek care , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital and Harvard Medical School .
“ Disease should show us that we are all connected and need to help each other , not divide us.
” Individuals can help slow the spread of the virus through measures like staying home when you feel just a little bit sick ( even when it is inconvenient ) , washing hands often , and following public health official recommendations when it comes to avoiding large crowds of people .
That ’ s the optimistic take : We will slow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities and the most vulnerable in the process .
The pessimistic view : Because of the lag in testing , the outbreak might be further along — and therefore harder to contain — than authorities currently realize .
“ There certainly is a window to [ impose social distancing measures ] , but whether or not we ’ re still in that window , we have no idea because we have no idea what ’ s happening without the testing , ” Grubaugh warns .
The lucky scenario : Covid-19 naturally stops spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could potentially slow the spread of coronavirus is the changing of the seasons .
For a variety of reasons , some viruses — but not all — become less transmissible as temperatures and humidity rise in the summer months .
The viruses themselves may not live as long on surfaces in these conditions .
Also , human behavior changes , and we spend less time in confined spaces .
“ A lot of how the outbreak ends or at least how things progress in the next few months really depends on if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s still a big unknown .
“ Just because some respiratory diseases , like flu , demonstrate seasonality doesn ’ t mean that Covid-19 will , ” Maimuna Majumder , a Harvard epidemiologist , says .
She and colleagues recently published an early version of a paper ( which has not been peer-reviewed ) that found that changes in weather across China did not seem to impact the course of the outbreak .
The study suggests that humidity — which appears to be correlated with the seasonality of the flu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 , she says .
( She also stresses to treat the data as “ provisional , ” and that her group is still studying the potential effect of temperature on transmissibility . )
But if it is seasonal , it doesn ’ t mean Covid-19 goes away after the summer .
“ It likely isn ’ t just going to magically go away , ” Grubaugh says .
“ Next winter might end up being the big winter.
” And if it is seasonal , it ’ s still dangerous .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except potentially with a higher case fatality rate , ” Rasmussen says .
“ Which is definitely a problem because the seasonal flu kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans every year .
And even if it ’ s the same case fatality rate of seasonal flu , that still presents a substantial public health burden.
” How this outbreak could truly end : With a vaccine To end this outbreak , for good , we ’ ll need antiviral treatments or a vaccine .
Those are currently being produced , and at record speeds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technologies — like mRNA vaccines that don ’ t use viruses at all in their production process — as well as cutting-edge therapeutic antibodies .
That said , it still could be a year or more before the safety and efficacy of these pharmaceuticals are proven .
In medicine , effectiveness is not guaranteed .
But even if it takes a year or more to produce , those treatments could still prove useful .
“ We don ’ t know what ’ s going to happen with this virus , ” says Barney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vaccine Research Center at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) .
“ So our job is to try to develop interventions that could be used if it gets worse .
... We need ways of protecting ourselves.
” Remember : Outbreaks harm more than the sick It ’ s also important to remember that outbreaks don ’ t just affect those who get sick with the illness and die — there can also be collateral damage .
Outbreaks economically impact the people who have to take off from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not afford medical care , and the groups that are unfairly targeted and stereotyped as being disease carriers .
As the outbreak progresses , it will expose the cracks in our society and our preparedness for future outbreaks .
We need to remember the lessons we learn over the next several months .
“ I think that it ’ s going to end probably the way the 2009 H1N1 [ flu ] pandemic ended , which is that shortly after it ’ s over , people will lose memory of it and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ But it ’ s going to have tremendous — really negative and lasting effects — for the most vulnerable people who are either medically or economically vulnerable in our society.
” What do you want to know about the coronavirus outbreak and the surrounding news ?
Fill out the survey below to share .
( You can also access the Google form here . )

Editor’s note, April 2: There have been significant developments in the coronavirus pandemic since this story was last updated, and some details may no longer apply. For our most up-to-date coverage, visit our coronavirus hub.
In late January, I posed a simple question to several experts in public health and epidemiology: How does the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak end? Back then, the virus was still mainly just spreading in China, and the scientists I spoke with outlined a hopeful scenario: containment.
The idea is that through identifying and isolating the sick, the virus could be kept from spreading in communities around the globe. It seemed reasonable: Containment was how the 2003 SARS outbreak — also caused by a member of the coronavirus family — ended.
Now, many experts tell Vox, that scenario seems impossible. “Two or three weeks ago, we were still hoping for containment,” says Tara Smith, an epidemiologist at Kent State University. “We’re really past that. ... The horse is out of the barn.”
One reason has to do with what we’ve learned about the virus itself: There’s now evidence that people who do not show severe symptoms can spread it silently. Another reason is the slow rollout of diagnostic tests in the United States and other countries like Italy and Iran: We don’t have a precise case count or know where the virus might be spreading.
Currently, the World Health Organization reports there are more than 120,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 across the globe, and more than 4,700 deaths. There could be many more undetected and unconfirmed both here and abroad.
Given this new, uncertain phase, I decided to go back to some of the same virologists, immunologists, and epidemiologists (and a few new ones) with my question: How does this outbreak end?
The most uncomfortable answer they gave is the possibility that Covid-19 keeps spreading at a high rate and becomes endemic — regularly infecting humans, like the common cold.
“Without an effective vaccine, I don’t know how this ends before millions of infections,” Nathan Grubaugh, an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health, says.
To be sure, much is uncertain about the virus and how it will spread. There’s still no single, accurate death rate for the illness. Little is known about the susceptibility of children. So much can still change. But I asked these experts to weigh in with the best available evidence in mind.
Just because the virus isn’t being contained doesn’t mean we’re powerless to prevent serious illness and deaths among the most vulnerable. There’s still a lot communities can do to slow the spread, save lives, and buy crucial time for either a cure or a vaccine to be developed. There are many forking paths on the way from outbreak to endemic. Lives can still be saved, and the worst-case scenario can still be avoided.
Why scientists think the containment scenario is now unlikely
What the epidemiologists and virologists told me is that containment, in the US at least, so far isn’t working. And the longer containment efforts fail, the harder they become to implement.
The biggest failure is the slow rollout of diagnostic testing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports as of March 11 that it has counted 938 cases of Covid-19 in the US. (Johns Hopkins researchers are reporting more than 1,300, including those who were infected overseas, as of March 12.)
Epidemiologists fear the actual case count is a lot higher. The CDC has been slow to get Covid-19 diagnostic testing out to labs (due in part to a production error). And initially, testing was restricted to small numbers of people who had known travel to affected countries.
This all means “we don’t know what the prevalence actually is” in the US, Angela Rasmussen, a Columbia virologist, says. Two weeks ago, she says, “I probably would have said that there’s a possibility that this will become endemic.” Now, “I think given our government’s public health response, I’m much more alarmed that this probably will become endemic.” And still, this week, the federal government is struggling to produce tests.
As cases of Covid-19 in China were increasing dramatically in January and February, a lot of the US response was focused on travel restrictions and travel-focused testing. In retrospect, there should have been more planning for a pandemic.
“Once it was established this virus was spreading efficiently between people... we immediately should’ve realized that this was not going to be containable,” Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, writes in an email. “At that point every country in the world should [have begun] pandemic preparation. This would include scaling up diagnostic testing, preparing hospitals, and crafting public health messages.”
Meanwhile, the virus spreads. Genetic detective work from Washington state suggests the virus has been circulating there for at least six weeks.
The biology of the virus also makes it hard to contain, since it’s possible to spread the virus before showing symptoms of it. “I don’t think we quite know the extent of how often that happens, but it is happening,” Grubaugh says. With SARS in 2003, infected people did not spread the virus without symptoms. They also tended to get sicker, often contracting pneumonia. That made cases easier to detect and isolate.
All of the above is a recipe for an outbreak to become endemic, or a disease that sticks around. Humans haven’t seen this virus before, which means we’re not immune. It’s also a recipe for millions of potential infections in a pandemic — a worldwide outbreak of a new disease.
What might happen: A huge portion of the world could become infected
You might have seen an alarming headline in the Atlantic recently: You’re likely to get the coronavirus.
The assertion was based off an estimate from Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch, who predicted some 40 to 70 percent of all adults around the world would catch the virus within a year. Lipsitch has since revised that estimate downward and with a greater range: He now estimates it’s “plausible” that 20 to 60 percent of adults will catch the disease. (If this comes to pass, while being bad, it’s not apocalyptic: Most cases of Covid-19. are mild. But it does mean millions could die.)
In an email, Lipsitch says his model “assumes that the transmission in the rest of the world is at least fairly similar to that in China.” But “projections should be made with humility,” he adds, as there’s a lot still to uncover that will impact the forecast (like the role children play in spreading the disease).
The bottom line of his modeling, though, is that a sizable portion of the human population is at risk of catching this virus. It might not come to pass — especially if a vaccine or other treatment is developed. But it is possible.
If the virus cannot be contained, Lipsitch says, the only way for this to get under control is for 50 percent of people to become immune to it.
If enough people get Covid-19, and develop an immune response, “essentially it creates its own herd immunity,” Grubaugh says. “But that’s after causing, you know, millions of worldwide infections.”
Obviously, that’s far from an ideal situation. (It’s also possible, hypothetically, that the virus becomes less deadly over time, through evolution: The most lethal versions of the virus essentially kill themselves when they kill their hosts.)
There is still a ways to go from the current outbreak to the numbers projected above. Some of the paths are worse than others. The risk is high, and we may not be able to contain the virus. But we do have tools to slow it down.
The nightmare scenario: A sudden huge spike in cases
The worst-case scenario for the outbreak in the United States is if there are sudden spikes in infections among many communities across the country. A spike could overwhelm our health care system.
“That’s one of the most dangerous things about this,” Ron Klain, who led the response to the 2014 Ebola epidemic under the Obama administration, said in February. “What if all of a sudden 10,000 sick people needed hospitalization in a major city? There’s no 10,000 extra beds sitting around someplace.”
Hospitals are already worried about equipment shortages. And as sick people rush into the hospital system, they could infect health care workers — as well as other vulnerable patients, particularly the elderly — leaving the system in even more dire straits.
“We saw in Wuhan 1,000 health care providers get sick and we had at least 15 percent severely ill and in ICUs,” Peter Hotez, a vaccine expert with the Baylor College of Medicine, testified before a House committee Thursday. “And that is very dangerous, because not only do you subtract those people out of the health care workforce, but the demoralizing effect of colleagues taking care of colleagues ... the whole thing can fall apart if that starts to happen.”
But this nightmare scenario isn’t inevitable.
“If we slow it so that infections happen over 10 or 12 months instead of over one month, that’s going to make a big difference as far as how many people seriously infected, how many people may end up hospitalized, and how many they end up dying,” Smith says. “We talk about it as ‘flattening the epidemic curve’ — so that it’s not a big, sudden peak in cases, but it’s a more moderate plateau over time.”
And that’s the current goal: to flatten the curve.
The better scenario: Public health measures slow the spread and buy scientists time to work on treatments
New cases in China are now declining thanks to the government’s dramatic measures to contain the virus — mainly case finding, contact tracing, and suspension of public gatherings — as WHO epidemiologist Bruce Aylward, who led a recent mission there, told my colleague Julia Belluz.
In the US, there’s still time to put those efforts in place to flatten that curve.
In Washington state, health officials are now asking community groups to cancel events that bring together more than 10 people, and are recommending that people telework if they can. Pregnant people, people older than 60, and those who have underlying health conditions are being asked to stay home. More states and communities may have to impose such measures in the coming weeks. So be prepared for them.
“We also need to stop panicking and stigmatizing people of different ethnicities— this will only make people more hesitant to speak out and seek care,” says Abraar Karan, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School. “Disease should show us that we are all connected and need to help each other, not divide us.”
Individuals can help slow the spread of the virus through measures like staying home when you feel just a little bit sick (even when it is inconvenient), washing hands often, and following public health official recommendations when it comes to avoiding large crowds of people.
That’s the optimistic take: We will slow the spread, and help out our communities and the most vulnerable in the process.
The pessimistic view: Because of the lag in testing, the outbreak might be further along — and therefore harder to contain — than authorities currently realize. “There certainly is a window to [impose social distancing measures], but whether or not we’re still in that window, we have no idea because we have no idea what’s happening without the testing,” Grubaugh warns.
The lucky scenario: Covid-19 naturally stops spreading as fast during the summer
Another factor that could potentially slow the spread of coronavirus is the changing of the seasons.
For a variety of reasons, some viruses — but not all — become less transmissible as temperatures and humidity rise in the summer months. The viruses themselves may not live as long on surfaces in these conditions. Also, human behavior changes, and we spend less time in confined spaces. “A lot of how the outbreak ends or at least how things progress in the next few months really depends on if this is seasonal,” Grubaugh says.
That’s still a big unknown. “Just because some respiratory diseases, like flu, demonstrate seasonality doesn’t mean that Covid-19 will,” Maimuna Majumder, a Harvard epidemiologist, says. She and colleagues recently published an early version of a paper (which has not been peer-reviewed) that found that changes in weather across China did not seem to impact the course of the outbreak.
The study suggests that humidity — which appears to be correlated with the seasonality of the flu — is not correlated with transmissibility of Covid-19, she says. (She also stresses to treat the data as “provisional,” and that her group is still studying the potential effect of temperature on transmissibility.)
But if it is seasonal, it doesn’t mean Covid-19 goes away after the summer. “It likely isn’t just going to magically go away,” Grubaugh says. “Next winter might end up being the big winter.”
And if it is seasonal, it’s still dangerous. It would be like the flu, “except potentially with a higher case fatality rate,” Rasmussen says. “Which is definitely a problem because the seasonal flu kills 30,000 to 60,000 Americans every year. And even if it’s the same case fatality rate of seasonal flu, that still presents a substantial public health burden.”
How this outbreak could truly end: With a vaccine
To end this outbreak, for good, we’ll need antiviral treatments or a vaccine. Those are currently being produced, and at record speeds. Researchers are working on new vaccine technologies — like mRNA vaccines that don’t use viruses at all in their production process — as well as cutting-edge therapeutic antibodies.
That said, it still could be a year or more before the safety and efficacy of these pharmaceuticals are proven. In medicine, effectiveness is not guaranteed.
Related A simple guide to the vaccines and drugs that could fight coronavirus
But even if it takes a year or more to produce, those treatments could still prove useful.
“We don’t know what’s going to happen with this virus,” says Barney Graham, the deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). “So our job is to try to develop interventions that could be used if it gets worse. ... We need ways of protecting ourselves.”
Remember: Outbreaks harm more than the sick
It’s also important to remember that outbreaks don’t just affect those who get sick with the illness and die — there can also be collateral damage.
Outbreaks economically impact the people who have to take off from work for a quarantine, those who cannot afford medical care, and the groups that are unfairly targeted and stereotyped as being disease carriers. As the outbreak progresses, it will expose the cracks in our society and our preparedness for future outbreaks. We need to remember the lessons we learn over the next several months.
“I think that it’s going to end probably the way the 2009 H1N1 [flu] pandemic ended, which is that shortly after it’s over, people will lose memory of it and not worry about it,” Rasmussen says. “But it’s going to have tremendous — really negative and lasting effects — for the most vulnerable people who are either medically or economically vulnerable in our society.”
Ask Vox
What do you want to know about the coronavirus outbreak and the surrounding news? Fill out the survey below to share. (You can also access the Google form here.)


vox--2020-03-07--The political map ahead is bad for Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders faces an even bleaker situation today than when he was at an equivalent point running against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary .
After taking considerable criticism for leading an excessively white political movement four years ago , Sanders successfully built a more diverse base of support , particularly among Latino voters who helped carry him to victory in Nevada and California .
But building that new base also cost him the support of a lot of rural white voters who will come into play in the coming contests .
Sanders is down delegates with his best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden , meanwhile , is expected to do well in Florida , a delegate monster .
That map , combined with rule changes that eliminated superdelegates and drastically curtailed the number of caucuses , means Sanders has a tough road ahead .
The race is by no means over , but for Sanders to hope to prevail he needs to relatively quickly make changes to his campaign strategy before he falls hopelessly behind .
Sanders ’ s best state has already voted We learned two key things on Super Tuesday .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phenomenon is real , and many Latinos now favor Sanders .
He likely won California thanks largely to Hispanic support , and while he ended up losing Texas he did very well in San Antonio , El Paso , and the Rio Grande Valley , counties where Hispanics are a majority .
The other is that Sanders ’ s support among socially conservative rural whites has evaporated .
Part of winning his new Hispanic fan base has meant abandoning his previous immigration restrictionist tendencies .
He ’ s also dropped his skepticism of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost much of her cultural conservative support from 2008 when she had to run against a white person , it seems that with Sanders now matched up against Joe Biden , rather than a woman , he has lost the opportunity to pick up gender traditionalist voters .
This manifested itself on Tuesday in Sanders losing Maine , Oklahoma , and Minnesota ( all of which he carried in 2016 ) even as California flipped from being a state he lost in 2016 to a potential win for him .
The problem is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more Latino votes that Sanders has a good chance of getting now that California , Texas , and Nevada have all voted .
That ’ s especially true because all signs point to him being hideously unpopular in Florida .
Arizona and New Mexico are still out there for the taking , but even combined they are still smaller than Florida .
By contrast , look at how the vote in Minnesota evolved over the past four years : Sanders , similarly , went from winning nearly every Oklahoma county in 2016 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The weakness in these rural areas seems to suggest that Sanders will have difficulty replicating his 2016 wins in Midwestern states like Wisconsin , Michigan , and Indiana .
In delegate terms , those two states plus Oklahoma and Minnesota are worth slightly less than his pickups in California .
But the point is that California , which has about 10 percent of the total delegates , already voted , so Sanders ’ s strength there can ’ t give him any good news in the future .
In the immediate future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ map where he ’ s favored in the small states of Idaho and North Dakota , stands an excellent chance in Washington , but will likely be blown out in both Missouri and Mississippi .
His campaign will try to once again win Michigan , but the state is likely to be close and thus not generate a significant delegate haul for either candidate .
Biden ’ s strength in Missouri and Mississippi will increase his delegate lead .
Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands on March 14 might be more promising for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Arizona , which Sanders lost last time , should be a great pickup opportunity for him with his greater Hispanic support .
But he lost Ohio and Illinois in 2016 and there ’ s no real reason to think he ’ s improved his standing there .
And his Arizona delegate haul will be swamped by what ’ s all but certain to be an awful result in Florida .
Then comes Georgia , another large Southern state where will Biden will gain a bunch of delegates on March 24 .
Mathematically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this point ( clinching primaries is hard under Democrats ’ proportional rules ) , but the question is whether he ’ ll be able to sustain the kind of optimistic narratives he did in 2016 , which kept him in the race .
Sanders pulled out a surprise win in Michigan on March 8 , 2016 .
His odds of beating Clinton to take the nomination had never been great .
But his upset victory raised the possibility that he had hidden strength in the industrial Midwest , and it buoyed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week later , he lost Illinois , Ohio , and Missouri , showing that he was largely unable to break through in diverse states .
Behind in delegates , the looming primaries in New York , New Jersey , and California — large , diverse states a lot more like Illinois than Michigan — would doom him , a fact that political insiders knew .
But Sanders managed to keep running anyway .
He wasn ’ t reliant on politically savvy big donors .
Instead , he was able to keep his army @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He did it in three ways : • First , he ’ d proven early an ability to drive media narratives that were detached from concrete delegate counts .
On March 8 , for example , Sanders conceded Mississippi ( where he lost big ) and focused attention on Michigan ( where he narrowly won ) , thus generating a positive narrative even though he actually fell even further behind in the delegate hunt .
• Second , because several big states had late primaries there were technically a lot of votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even June .
It was clear from the demographics that these states were too diverse to hand Sanders the kind of lopsided wins ( indeed , he lost them all ) he would need to catch up .
• Third , because at the time many Democratic Convention delegates were unpledged and unelected “ superdelegates , ” Sanders ’ s camp was able to first accuse Clinton of relying on a rigged system to secure her majority and then to pivot to the idea that the race wasn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing it to her .
None of this changed the fact that he had failed to break through in Ohio and Illinois after an earlier poor performance in Texas and every state with a substantial black population besides Michigan .
But because Sanders was still raising small money , running ads , holding rallies , and running races , Clinton had to keep spending money and campaigning too .
This left her ultimately with less time and resources to spend against Trump , and in a close race likely contributed to her defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of basically bogus explanations for why her defeat was somehow secretly Sanders ’ s fault .
( In fact , he campaigned for her extensively , and though some of his supporters voted for Trump in November , this is very normal and they did not do so in large numbers . )
But the basic timing did hurt her .
Had Sanders withdrawn sooner , Clinton could have held more fundraisers in the spring while spending less money .
That would have let her do more campaigning in the summer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money on ads in the fall .
Would that have been enough for her to win ?
Nobody really knows or ever will , but it seems plausible .
The 2020 process , however , looks different .
There will be no superdelegate MacGuffin to fulminate against and no obvious source of near-term momentum .
Sanders is not exactly a die-hard party loyalist , and he has plenty of admirers who love his disregard for party unity and the larger spirit of cooperation .
So it ’ s certainly possible he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dry spell and make a real effort to contest the big clutch of Northeastern primaries held on April 28 .
But it ’ s also possible the wheels will simply come off in the wake of a series of consecutive drubbings .
If Sanders wants to actually win , rather than just hang around as an irritant , he needs to change the dynamics soon .
It ’ s not over yet The good news for Sanders is that while Super Tuesday was a tremendous blow to his campaign , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the schedule .
Biden ’ s actual delegate lead at this point is modest .
There ’ s an upcoming debate on March 15 where Sanders will get the chance to go at Biden one-on-one .
Biden ’ s debate performances thus far have been lackluster at best , but he ’ s mostly come out okay thanks to having rarely been the target of sustained criticism .
Sanders has a real shot to embarrass Biden on a stage where there will be no place to hide , both advancing an issues-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electability case .
The Sanders campaign is also now making a pivot they should have made after winning New Hampshire and trying to appeal to mainstream Democrats and not just revolutionaries .
That ’ s meant making an ad featuring Barack Obama and a renewed focus on disagreements with Biden over Social Security , Nafta , and the Iraq War — issues on which Sanders can claim more credibility in holding the mainstream Democratic position .
Unlike the previous focus on banning private health insurance and the virtues of Castro-era literacy programs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy to imagine the majority of rank-and-file Democrats siding with Sanders .
And if a little more talk about bread-and-butter issues and a little less talk about the finer points of democratic socialism can help bring some rural working-class white voters back into Sanders ’ s camp , he could reshape the map in a more favorable direction .
The point , however , is that he ’ s working on a much tighter time frame this time around with a coalition that was optimized for a state that has already voted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trajectory of the campaign , but he ’ s got to do it fast .

Sen. Bernie Sanders faces an even bleaker situation today than when he was at an equivalent point running against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary.
After taking considerable criticism for leading an excessively white political movement four years ago, Sanders successfully built a more diverse base of support, particularly among Latino voters who helped carry him to victory in Nevada and California. But building that new base also cost him the support of a lot of rural white voters who will come into play in the coming contests.
Sanders is down delegates with his best big state, California, behind him. Biden, meanwhile, is expected to do well in Florida, a delegate monster. That map, combined with rule changes that eliminated superdelegates and drastically curtailed the number of caucuses, means Sanders has a tough road ahead.
The race is by no means over, but for Sanders to hope to prevail he needs to relatively quickly make changes to his campaign strategy before he falls hopelessly behind.
Sanders’s best state has already voted
We learned two key things on Super Tuesday.
One is that the “Tio Bernie” phenomenon is real, and many Latinos now favor Sanders. He likely won California thanks largely to Hispanic support, and while he ended up losing Texas he did very well in San Antonio, El Paso, and the Rio Grande Valley, counties where Hispanics are a majority.
The other is that Sanders’s support among socially conservative rural whites has evaporated. Part of winning his new Hispanic fan base has meant abandoning his previous immigration restrictionist tendencies. He’s also dropped his skepticism of gun control. And just as Clinton lost much of her cultural conservative support from 2008 when she had to run against a white person, it seems that with Sanders now matched up against Joe Biden, rather than a woman, he has lost the opportunity to pick up gender traditionalist voters.
This manifested itself on Tuesday in Sanders losing Maine, Oklahoma, and Minnesota (all of which he carried in 2016) even as California flipped from being a state he lost in 2016 to a potential win for him.
The problem is that there aren’t a ton more Latino votes that Sanders has a good chance of getting now that California, Texas, and Nevada have all voted. That’s especially true because all signs point to him being hideously unpopular in Florida. Arizona and New Mexico are still out there for the taking, but even combined they are still smaller than Florida.
By contrast, look at how the vote in Minnesota evolved over the past four years:
Sanders, similarly, went from winning nearly every Oklahoma county in 2016 to losing all of them in 2020.
The weakness in these rural areas seems to suggest that Sanders will have difficulty replicating his 2016 wins in Midwestern states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana. In delegate terms, those two states plus Oklahoma and Minnesota are worth slightly less than his pickups in California. But the point is that California, which has about 10 percent of the total delegates, already voted, so Sanders’s strength there can’t give him any good news in the future.
A potentially demoralizing stretch is coming
In the immediate future, Sanders is looking at a March 10 map where he’s favored in the small states of Idaho and North Dakota, stands an excellent chance in Washington, but will likely be blown out in both Missouri and Mississippi. His campaign will try to once again win Michigan, but the state is likely to be close and thus not generate a significant delegate haul for either candidate. Biden’s strength in Missouri and Mississippi will increase his delegate lead.
Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands on March 14 might be more promising for Sanders, but then comes March 17. Arizona, which Sanders lost last time, should be a great pickup opportunity for him with his greater Hispanic support. But he lost Ohio and Illinois in 2016 and there’s no real reason to think he’s improved his standing there. And his Arizona delegate haul will be swamped by what’s all but certain to be an awful result in Florida.
Then comes Georgia, another large Southern state where will Biden will gain a bunch of delegates on March 24.
Mathematically, Sanders will still be in it at this point (clinching primaries is hard under Democrats’ proportional rules), but the question is whether he’ll be able to sustain the kind of optimistic narratives he did in 2016, which kept him in the race.
Bernie’s narrative-fueled 2016
Sanders pulled out a surprise win in Michigan on March 8, 2016. His odds of beating Clinton to take the nomination had never been great. But his upset victory raised the possibility that he had hidden strength in the industrial Midwest, and it buoyed the hopes of his supporters.
Just a week later, he lost Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri, showing that he was largely unable to break through in diverse states. Behind in delegates, the looming primaries in New York, New Jersey, and California — large, diverse states a lot more like Illinois than Michigan — would doom him, a fact that political insiders knew.
But Sanders managed to keep running anyway. He wasn’t reliant on politically savvy big donors. Instead, he was able to keep his army of small-dollar donors engaged and keep running. He did it in three ways:
First, he’d proven early an ability to drive media narratives that were detached from concrete delegate counts. On March 8, for example, Sanders conceded Mississippi (where he lost big) and focused attention on Michigan (where he narrowly won), thus generating a positive narrative even though he actually fell even further behind in the delegate hunt.
Second, because several big states had late primaries there were technically a lot of votes up for grabs in April, May, and even June. It was clear from the demographics that these states were too diverse to hand Sanders the kind of lopsided wins (indeed, he lost them all) he would need to catch up.
Third, because at the time many Democratic Convention delegates were unpledged and unelected “superdelegates,” Sanders’s camp was able to first accuse Clinton of relying on a rigged system to secure her majority and then to pivot to the idea that the race wasn’t really over because the superdelegates could and should swing it to her.
None of this changed the fact that he had failed to break through in Ohio and Illinois after an earlier poor performance in Texas and every state with a substantial black population besides Michigan. But because Sanders was still raising small money, running ads, holding rallies, and running races, Clinton had to keep spending money and campaigning too. This left her ultimately with less time and resources to spend against Trump, and in a close race likely contributed to her defeat.
Clinton fans have put forth a lot of basically bogus explanations for why her defeat was somehow secretly Sanders’s fault. (In fact, he campaigned for her extensively, and though some of his supporters voted for Trump in November, this is very normal and they did not do so in large numbers.) But the basic timing did hurt her.
Had Sanders withdrawn sooner, Clinton could have held more fundraisers in the spring while spending less money. That would have let her do more campaigning in the summer and less fundraising, and then spent more money on ads in the fall. Would that have been enough for her to win? Nobody really knows or ever will, but it seems plausible.
The 2020 process, however, looks different. There will be no superdelegate MacGuffin to fulminate against and no obvious source of near-term momentum.
Sanders is not exactly a die-hard party loyalist, and he has plenty of admirers who love his disregard for party unity and the larger spirit of cooperation. So it’s certainly possible he’ll be able to muddle through the March dry spell and make a real effort to contest the big clutch of Northeastern primaries held on April 28. But it’s also possible the wheels will simply come off in the wake of a series of consecutive drubbings.
If Sanders wants to actually win, rather than just hang around as an irritant, he needs to change the dynamics soon.
It’s not over yet
The good news for Sanders is that while Super Tuesday was a tremendous blow to his campaign, that’s essentially for reasons related to the map and the schedule.
Biden’s actual delegate lead at this point is modest. There’s an upcoming debate on March 15 where Sanders will get the chance to go at Biden one-on-one. Biden’s debate performances thus far have been lackluster at best, but he’s mostly come out okay thanks to having rarely been the target of sustained criticism. Sanders has a real shot to embarrass Biden on a stage where there will be no place to hide, both advancing an issues-based argument and implicitly undermining Biden’s electability case.
The Sanders campaign is also now making a pivot they should have made after winning New Hampshire and trying to appeal to mainstream Democrats and not just revolutionaries. That’s meant making an ad featuring Barack Obama and a renewed focus on disagreements with Biden over Social Security, Nafta, and the Iraq War — issues on which Sanders can claim more credibility in holding the mainstream Democratic position.
Unlike the previous focus on banning private health insurance and the virtues of Castro-era literacy programs, these are topics where it’s easy to imagine the majority of rank-and-file Democrats siding with Sanders. And if a little more talk about bread-and-butter issues and a little less talk about the finer points of democratic socialism can help bring some rural working-class white voters back into Sanders’s camp, he could reshape the map in a more favorable direction.
The point, however, is that he’s working on a much tighter time frame this time around with a coalition that was optimized for a state that has already voted. Sanders can still win if he changes the trajectory of the campaign, but he’s got to do it fast.


vox--2020-03-08--The Trump administration doesn’t yet have a plan to handle Grand Princess coronavirus cases, officia

The Trump administration doesn’t yet have a plan to handle Grand Princess coronavirus cases, officials say

The Grand Princess — a cruise ship containing at least 21 people infected with the novel coronavirus — is scheduled to dock in Oakland , California on Monday , but the Trump administration does not yet have a fully-fleshed-out plan for dealing with the ship ’ s more than 3,500 passengers , according to top administration officials .
US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson appeared on ABC ’ s This Week on Sunday to give updates on the administration ’ s handling of Covid-19 , the disease caused by the novel coronavirus first observed in China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ host , George Stephanopoulos , on how the administration planned to deal with the Grand Princess , it became clear that the federal government is still working to create a transportation , testing , and treatment plan for the ship ’ s passengers .
“ I don ’ t want to preview the plan right now , ” Carson said , when Stephanopoulos asked if he could outline the administration ’ s strategy .
“ I think it needs to all come from a solitary source .
We shouldn ’ t have 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly when it hasn ’ t been fully formulated.
” US Surgeon General Jerome Adams also acknowledged plans are still being worked on during an appearance on CBS ’ s Face the Nation Sunday .
“ The plans are still being developed , ” Adams said .
“ But I want people to know that we are not going to put infected people into communities .
Infected people will be quarantined , will be isolated appropriately so that we can make sure we ’ re not putting communities at risk.
” The fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a plan for a coronavirus outbreak onboard a cruise ship is striking considering this is not the first such occurrence .
It is true that the situation aboard the Grand Princess has developed quickly — passengers were alerted to a Covid-19-related death tied to the ship Wednesday — but the Grand Princess ’ s sister ship , the Diamond Princess , faced a similar disease outbreak in early February .
The Diamond Princess was not in US waters as the seriousness of coronavirus cases onboard became apparent , but there were American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration has faced a lot of criticism over how it handled those citizens .
In particular , it was criticized for the way it repatriated Americans trapped aboard the ship — it flew infected individuals home in the same plane as those who were not , a decision Director of the University of Minnesota ’ s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Michael Osterholm called “ one of the cruelest human experiments I ’ ve seen in my entire career.
” President Donald Trump has made it clear he is sensitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over its coronavirus response , but the comments of Carson and Adams would make it seem as if the administration has drawn few lessons from the troubles of the Diamond Princess .
And the comments also suggest the administration has not used the month since the first confirmed coronavirus case was announced aboard the Diamond Princess to formulate a standard protocol for dealing with other coronavirus outbreaks on cruise ships .
Briefly , the state of the coronavirus outbreak aboard the Grand Princess The Grand Princess was on a 15-day San Francisco-to-Hawaii trip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the news that a prior passenger had died of the coronavirus , according to CNN .
The 71-year-old man had been on the same ship from February 11 to 21 on a round trip cruise from San Francisco to Mexico , and 62 people who were on board for that cruise were also on the San Francisco-Hawaii trip .
The ship was initially supposed to return to port on Saturday , but concerns over the virus led to its docking being pushed back until Monday .
It currently is off the coast of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsom arranged for helicopters to deliver a limited number of testing kits to the ship on Thursday .
On Friday evening , Vice President Mike Pence — who is in charge of the Trump administration ’ s coronavirus response — announced that of the 46 people tested , 21 were found to be infected with Covid-19 , 19 of those people being staff members .
The ship will dock in Oakland Monday , a site chosen because the city has docks that can accommodate cruise ships , and because it is easier to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , according to the California Governor ’ s Office of Emergency Services .
Unlike the federal government , the California government has shared the details of its plan to test and , if need be , treat the nearly 1,000 California residents on the cruise .
California ’ s Office of Emergency Services said all sick passengers in need of urgent care will be taken to hospitals in the state ; those Californians not requiring immediate care will be taken to state facilities for testing and quarantine , according to CBS News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgent care , who are not Californians , will be the responsibility of the federal government , however , and it is not yet clear how administration officials will handle them .
And the crew — about 1,100 people — will have to stay on the ship .
After the customers disembark , the crew will be sent elsewhere until a set quarantine period is over .
It is not yet clear where the ship will be sent after it leaves Oakland .
Trump ’ s handling of the Grand Princess cases is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being criticized On Sunday morning , Trump tweeted a summary of his complaints about how the media has reported on his handling of the coronavirus , arguing journalists have cast the response in an unfairly negative light .
To make his case , Trump wrote that his administration had a “ perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan ” — and about an hour later , Carson and Adams admitted that , with respect to the Grand Princess , that was not at all the case .
This lack of planning is exactly why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican and Democratic lawmakers — have been critical of the administration ’ s response .
And both the president ’ s tweet and his earlier statements about the ship are examples of what many experts , such former director of the USAID ’ s Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance Jeremy Konyndyk , have said is the biggest problem with the president ’ s coronavirus response .
That , as Konyndyk told Vox ’ s Alex Ward , Trump has “ made it primarily about himself.
” In his Sunday morning tweet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a measure Vox ’ s Dylan Scott and Brian Resnick have explained wasn ’ t very effective against the virus in the US .
And at a press conference at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) on Friday , Trump said he didn ’ t want to bring the Grand Princess ’ s passengers back to land because doing so would increase the official count of US coronavirus cases .
“ I don ’ t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ d rather have them stay on , personally.
” Statements like these , and like the one the president made in his tweet , make it appear as if he views the coronavirus primarily as a political rather than health-based issue .
In doing so , he undercuts the seriousness of the situation , and would seem to indicate he plans to make choices based on what would look best politically rather than what would improve health outcomes .
And so , despite what the president claims , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make us look bad.
” The criticism is meant to help the administration think of ways it can improve its response in order to protect lives .
And so long as administration officials admit to putting together plans at the last minute , as they have with the Grand Princess situation , that criticism will continue .

The Grand Princess — a cruise ship containing at least 21 people infected with the novel coronavirus — is scheduled to dock in Oakland, California on Monday, but the Trump administration does not yet have a fully-fleshed-out plan for dealing with the ship’s more than 3,500 passengers, according to top administration officials.
US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson appeared on ABC’s This Week on Sunday to give updates on the administration’s handling of Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus first observed in China. When pressed by the show’s host, George Stephanopoulos, on how the administration planned to deal with the Grand Princess, it became clear that the federal government is still working to create a transportation, testing, and treatment plan for the ship’s passengers.
“I don’t want to preview the plan right now,” Carson said, when Stephanopoulos asked if he could outline the administration’s strategy. “I think it needs to all come from a solitary source. We shouldn’t have 16 people saying what the plan is — particularly when it hasn’t been fully formulated.”
Pressed on plans to handle 3,500 people on board the Grand Princess Cruise ship where 21 passengers tested positive for COVID-19, Sec. Carson tells @GStephanopoulos he doesn't "want to preview the plan right now." https://t.co/sk3xGytf04 pic.twitter.com/ryko0w52ml — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) March 8, 2020
US Surgeon General Jerome Adams also acknowledged plans are still being worked on during an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday.
“The plans are still being developed,” Adams said. “But I want people to know that we are not going to put infected people into communities. Infected people will be quarantined, will be isolated appropriately so that we can make sure we’re not putting communities at risk.”
The fact that the Trump administration did not already have a plan for a coronavirus outbreak onboard a cruise ship is striking considering this is not the first such occurrence. It is true that the situation aboard the Grand Princess has developed quickly — passengers were alerted to a Covid-19-related death tied to the ship Wednesday — but the Grand Princess’s sister ship, the Diamond Princess, faced a similar disease outbreak in early February.
The Diamond Princess was not in US waters as the seriousness of coronavirus cases onboard became apparent, but there were American citizens on the ship, and the Trump administration has faced a lot of criticism over how it handled those citizens. In particular, it was criticized for the way it repatriated Americans trapped aboard the ship — it flew infected individuals home in the same plane as those who were not, a decision Director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Michael Osterholm called “one of the cruelest human experiments I’ve seen in my entire career.”
President Donald Trump has made it clear he is sensitive to the criticism his administration has faced over its coronavirus response, but the comments of Carson and Adams would make it seem as if the administration has drawn few lessons from the troubles of the Diamond Princess. And the comments also suggest the administration has not used the month since the first confirmed coronavirus case was announced aboard the Diamond Princess to formulate a standard protocol for dealing with other coronavirus outbreaks on cruise ships.
Briefly, the state of the coronavirus outbreak aboard the Grand Princess
The Grand Princess was on a 15-day San Francisco-to-Hawaii trip when, on Wednesday, passengers received the news that a prior passenger had died of the coronavirus, according to CNN. The 71-year-old man had been on the same ship from February 11 to 21 on a round trip cruise from San Francisco to Mexico, and 62 people who were on board for that cruise were also on the San Francisco-Hawaii trip.
The ship was initially supposed to return to port on Saturday, but concerns over the virus led to its docking being pushed back until Monday. It currently is off the coast of California, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom arranged for helicopters to deliver a limited number of testing kits to the ship on Thursday. On Friday evening, Vice President Mike Pence — who is in charge of the Trump administration’s coronavirus response — announced that of the 46 people tested, 21 were found to be infected with Covid-19, 19 of those people being staff members.
The ship will dock in Oakland Monday, a site chosen because the city has docks that can accommodate cruise ships, and because it is easier to seal off than other ports in the state, according to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.
Unlike the federal government, the California government has shared the details of its plan to test and, if need be, treat the nearly 1,000 California residents on the cruise. California’s Office of Emergency Services said all sick passengers in need of urgent care will be taken to hospitals in the state; those Californians not requiring immediate care will be taken to state facilities for testing and quarantine, according to CBS News. Those passengers not in need of urgent care, who are not Californians, will be the responsibility of the federal government, however, and it is not yet clear how administration officials will handle them.
And the crew — about 1,100 people — will have to stay on the ship. After the customers disembark, the crew will be sent elsewhere until a set quarantine period is over. It is not yet clear where the ship will be sent after it leaves Oakland.
Trump’s handling of the Grand Princess cases is exactly why his response to coronavirus is being criticized
On Sunday morning, Trump tweeted a summary of his complaints about how the media has reported on his handling of the coronavirus, arguing journalists have cast the response in an unfairly negative light. To make his case, Trump wrote that his administration had a “perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan” — and about an hour later, Carson and Adams admitted that, with respect to the Grand Princess, that was not at all the case.
We have a perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan at the White House for our attack on CoronaVirus. We moved VERY early to close borders to certain areas, which was a Godsend. V.P. is doing a great job. The Fake News Media is doing everything possible to make us look bad. Sad! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2020
This lack of planning is exactly why members of the media — and both Republican and Democratic lawmakers — have been critical of the administration’s response. And both the president’s tweet and his earlier statements about the ship are examples of what many experts, such former director of the USAID’s Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance Jeremy Konyndyk, have said is the biggest problem with the president’s coronavirus response. That, as Konyndyk told Vox’s Alex Ward, Trump has “made it primarily about himself.”
In his Sunday morning tweet, Trump credits his administration with closing borders, a measure Vox’s Dylan Scott and Brian Resnick have explained wasn’t very effective against the virus in the US.
And at a press conference at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Friday, Trump said he didn’t want to bring the Grand Princess’s passengers back to land because doing so would increase the official count of US coronavirus cases.
“I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault,” Trump said. “I’d rather have them stay on, personally.”
Statements like these, and like the one the president made in his tweet, make it appear as if he views the coronavirus primarily as a political rather than health-based issue. In doing so, he undercuts the seriousness of the situation, and would seem to indicate he plans to make choices based on what would look best politically rather than what would improve health outcomes.
And so, despite what the president claims, the media is not “doing everything possible to make us look bad.” The criticism is meant to help the administration think of ways it can improve its response in order to protect lives. And so long as administration officials admit to putting together plans at the last minute, as they have with the Grand Princess situation, that criticism will continue.


vox--2020-03-08--Sen. Kamala Harris joins the growing list of lawmakers endorsing Joe Biden

Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday , joining a growing group of prominent politicians who have backed Biden ahead of key races on March 10 and 17 .
“ I believe in Joe .
I really believe in him and I have known him for a long time , ” Harris said .
“ One of the things that we need right now , is we need a leader who really does care about the people and who can therefore unify the people .
And I believe Joe can do that.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even bringing up his late son , who Biden said worked closely with the senator when she was attorney general in California and while he held the same position in Delaware .
“ Kamala — You ’ ve spent your whole career fighting for folks who ’ ve been written off and left behind — and no small part of that alongside Beau .
From our family : thank you , ” Biden wrote .
The endorsement was made just five days after Biden celebrated a sweeping win on Super Tuesday , taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it is a timely one , as Biden hopes to build upon that lead in the next major day of contests Tuesday , when Democrats in Idaho , Michigan , Mississippi , Missouri , North Dakota , Washington , and abroad will get to select their choice for the party ’ s nominee .
While the day does not have as many delegates on offer as Super Tuesday ’ s 1,344 , a significant number — 365 — will be awarded ; enough for Biden to pick up a commanding delegate lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bridge the 79-delegate gap that currently separates the two frontrunners .
Despite being one of the top five candidates in the polls early in the 2020 Democratic primary , Harris dropped out of the race in December amid declining poll numbers and difficulties with fundraising .
Before her exit , however , she had a viral moment .
At the first Democratic presidential debate , Harris had a tense exchange with Biden on the issue of school busing , pointing out that a bill he sponsored in 1975 , which would have restricted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant to desegregate schools , could have kept her from attending her elementary school .
“ You also worked with [ segregationist senators ] to oppose busing , ” Harris said on the debate stage .
“ And there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day .
And that little girl was me.
” That history makes Harris ’ s endorsement even more notable , and adds credence to the narrative that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party in its effort to defeat President Donald Trump .
Biden has a growing list of powerful Democrats backing him With her endorsement , Harris joins a growing group of former 2020 candidates who have endorsed Biden , a list that includes Sen. Amy Klobuchar , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , former Texas Rep. Beto O ’ Rourke , and former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick .
And Biden ’ s formidable group of supporters also includes a number of other key lawmakers on the local , state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him in recent days .
In fact , dozens have endorsed Biden in the last 48 hours , including : • Former Secretary of Agriculture and former Rep. Mike Espy ( D-MS ) And it ’ s not just prominent politicians who have lined up behind Biden .
Powerful unions in Michigan , Mississippi , and Missouri — all states that will be holding primaries on Tuesday — have also endorsed Biden .
Unite HERE !
Local 24 and United Food and Commercial Workers ( UFCW ) Locals 876 and 951 in Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and UFCW Locals 655 , 88 , and 2 in Missouri have all thrown their support behind Biden in the past week , according to The Hill .
They ’ re a formidable group of workers that come from a wide range of backgrounds — and their unions ’ infrastructure could go a long way toward helping get out the vote for Biden .
That will be key for him in Michigan , a state in which Sanders has powerful surrogates and that the senator is counting on in order to come back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key endorsement himself this weekend : that of former presidential candidate and civil rights icon the Rev .
Jesse Jackson .
“ With the exception of Native Americans , African Americans are the people who are most behind socially and economically in the United States and our needs are not moderate , ” Jackson said in a statement Sunday .
“ A people far behind can not catch up choosing the most moderate path .
The most progressive social and economic path gives us the best chance to catch up and Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s why I choose to endorse him today.
” Later Sunday morning , Sanders appeared on CNN ’ s State of the Union and said Jackson ’ s endorsement would be “ a real boost ” in his campaign .
“ What Rev .
Jackson understands is that we have to move aggressively to wipe out all forms of racism in this country and we need an economic agenda that speaks to the needs of working people , not just the billionaire class , ” Sanders said .
Sanders already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers , including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib — with Jackson , he may have gained an endorsement meaningful to a constituency that has voted overwhelmingly for Biden in contests so far : older black voters .
Even with Jackson ’ s endorsement , however , the next few contests are likely to be an uphill battle for Sanders , particularly since party leaders appear to be increasingly coming out in support of Biden .
And the Biden campaign has shown its ability both on Super Tuesday and in South Carolina to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In South Carolina , Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn ’ s endorsement boosted Biden ’ s already strong hold in South Carolina , and he won nearly 50 percent of the vote there .
His decisive victory in this Southern state helped fuel his wins on Super Tuesday — and the eleventh-hour endorsements of Buttigieg , Klobuchar , and O ’ Rourke likely also played a role , particularly in Klobuchar ’ s Minnesota and O ’ Rourke ’ s Texas , both states in which Biden did better than expected .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more weight than the endorsement of just about any other political figure , but the volume and breadth of Biden ’ s endorsements in recent days can only help his chances of strong performances throughout March .

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday, joining a growing group of prominent politicians who have backed Biden ahead of key races on March 10 and 17.
“I believe in Joe. I really believe in him and I have known him for a long time,” Harris said. “One of the things that we need right now, is we need a leader who really does care about the people and who can therefore unify the people. And I believe Joe can do that.”
.@JoeBiden has served our country with dignity and we need him now more than ever. I will do everything in my power to help elect him the next President of the United States. pic.twitter.com/DbB2fGWpaa — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) March 8, 2020
Biden thanked Harris in a tweet, even bringing up his late son, who Biden said worked closely with the senator when she was attorney general in California and while he held the same position in Delaware.
“Kamala — You’ve spent your whole career fighting for folks who’ve been written off and left behind — and no small part of that alongside Beau. From our family: thank you,” Biden wrote.
The endorsement was made just five days after Biden celebrated a sweeping win on Super Tuesday, taking the lead in the delegate count. And it is a timely one, as Biden hopes to build upon that lead in the next major day of contests Tuesday, when Democrats in Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Washington, and abroad will get to select their choice for the party’s nominee.
While the day does not have as many delegates on offer as Super Tuesday’s 1,344, a significant number — 365 — will be awarded; enough for Biden to pick up a commanding delegate lead, or for Sen. Bernie Sanders to bridge the 79-delegate gap that currently separates the two frontrunners.
Despite being one of the top five candidates in the polls early in the 2020 Democratic primary, Harris dropped out of the race in December amid declining poll numbers and difficulties with fundraising. Before her exit, however, she had a viral moment. At the first Democratic presidential debate, Harris had a tense exchange with Biden on the issue of school busing, pointing out that a bill he sponsored in 1975, which would have restricted the use of federal funds for busing meant to desegregate schools, could have kept her from attending her elementary school.
“You also worked with [segregationist senators] to oppose busing,” Harris said on the debate stage. “And there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.”
That history makes Harris’s endorsement even more notable, and adds credence to the narrative that it is Biden who can best unify the Democratic Party in its effort to defeat President Donald Trump.
Biden has a growing list of powerful Democrats backing him
With her endorsement, Harris joins a growing group of former 2020 candidates who have endorsed Biden, a list that includes Sen. Amy Klobuchar, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
And Biden’s formidable group of supporters also includes a number of other key lawmakers on the local, state, and federal levels who have endorsed him in recent days. In fact, dozens have endorsed Biden in the last 48 hours, including:
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms
Former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Former Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon
Former Secretary of Agriculture and former Rep. Mike Espy (D-MS)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot
Former Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Arizona House of Representatives Democratic Leader Charlene Fernandez
And it’s not just prominent politicians who have lined up behind Biden. Powerful unions in Michigan, Mississippi, and Missouri — all states that will be holding primaries on Tuesday — have also endorsed Biden.
Unite HERE! Local 24 and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Locals 876 and 951 in Michigan; UFCW Local 1529 in Mississippi; and UFCW Locals 655, 88, and 2 in Missouri have all thrown their support behind Biden in the past week, according to The Hill. They’re a formidable group of workers that come from a wide range of backgrounds — and their unions’ infrastructure could go a long way toward helping get out the vote for Biden. That will be key for him in Michigan, a state in which Sanders has powerful surrogates and that the senator is counting on in order to come back in the delegate count.
Sanders won a key endorsement himself this weekend: that of former presidential candidate and civil rights icon the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
“With the exception of Native Americans, African Americans are the people who are most behind socially and economically in the United States and our needs are not moderate,” Jackson said in a statement Sunday. “A people far behind cannot catch up choosing the most moderate path. The most progressive social and economic path gives us the best chance to catch up and Senator Bernie Sanders represents the most progressive path. That’s why I choose to endorse him today.”
Later Sunday morning, Sanders appeared on CNN’s State of the Union and said Jackson’s endorsement would be “a real boost” in his campaign.
“What Rev. Jackson understands is that we have to move aggressively to wipe out all forms of racism in this country and we need an economic agenda that speaks to the needs of working people, not just the billionaire class,” Sanders said.
Sanders already had the endorsements of many prominent progressive lawmakers, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib — with Jackson, he may have gained an endorsement meaningful to a constituency that has voted overwhelmingly for Biden in contests so far: older black voters.
Even with Jackson’s endorsement, however, the next few contests are likely to be an uphill battle for Sanders, particularly since party leaders appear to be increasingly coming out in support of Biden. And the Biden campaign has shown its ability both on Super Tuesday and in South Carolina to turn last-minute endorsements to its advantage.
In South Carolina, Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn’s endorsement boosted Biden’s already strong hold in South Carolina, and he won nearly 50 percent of the vote there. His decisive victory in this Southern state helped fuel his wins on Super Tuesday — and the eleventh-hour endorsements of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and O’Rourke likely also played a role, particularly in Klobuchar’s Minnesota and O’Rourke’s Texas, both states in which Biden did better than expected.
It is true that a Clyburn endorsement carries far more weight than the endorsement of just about any other political figure, but the volume and breadth of Biden’s endorsements in recent days can only help his chances of strong performances throughout March.


vox--2020-03-08--Welcome to the world of craft weed

Welcome to the world of craft weed

Not so long ago , beer drinkers didn ’ t have a lot of options .
If you wanted beer , you had to choose between Budweiser or Miller Light or a handful of other cheap options .
But in the 1960s and ’ 70s , there was a renaissance in the industry .
As regional breweries merged and closed , the craft beer movement was gradually born .
Today , we ’ re living in a golden age for beer drinkers , with amazing beer from around the world available almost anywhere .
That is the path the legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things break right .
That ’ s the argument that Ryan Stoa , a law professor at Concordia University , makes in his new book Craft Weed .
Stoa ’ s book is a deep dive into the future of the weed industry and whether it ’ s likely to be dominated by low-quality weed grown in warehouses by major corporations or by high-quality weed grown by small farmers .
Big Marijuana isn ’ t inevitable , Stoa says , but it ’ s likely to play a central role in whatever comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weed industry modeled on the beer or wine industry .
In that world , we ’ d have the weed equivalent of Anheuser-Busch or Marlboro but also a whole host of small farmers growing and selling high-quality craft weed .
And this would not only be great for consumers , it would also be an economic boon for rural communities across the country .
I spoke to Stoa by phone about how close we are to that vision , whether we can avoid marijuana monopolies , and why a dynamic weed industry will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disastrous drug war .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
Craft weed is artisanally produced , smaller-scale cannabis that is grown on family farms .
That is in contrast to the rise of what I describe as Big Marijuana , which is large-scale cultivation of cannabis typically in massive outdoor fields or in large warehouses .
Is Big Marijuana the future of legal weed in America ?
I wrote the book in part because the conventional take is that the Big Marijuana takeover is inevitable .
Just like any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry would consolidate and you ’ d have these 10,000-acre farms growing generic and low-quality cannabis .
But this view ran against what I was seeing on the ground , especially in places like Northern California .
So I wanted to lay out the case that the Big Marijuana future is not necessarily inevitable , and even if Big Marijuana does come to pass , we can have a craft weed model that can exist alongside it .
I want to talk about what that model might look like , but first I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be worried about the emergence of marijuana monopolies ?
I think there should be a healthy dose of concern about the possibility that a few very large companies will take over the market .
And I ’ ll give you a few reasons why .
Number one is the general principle of scaled-up agricultural economics .
If you ’ re producing mass quantities of something , typically the quality goes down .
And that ’ s true with most crops .
It ’ s definitely true with cannabis , which is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention in order to grow high-quality buds .
It usually means that we ’ re going to get more pesticides and fertilizers on the crop , which I know is a concern for a lot of cannabis consumers .
But perhaps most importantly , it ’ s likely to mean that there won ’ t be as much choice for consumers or market options .
One of the amazing things about the cannabis industry right now is that there are thousands of different strains of marijuana .
People often talk about it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s marijuana or cannabis depending on your preferred nomenclature , but really there ’ s thousands of different strains and they have different effects on the body , and of those thousands of different strains , there are also hundreds or thousands of different agricultural regions that grow those different strains .
So the potential for market choice or options for the consumer is nearly endless in a craft weed model .
When people hear the phrase “ craft weed , ” they think of “ craft beer ” and the beer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a kind of golden age of beer .
If you like shitty beer , you can buy your Coors Light or Bud Light or whatever .
But if you like good beer , there ’ s an endless supply of craft options .
Is this the model for weed ?
Absolutely .
As I say in the book , I think there will be a lot of cannabis consumers that are price-sensitive .
Their most important factor is to get potent weed at the cheapest price .
And for them , maybe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But what we ’ re seeing in dispensaries around the country is that people tend not to gravitate to the absolute cheapest possible or lowest-grade strains .
Many cannabis consumers want high-quality , sustainable products .
So it ’ s pretty clear to me that a craft beer model is perfectly replicable in the weed industry .
Are there special interests or corporate forces that are doing everything they can to prevent the weed industry from becoming like the beer industry ?
No one entity can get big enough yet to attract the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason , I think there hasn ’ t yet been an attempt to have a complete takeover .
Now , are there people waiting in the wings ?
Probably .
Canada is an interesting example here .
After Canada legalized weed federally , you had some very large multinational corporations making billion-dollar investments in Canadian cannabis companies .
A company that owns Marlboro Cigarettes made a billion-dollar investment .
The Corona Beer manufacturer made a billion-dollar investment .
So there ’ s huge money pouring into a lot of those companies .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those companies have really struggled to scale up .
It appears , at least based on their experience , that cannabis is not the easiest crop to grow on a really massive large scale .
And that lends credence to the idea that this kind of smaller-scale artisanal product will be able to survive .
A big argument in your book is that a craft weed industry would be an economic boon for rural communities and small farmers across the country .
How so ?
Right now , there are 33 or 34 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 that have legalized recreational marijuana .
All of those states have their own in-house cultivators and industries .
That ’ s been a huge economic boon for those states .
And why wouldn ’ t they want to protect them ?
Eventually , there ’ s likely to be a lifting of the federal prohibition .
It makes sense that those states would want to promote economic development in rural areas and protect those agricultural interests that have sprung up .
Without protections , that entire economy might collapse .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to want to protect those rural economies and in other areas promote rural development with the potential for cannabis .
And on this front , you say that following the wine industry is an even more useful model , right ?
Yeah , I like this idea of certifying where an agricultural product comes from .
It ’ s a great model for keeping the cannabis industry local and keeping it diversified and allowing those rural economies to be protected with that designation of origin because you ’ re differentiating that product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Marijuana giants .
Is there a country or a state right now that serves as a model for how it ought to be done , something that could be scaled up at the federal level ?
I don ’ t think any one state is doing it perfectly , but in a few years , once we have a track record for this , I think we ’ ll be able to pick and choose aspects that we like .
I ’ ll give you a couple examples , though .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a lot of these issues , especially from a cultivation standpoint , which makes sense because they ’ re the largest producer of cannabis in the US .
But they have been thinking about these issues , like sustainability and environmental regulations , for a long time .
The California Department of Agriculture is moving forward with an appellations project that would certify designations of origin .
And historically , they have promoted small-scale farming by having an acreage limit on cannabis farms .
You could only grow up to one or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the type of permit you have .
I think they ’ re thinking about this in a lot of really good ways .
Another great example is Massachusetts .
They ’ re giving preferential treatment to small-scale cultivators , but , just as importantly , they ’ re favoring what they call “ justice applicants.
” And justice applicants are people who come from communities that were disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs .
And I think that ’ s something that states are going to have to look at and follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people involved in the legal cannabis industry are middle- to high-income and white .
And the war on drugs really disproportionately impacted people in communities of color and in low-income communities .
Thinking about how to distribute the benefits of legalization in an equitable way is incredibly important , and Massachusetts is laying down a great blueprint for how to do it .

Not so long ago, beer drinkers didn’t have a lot of options. If you wanted beer, you had to choose between Budweiser or Miller Light or a handful of other cheap options. But in the 1960s and ’70s, there was a renaissance in the industry. As regional breweries merged and closed, the craft beer movement was gradually born. Today, we’re living in a golden age for beer drinkers, with amazing beer from around the world available almost anywhere.
That is the path the legal weed industry might well follow — if things break right. That’s the argument that Ryan Stoa, a law professor at Concordia University, makes in his new book Craft Weed.
Stoa’s book is a deep dive into the future of the weed industry and whether it’s likely to be dominated by low-quality weed grown in warehouses by major corporations or by high-quality weed grown by small farmers. Big Marijuana isn’t inevitable, Stoa says, but it’s likely to play a central role in whatever comes next.
The best-case scenario is a weed industry modeled on the beer or wine industry. In that world, we’d have the weed equivalent of Anheuser-Busch or Marlboro but also a whole host of small farmers growing and selling high-quality craft weed. And this would not only be great for consumers, it would also be an economic boon for rural communities across the country.
I spoke to Stoa by phone about how close we are to that vision, whether we can avoid marijuana monopolies, and why a dynamic weed industry will benefit the communities most harmed by the disastrous drug war.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
What is craft weed?
Ryan Stoa
Craft weed is artisanally produced, smaller-scale cannabis that is grown on family farms. That is in contrast to the rise of what I describe as Big Marijuana, which is large-scale cultivation of cannabis typically in massive outdoor fields or in large warehouses.
Sean Illing
Is Big Marijuana the future of legal weed in America?
Ryan Stoa
I wrote the book in part because the conventional take is that the Big Marijuana takeover is inevitable. Just like any other economy of scale situation, eventually the industry would consolidate and you’d have these 10,000-acre farms growing generic and low-quality cannabis.
But this view ran against what I was seeing on the ground, especially in places like Northern California. So I wanted to lay out the case that the Big Marijuana future is not necessarily inevitable, and even if Big Marijuana does come to pass, we can have a craft weed model that can exist alongside it.
Sean Illing
I want to talk about what that model might look like, but first I’ll ask if you think people should be worried about the emergence of marijuana monopolies?
Ryan Stoa
I think there should be a healthy dose of concern about the possibility that a few very large companies will take over the market. And I’ll give you a few reasons why. Number one is the general principle of scaled-up agricultural economics. If you’re producing mass quantities of something, typically the quality goes down. And that’s true with most crops. It’s definitely true with cannabis, which is a high-maintenance plant that requires a lot of attention in order to grow high-quality buds.
It usually means that we’re going to get more pesticides and fertilizers on the crop, which I know is a concern for a lot of cannabis consumers. But perhaps most importantly, it’s likely to mean that there won’t be as much choice for consumers or market options. One of the amazing things about the cannabis industry right now is that there are thousands of different strains of marijuana.
People often talk about it as this kind of generic product. It’s marijuana or cannabis depending on your preferred nomenclature, but really there’s thousands of different strains and they have different effects on the body, and of those thousands of different strains, there are also hundreds or thousands of different agricultural regions that grow those different strains.
So the potential for market choice or options for the consumer is nearly endless in a craft weed model.
Sean Illing
When people hear the phrase “craft weed,” they think of “craft beer” and the beer industry. And we’re in a kind of golden age of beer. If you like shitty beer, you can buy your Coors Light or Bud Light or whatever. But if you like good beer, there’s an endless supply of craft options.
Is this the model for weed?
Ryan Stoa
Absolutely. As I say in the book, I think there will be a lot of cannabis consumers that are price-sensitive. Their most important factor is to get potent weed at the cheapest price. And for them, maybe that Big Marijuana model will be attractive.
But what we’re seeing in dispensaries around the country is that people tend not to gravitate to the absolute cheapest possible or lowest-grade strains. Many cannabis consumers want high-quality, sustainable products. So it’s pretty clear to me that a craft beer model is perfectly replicable in the weed industry.
Sean Illing
Are there special interests or corporate forces that are doing everything they can to prevent the weed industry from becoming like the beer industry?
Ryan Stoa
No one entity can get big enough yet to attract the ire of federal regulators. For that reason, I think there hasn’t yet been an attempt to have a complete takeover. Now, are there people waiting in the wings? Probably.
Canada is an interesting example here. After Canada legalized weed federally, you had some very large multinational corporations making billion-dollar investments in Canadian cannabis companies. A company that owns Marlboro Cigarettes made a billion-dollar investment. The Corona Beer manufacturer made a billion-dollar investment. So there’s huge money pouring into a lot of those companies.
And what’s happened since is that those companies have really struggled to scale up. It appears, at least based on their experience, that cannabis is not the easiest crop to grow on a really massive large scale. And that lends credence to the idea that this kind of smaller-scale artisanal product will be able to survive.
Sean Illing
A big argument in your book is that a craft weed industry would be an economic boon for rural communities and small farmers across the country. How so?
Ryan Stoa
Right now, there are 33 or 34 states that have legalized medicinal marijuana and 11 that have legalized recreational marijuana. All of those states have their own in-house cultivators and industries. That’s been a huge economic boon for those states. And why wouldn’t they want to protect them? Eventually, there’s likely to be a lifting of the federal prohibition. It makes sense that those states would want to promote economic development in rural areas and protect those agricultural interests that have sprung up.
Without protections, that entire economy might collapse. There’s really no reason for elected officials not to want to protect those rural economies and in other areas promote rural development with the potential for cannabis.
Sean Illing
And on this front, you say that following the wine industry is an even more useful model, right?
Ryan Stoa
Yeah, I like this idea of certifying where an agricultural product comes from. It’s a great model for keeping the cannabis industry local and keeping it diversified and allowing those rural economies to be protected with that designation of origin because you’re differentiating that product from a generic product produced by the Big Marijuana giants.
Sean Illing
Is there a country or a state right now that serves as a model for how it ought to be done, something that could be scaled up at the federal level?
Ryan Stoa
I don’t think any one state is doing it perfectly, but in a few years, once we have a track record for this, I think we’ll be able to pick and choose aspects that we like. I’ll give you a couple examples, though.
I think California is probably on the forefront of a lot of these issues, especially from a cultivation standpoint, which makes sense because they’re the largest producer of cannabis in the US. But they have been thinking about these issues, like sustainability and environmental regulations, for a long time.
The California Department of Agriculture is moving forward with an appellations project that would certify designations of origin. And historically, they have promoted small-scale farming by having an acreage limit on cannabis farms. You could only grow up to one or two acres of plant canopy depending on the type of permit you have. I think they’re thinking about this in a lot of really good ways.
Another great example is Massachusetts. They’re giving preferential treatment to small-scale cultivators, but, just as importantly, they’re favoring what they call “justice applicants.” And justice applicants are people who come from communities that were disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. And I think that’s something that states are going to have to look at and follow.
So far, a lot of the people involved in the legal cannabis industry are middle- to high-income and white. And the war on drugs really disproportionately impacted people in communities of color and in low-income communities. Thinking about how to distribute the benefits of legalization in an equitable way is incredibly important, and Massachusetts is laying down a great blueprint for how to do it.