vox--2020-07-03--8 ways to go out and stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic

Share All sharing options for : 8 ways to go out and stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic Americans have gotten tired of staying inside .
As the coronavirus pandemic has continued for months and summer has kicked off , the number of people consistently practicing social distancing has steadily declined , according to Gallup ’ s surveys .
Especially with the July Fourth weekend approaching , people are bound to go out more to celebrate .
At the beginning of the pandemic , experts ’ guidance was more absolute : As much as possible , stay home and avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live with .
More recently , with a vaccine likely still months or years away , many experts have advocated for a new approach to get people to stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic — one based on harm reduction .
It might be better for people to stay home all the time , but given that many can ’ t or won ’ t , giving them advice on how to reduce the harm to them and others is better than insisting on the ideal .
Julia Marcus , an infectious disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to preaching abstinence versus advising on safe sex during the worst days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic : Completely avoiding sex would keep someone safe from HIV , but given that most people won ’ t do that , it ’ s better to give them the tools to practice sex as safely as possible .
“ There ’ s been a polarization between two purported options of staying home indefinitely … versus going back to business as usual , ” Marcus told me .
“ The idea of harm reduction gives us a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuum and thinking about the middle ground between those two options.
” The safest thing anyone can do in the middle of the Covid-19 outbreak is still the same as it was a few months ago : Stay home as much as possible to avoid catching or spreading the virus until there ’ s a vaccine or effective treatment , or until the pandemic otherwise ends .
That especially applies to people who are sick , who should do all they can to avoid exposing others to the coronavirus .
But lapses will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay home in the first place ; as states begin to reopen , many more will need to leave their homes for their jobs .
Others will do so simply because they ’ re tired of being stuck at home , even if it ’ s not advisable for their own health or for the public ’ s .
So I turned to several experts with a question : What can people do to minimize the harm to themselves and others if and when they choose to go out ?
Some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve already heard for months : Wash your hands .
Don ’ t touch your face .
Wear a mask .
Avoid shared surfaces and crowded settings , and keep physical distance — at least 6 feet — from people you don ’ t live with .
If you ’ re 65 or older or have chronic health conditions , you should take all of this advice more seriously .
Other tips were more novel .
For example , if you want to do something outside your home , it ’ s better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and do it outdoors rather than indoors when possible .
If you want to meet with certain friends or family , consider a pact with them in which you ’ ll both agree to minimize or eliminate contact with anyone else , to reduce overall exposure for everyone involved .
The most important thing : Avoid indoor spaces that bring you within 6 feet of people from outside your household for long periods .
“ It is about density .
It is about duration of contact , ” Cyrus Shahpar , a director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
Overall , experts were receptive to applying harm reduction concepts to social distancing .
They acknowledged it ’ s not a perfect analogy to HIV or drug use , because a person who ’ s having risky sex or using drugs is perceived as largely harming themselves , while people who catch and spread the coronavirus put others at immediate risk too .
Still , experts took a pragmatic view toward harm reduction overall .
“ It reflects the fact this virus is going to be with us until there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
“ People are going to come up with their own ways to live with it .
That ’ s going to be different for each person , based on their own risk tolerance.
” He added , “ It ’ s important that people be well-informed about what the risks are and how to minimize the risks.
” So here ’ s how to go out and stay as safe as possible during this coronavirus pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risks of specific activities . )
Experts consistently gave one piece of advice for people leaving their homes : If you can do something outdoors instead of indoors , you should do it outdoors .
The coronavirus appears to spread through airborne droplets and droplets that land on surfaces , which people subsequently pick up with their hands .
The outdoors mitigates these vectors of spread in several ways .
First , the open air is going to make it harder for airborne droplets to reach other people .
Shahpar said there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this : “ Any odor I have from cooking in a kitchen is going to linger longer than if I had it outside .
It ’ s just the nature of it.
” Second , it ’ s easier to keep distance from others while outside compared to inside .
Third , there is some evidence that sunny , warm , and humid weather hurts the coronavirus a bit .
Based on the early research so far , heat and UV light appear to kill the virus , while humidity might block airborne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The weather isn ’ t enough to stop the coronavirus — as major Covid-19 outbreaks in sunny and warm Ecuador , Louisiana , Singapore , and now Arizona , Florida , and Texas demonstrate — but it at least seems to help .
The research into coronavirus and the outdoors , while still very early , backs this up , Kelsey Piper explained for Vox : So if you ’ re having friends over , consider hanging out outside ( and keep it to a small group ) .
If you want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for outdoor seating .
If you ’ re going for a run , go to the park , beach , or streets instead of the gym .
Some experts said policymakers could take advantage of the outdoors as well — holding trials outside , or closing off some streets to cars so pedestrians can make better use of them .
“ It ’ s a good year for outdoor dining and outdoor shopping and outdoor all kinds of activities , ” Mark McClellan , who previously headed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under President George W. Bush , told me .
The one exception , of course , is your home .
As long as it ’ s just you and the people you live with in there , it ’ s safe — likely even the safest place during this pandemic if no one inside is sick .
This isn ’ t to say that the outdoors is totally safe .
Being around people you don ’ t live with will always create some risk during a pandemic .
This is about weighing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small risk other people present outdoors outweigh the benefit of getting some time outside of your house ?
Different people may come to different answers .
But all else held equal , the outdoors is the safest place for activities outside of your home .
For some , that ’ s a reprieve that makes all the other requirements for social distancing a bit more bearable .
Plus , spending time outdoors can be good for you on its own .
You ’ ve probably heard it a million times already , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your hands frequently , and don ’ t touch your face .
If you ’ re going to frequently venture far outside your home , that advice is especially pertinent .
“ Those are harm reduction aspects have been built in already to the messaging that we ’ ve seen , ” Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist , told me .
Studies have shown the virus can survive on different surfaces for hours or days at a time .
If you touch those surfaces , then touch your face , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nose , or mouth — and soon , you might be infected .
By now , there are plenty of guides out there about how to avoid touching your face and how to wash your hands .
For face-touching , the big thing is awareness .
Until you break the habit , you ’ re going to have to dedicate headspace to your face and avoiding touching it .
( I touched my face three times just typing this paragraph , so , yes , it ’ s going to take effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequently — before , during , and after you go out .
Soap and water work great ; wash for 20 seconds , and don ’ t forget the back of your hands , your fingertips , your thumbs , and your wrists .
If you don ’ t have access to soap and water , hand sanitizer with at least 60 percent alcohol content works too .
Yes , good hygiene can be tedious , and we ’ re all tired of hearing about it over and over .
But it works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to yourself and others , you should do it .
After some mixed messaging from federal officials early on in the Covid-19 outbreak , there is widespread consensus that people should wear masks when they go out — a surgical or medical mask if they have one , a cloth one if they don ’ t .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends masks “ in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain ( e.g.
, grocery stores and pharmacies ) , especially in areas of significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , in some cases , government mandates — go further , saying you should wear a mask in just about any setting outside your home as long as the pandemic continues .
The primary reason for a mask is to stop transmission from the wearer to others , particularly from people who are infected but asymptomatic and therefore might not even know they ’ re infected .
If you wear a mask , you ’ re less likely to spray virus-containing droplets on surfaces or other people when you breathe , talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snort , cough , sneeze , and whatever else you might do with your mouth and nose .
A mask also likely offers some protection to you by creating a physical barrier to droplets from others in front of your mouth and nose ( at least if you ’ re wearing it properly — make sure that it ’ s covering both ) .
The initial research on masks wasn ’ t great , but it ’ s getting stronger .
Several recent studies found masks alone reduce transmission .
Some experts hypothesize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks played a significant role in containing Covid-19 outbreaks in several Asian countries where their use is widespread , like South Korea and Japan .
It can still be difficult , depending on where you live , to find medical masks .
But there are cloth alternatives you can make at home .
The CDC has an extensive tutorial .
And here ’ s one from the US surgeon general : There are also things you can do to help others wear masks .
For example , if you ’ re hosting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — not advisable , but it will happen — offer masks to the people attending .
When wearing a mask , don ’ t fidget with it — that would be touching your face — and avoid taking it off until you ’ re back home .
Throw away disposable masks once they ’ re used , and wash reusable masks after you use them .
Masks are not an excuse to ease off on other hygiene practices .
In fact , you want to wash your hands before and after taking off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting anything on your face and mask , and after , to get rid of anything that was on your mask .
And yes , it ’ s normal to have a slightly harder time breathing while wearing a mask for a long time .
But that discomfort should be weighed against the risk of getting sick or infecting others without a mask .
One of the common pieces of advice throughout this pandemic has been to keep 6 feet or more away from people you don ’ t live with , summarized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 feet distance determines our existence.
” The closer you are to someone , the likelier they are to shed their coronavirus all over you , and vice versa .
One telling but preliminary study comes from a South Korean call center : The coronavirus spread to 43.5 percent of people working in the close-packed 11th-floor call center .
Proximity appeared to play a big role , as this graphic , in which desks marked in blue indicate infection , shows .
The risk here is close and prolonged contact .
A jogger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seconds isn ’ t the end of the world .
But if you ’ re within 6 feet of someone else for longer than that — especially for hours — it could be dangerous .
“ The two variables we worry about is that distance from another person who might be sick and the time spent with them , ” Crystal Watson , senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
This applies to the outdoors , too .
While the outdoors are generally safer than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good idea to avoid packed parks or beaches .
People who don ’ t live together just shouldn ’ t be stacked together for long in any setting .
So if you ’ re going out to eat , consider skipping the packed restaurant .
If you ’ re going to a park or beach , look for an area without too many people around .
If you ’ re hosting an event , avoid inviting too many people .
If you ’ re meeting up with friends or family , try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid handshakes , hugs , and kisses .
Part of avoiding crowded spaces is also making these places safer for those who have to be there .
For example , public transportation can be pretty packed , but some people need to use it to get to work or the grocery store .
If you have other means of transportation and use that instead , you leave more room on the bus or subway for those who don ’ t have a choice .
You don ’ t have to do all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s unrealistic .
But the better you can do it , the lower the risk .
If the coronavirus spreads when people pick up virus-containing droplets from different surfaces , one way to minimize that risk is by trying to avoid shared surfaces as much as possible .
So even if you go outdoors , avoid surfaces touched by different people , like swings , slides , or benches — or , at the very least , wipe them down before using them .
If you have to use public transportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t your house , try to minimize how much of the space you touch .
And if you ’ re meeting with people you don ’ t live with , try to avoid sharing things — food , drinks , toys , board game pieces , and so on .
That doesn ’ t mean you have to be paranoid about picking up food or getting various things delivered to you .
( As Jen Kates , director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question : ‘ Can I get takeout ?
’ I think you can.
” ) But it does mean a little caution is warranted , either in terms of avoiding these surfaces or taking steps to clean them before you touch them .
6 ) Space out trips outside the home as much as possible Whether you ’ re leaving your home because you have to for food or work , or you ’ re going out because you can ’ t stand the sight of your apartment anymore , one way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your trips .
With every venture outside , you are putting yourself at risk of contracting the coronavirus in a world that ’ s still engulfed by a pandemic .
The risk calculus , then , is straightforward : Try to limit how often you do this .
“ It ’ s not a good idea to be going out to the store every day , ” Kates said .
“ You want to minimize the amount of times you might expose somebody [ to coronavirus ] or you might be exposed.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the most out of necessary trips .
If you ’ re going to the store , try to buy as much as you can afford and carry in one go , and plan ahead so you don ’ t forget something .
( Still , be reasonable and conscientious of others ; taking a year ’ s supply of toilet paper is unnecessary and could force others to make more trips when the store runs out and they have to go home empty-handed . )
This applies to social gatherings , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe go a few days or weeks before seeing them or another group of friends .
Two weeks would be ideal , since it would match the coronavirus ’ s possible incubation period .
Similar to avoiding crowded spaces and keeping physical distance , this isn ’ t something everyone is going to be able to do perfectly .
We all sometimes forget things at the store and have to go back earlier than we ’ d like .
But the more spaced out trips outside the home are , the better .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ living alone , these can be pretty lonely days .
One solution that some experts have put out there is creating a “ closed circle ” with a friend or family member , in which two people or a group agree to hang out in person but avoid contact with everyone else .
If you and your closed circle avoid everyone else , you ’ ll reduce the chances of infecting each other and the rest of the world even if you hang out regularly .
And if one of you does get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a small circle .
As Sigal Samuel explained for Vox , this idea isn ’ t risk-free , and some experts are opposed to it .
There ’ s a risk that people just don ’ t stick to the pact , putting the whole circle at risk of infection — maybe even at a higher risk if it creates a false sense of security and people in the circle act recklessly toward each other .
But even if everyone follows the pact as best as possible , the concept expands your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of infection — from not only those in the circle , but anyone people in the circle have to interact with at the grocery store , pharmacy , work , or any other setting .
But that ’ s harm reduction .
The closed circle may not eliminate harm , but it does minimize it .
Consider the alternatives .
If people are going to interact with their friends and family , but they do it without a closed circle , that ’ s inherently worse than having a pact , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Is there a way to make it that , 100 percent , everyone is abiding by those standards ?
No , ” Kates said .
“ But it ’ s a harm reduction approach.
” The risk that a closed circle doesn ’ t work as planned also has to be weighed with the significant risk of loneliness .
As Samuel noted , “ A meta-review of 70 studies found that loneliness increases your risk of premature mortality by 26 percent .
Some experts say it ’ s as bad for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it actually hurts our white blood cells.
” We can try to alleviate that loneliness with Skype , Zoom , or phone calls — but , for some people , that ’ s not going to be enough .
“ There are people suffering in isolation , ” Marcus said .
“ In order to sustain this for months or even years , we have to think about how we can connect with others in a way that keeps risk as low as possible , that allows people to feel like they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also possible to mitigate the risk of breaches in a closed circle by following the other tips on this list : Even when hanging out with your closed circle , go outside when possible , wear a mask , follow good hygiene , and keep physical distance from each other .
A closed circle doesn ’ t have to be a license for much riskier behavior ; it can just be an extra layer of protection if you want to regularly see other humans in person .
8 ) If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , be extra careful Some people are more vulnerable to the coronavirus .
Certain chronic conditions , including asthma , diabetes , liver disease , and obesity , appear to heighten the risk of complications and death due to Covid-19 .
Those who are older , especially 65 and up , are at higher risk too .
It ’ s not fair , but it means that those who are at greater risk should be extra careful .
One way experts described this concept : If you fall into one of these at-risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list but take it to an extra level .
If most people typically wash their hands seven times a day , someone in an at-risk group should do it 14 times .
If others should stay 6 feet from people , those in at-risk groups should try 10 feet .
If the typical person should minimize trips to the store to once a week , people in at-risk groups should try to minimize trips to once every two weeks .
And so on .
The safest thing for older people and those with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to stay home as much as possible .
But just like everyone else , this isn ’ t going to be feasible for some people all day every day , or at least something everyone will be willing to do for weeks or months on end .
“ People will take risks , whether we like it or not , ” Marcus argued .
“ The best thing we can do is give them strategies to reduce harm in those situations .
If we don ’ t do that , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Share All sharing options for: 8 ways to go out and stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic
Americans have gotten tired of staying inside. As the coronavirus pandemic has continued for months and summer has kicked off, the number of people consistently practicing social distancing has steadily declined, according to Gallup’s surveys. Especially with the July Fourth weekend approaching, people are bound to go out more to celebrate.
At the beginning of the pandemic, experts’ guidance was more absolute: As much as possible, stay home and avoid interacting with anyone you don’t live with. More recently, with a vaccine likely still months or years away, many experts have advocated for a new approach to get people to stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic — one based on harm reduction.
It might be better for people to stay home all the time, but given that many can’t or won’t, giving them advice on how to reduce the harm to them and others is better than insisting on the ideal.
Related How to go out and not spread coronavirus this summer
Julia Marcus, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard, compared the choice to preaching abstinence versus advising on safe sex during the worst days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic: Completely avoiding sex would keep someone safe from HIV, but given that most people won’t do that, it’s better to give them the tools to practice sex as safely as possible.
“There’s been a polarization between two purported options of staying home indefinitely … versus going back to business as usual,” Marcus told me. “The idea of harm reduction gives us a way of thinking about risk as a continuum and thinking about the middle ground between those two options.”
The safest thing anyone can do in the middle of the Covid-19 outbreak is still the same as it was a few months ago: Stay home as much as possible to avoid catching or spreading the virus until there’s a vaccine or effective treatment, or until the pandemic otherwise ends. That especially applies to people who are sick, who should do all they can to avoid exposing others to the coronavirus.
But lapses will happen. Some people were never able to stay home in the first place; as states begin to reopen, many more will need to leave their homes for their jobs. Others will do so simply because they’re tired of being stuck at home, even if it’s not advisable for their own health or for the public’s.
So I turned to several experts with a question: What can people do to minimize the harm to themselves and others if and when they choose to go out?
Some of the advice reflected the message we’ve already heard for months: Wash your hands. Don’t touch your face. Wear a mask. Avoid shared surfaces and crowded settings, and keep physical distance — at least 6 feet — from people you don’t live with. If you’re 65 or older or have chronic health conditions, you should take all of this advice more seriously.
Other tips were more novel. For example, if you want to do something outside your home, it’s better to take advantage of the fresh air and do it outdoors rather than indoors when possible. If you want to meet with certain friends or family, consider a pact with them in which you’ll both agree to minimize or eliminate contact with anyone else, to reduce overall exposure for everyone involved.
The most important thing: Avoid indoor spaces that bring you within 6 feet of people from outside your household for long periods. “It is about density. It is about duration of contact,” Cyrus Shahpar, a director at Resolve to Save Lives, told me.
Overall, experts were receptive to applying harm reduction concepts to social distancing. They acknowledged it’s not a perfect analogy to HIV or drug use, because a person who’s having risky sex or using drugs is perceived as largely harming themselves, while people who catch and spread the coronavirus put others at immediate risk too. Still, experts took a pragmatic view toward harm reduction overall.
“It reflects the fact this virus is going to be with us until there’s a vaccine,” Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “People are going to come up with their own ways to live with it. That’s going to be different for each person, based on their own risk tolerance.” He added, “It’s important that people be well-informed about what the risks are and how to minimize the risks.”
So here’s how to go out and stay as safe as possible during this coronavirus pandemic. (Vox also has a guide on the risks of specific activities.)
1) Stick to the outdoors
Experts consistently gave one piece of advice for people leaving their homes: If you can do something outdoors instead of indoors, you should do it outdoors.
The coronavirus appears to primarily spread through airborne droplets, which the outdoors mitigates in several ways.
First, the open air is going to make it harder for airborne droplets to reach other people. Shahpar said there’s a common sense element to this: “Any odor I have from cooking in a kitchen is going to linger longer than if I had it outside. It’s just the nature of it.”
Second, it’s easier to keep distance from others while outside compared to inside.
Third, there is some evidence that sunny, warm, and humid weather hurts the coronavirus a bit. Based on the early research so far, heat and UV light appear to kill the virus, while humidity might block airborne droplets from blowing from person to person. The weather isn’t enough to stop the coronavirus — as major Covid-19 outbreaks in sunny and warm Ecuador, Louisiana, Singapore, and now Arizona, Florida, and Texas demonstrate — but it at least seems to help.
The research into coronavirus and the outdoors, while still very early, backs this up, Kelsey Piper explained for Vox:
One study from China (which has not yet been peer-reviewed) examined 318 outbreaks with three or more people across the country. Only one happened outdoors, and only two people got sick: Every outbreak with three or more cases happened indoors. A different study (also not peer-reviewed) in Japan found that “the odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment.”
So if you’re having friends over, consider hanging out outside (and keep it to a small group). If you want to eat at a restaurant, look for outdoor seating. If you’re going for a run, go to the park, beach, or streets instead of the gym. Some experts said policymakers could take advantage of the outdoors as well — holding trials outside, or closing off some streets to cars so pedestrians can make better use of them.
“It’s a good year for outdoor dining and outdoor shopping and outdoor all kinds of activities,” Mark McClellan, who previously headed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Food and Drug Administration under President George W. Bush, told me.
The one exception, of course, is your home. As long as it’s just you and the people you live with in there, it’s safe — likely even the safest place during this pandemic if no one inside is sick.
This isn’t to say that the outdoors is totally safe. Being around people you don’t live with will always create some risk during a pandemic. This is about weighing the pros and cons: Does the relatively small risk other people present outdoors outweigh the benefit of getting some time outside of your house? Different people may come to different answers.
But all else held equal, the outdoors is the safest place for activities outside of your home. For some, that’s a reprieve that makes all the other requirements for social distancing a bit more bearable.
Plus, spending time outdoors can be good for you on its own.
2) Follow good hygiene practices
You’ve probably heard it a million times already, but it’s worth repeating: Wash your hands frequently, and don’t touch your face. If you’re going to frequently venture far outside your home, that advice is especially pertinent.
“Those are harm reduction aspects have been built in already to the messaging that we’ve seen,” Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, told me.
By now, there are plenty of guides out there about how to avoid touching your face and how to wash your hands. For face-touching, the big thing is awareness. Until you break the habit, you’re going to have to dedicate headspace to your face and avoiding touching it. (I touched my face three times just typing this paragraph, so, yes, it’s going to take effort.)
For hand-washing, do it frequently — before, during, and after you go out. Soap and water work great; wash for 20 seconds, and don’t forget the back of your hands, your fingertips, your thumbs, and your wrists. If you don’t have access to soap and water, hand sanitizer with at least 60 percent alcohol content works too.
Yes, good hygiene can be tedious, and we’re all tired of hearing about it over and over. But it works. If you want to minimize risk to yourself and others, you should do it.
3) Wear a mask
After some mixed messaging from federal officials early on in the Covid-19 outbreak, there is widespread consensus that people should wear masks when they go out — a surgical or medical mask if they have one, a cloth one if they don’t.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends masks “in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.” But other experts — and, in some cases, government mandates — go further, saying you should wear a mask in just about any setting outside your home as long as the pandemic continues.
The primary reason for a mask is to stop transmission from the wearer to others, particularly from people who are infected but asymptomatic and therefore might not even know they’re infected. If you wear a mask, you’re less likely to spray virus-containing droplets on surfaces or other people when you breathe, talk, sing, laugh, sigh, snort, cough, sneeze, and whatever else you might do with your mouth and nose.
A mask also likely offers some protection to you by creating a physical barrier to droplets from others in front of your mouth and nose (at least if you’re wearing it properly — make sure that it’s covering both).
The initial research on masks wasn’t great, but it’s getting stronger. Several recent studies found masks alone reduce transmission. Some experts hypothesize — and early research suggests — that masks played a significant role in containing Covid-19 outbreaks in several Asian countries where their use is widespread, like South Korea and Japan.
It can still be difficult, depending on where you live, to find medical masks. But there are cloth alternatives you can make at home. The CDC has an extensive tutorial. And here’s one from the US surgeon general:
#DYK? @CDCgov's recommendation on wearing a cloth face covering may help protect the most vulnerable from #COVID19.
Here's how you can make one today, in just a few easy steps: pic.twitter.com/eFuE7Brw0J — U.S. Surgeon General (@Surgeon_General) April 4, 2020
There are also things you can do to help others wear masks. For example, if you’re hosting a large event or even throwing a party — not advisable, but it will happen — offer masks to the people attending.
When wearing a mask, don’t fidget with it — that would be touching your face — and avoid taking it off until you’re back home. Throw away disposable masks once they’re used, and wash reusable masks after you use them.
Masks are not an excuse to ease off on other hygiene practices. In fact, you want to wash your hands before and after taking off a mask — before, to avoid getting anything on your face and mask, and after, to get rid of anything that was on your mask.
And yes, it’s normal to have a slightly harder time breathing while wearing a mask for a long time. But that discomfort should be weighed against the risk of getting sick or infecting others without a mask.
4) Stay away from crowded settings
One of the common pieces of advice throughout this pandemic has been to keep 6 feet or more away from people you don’t live with, summarized by the catchy but grim slogan “6 feet distance determines our existence.” The closer you are to someone, the likelier they are to shed their coronavirus all over you, and vice versa.
One telling but preliminary study comes from a South Korean call center: The coronavirus spread to 43.5 percent of people working in the close-packed 11th-floor call center. Proximity appeared to play a big role, as this graphic, in which desks marked in blue indicate infection, shows.
The risk here is close and prolonged contact. A jogger running by you for a couple of seconds isn’t the end of the world. But if you’re within 6 feet of someone else for longer than that — especially for hours — it could be dangerous.
“The two variables we worry about is that distance from another person who might be sick and the time spent with them,” Crystal Watson, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me.
This applies to the outdoors, too. While the outdoors are generally safer than the indoors, it’s still a good idea to avoid packed parks or beaches. People who don’t live together just shouldn’t be stacked together for long in any setting.
So if you’re going out to eat, consider skipping the packed restaurant. If you’re going to a park or beach, look for an area without too many people around. If you’re hosting an event, avoid inviting too many people. If you’re meeting up with friends or family, try to stay at least 6 feet away and avoid handshakes, hugs, and kisses.
Part of avoiding crowded spaces is also making these places safer for those who have to be there. For example, public transportation can be pretty packed, but some people need to use it to get to work or the grocery store. If you have other means of transportation and use that instead, you leave more room on the bus or subway for those who don’t have a choice.
You don’t have to do all of this perfectly; in some circumstances, that’s unrealistic. But the better you can do it, the lower the risk.
5) Avoid shared surfaces
If the coronavirus spreads when people pick up virus-containing droplets from different surfaces, one way to minimize that risk is by trying to avoid shared surfaces as much as possible. Although the research suggests this is a rare form of transmission for Covid-19, there’s likely still some risk.
So even if you go outdoors, avoid surfaces touched by different people, like swings, slides, or benches — or, at the very least, wipe them down before using them. If you have to use public transportation or go inside a building that isn’t your house, try to minimize how much of the space you touch.
And if you’re meeting with people you don’t live with, try to avoid sharing things — food, drinks, toys, board game pieces, and so on.
That doesn’t mean you have to be paranoid about picking up food or getting various things delivered to you. (As Jen Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me, “I often get asked the question: ‘Can I get takeout?’ I think you can.”)
But it does mean a little caution is warranted, either in terms of avoiding these surfaces or taking steps to clean them before you touch them.
6) Space out trips outside the home as much as possible
Whether you’re leaving your home because you have to for food or work, or you’re going out because you can’t stand the sight of your apartment anymore, one way to minimize risk is to space out all your trips.
With every venture outside, you are putting yourself at risk of contracting the coronavirus in a world that’s still engulfed by a pandemic. The risk calculus, then, is straightforward: Try to limit how often you do this.
“It’s not a good idea to be going out to the store every day,” Kates said. “You want to minimize the amount of times you might expose somebody [to coronavirus] or you might be exposed.”
One way to do this is to make the most out of necessary trips. If you’re going to the store, try to buy as much as you can afford and carry in one go, and plan ahead so you don’t forget something. (Still, be reasonable and conscientious of others; taking a year’s supply of toilet paper is unnecessary and could force others to make more trips when the store runs out and they have to go home empty-handed.)
This applies to social gatherings, too. If you saw friends recently, maybe go a few days or weeks before seeing them or another group of friends. Two weeks would be ideal, since it would match the coronavirus’s possible incubation period.
Similar to avoiding crowded spaces and keeping physical distance, this isn’t something everyone is going to be able to do perfectly. We all sometimes forget things at the store and have to go back earlier than we’d like. But the more spaced out trips outside the home are, the better.
7) Create a “closed circle” with specific friends or family
Especially if you’re single and living alone, these can be pretty lonely days. One solution that some experts have put out there is creating a “closed circle” with a friend or family member, in which two people or a group agree to hang out in person but avoid contact with everyone else.
If you and your closed circle avoid everyone else, you’ll reduce the chances of infecting each other and the rest of the world even if you hang out regularly. And if one of you does get sick, the spread should be limited to a small circle.
As Sigal Samuel explained for Vox, this idea isn’t risk-free, and some experts are opposed to it. There’s a risk that people just don’t stick to the pact, putting the whole circle at risk of infection — maybe even at a higher risk if it creates a false sense of security and people in the circle act recklessly toward each other. But even if everyone follows the pact as best as possible, the concept expands your social network and, therefore, your risk of infection — from not only those in the circle, but anyone people in the circle have to interact with at the grocery store, pharmacy, work, or any other setting.
But that’s harm reduction. The closed circle may not eliminate harm, but it does minimize it.
Consider the alternatives. If people are going to interact with their friends and family, but they do it without a closed circle, that’s inherently worse than having a pact, even one that’s not perfectly followed.
Related The rules of social distancing
“Is there a way to make it that, 100 percent, everyone is abiding by those standards? No,” Kates said. “But it’s a harm reduction approach.”
The risk that a closed circle doesn’t work as planned also has to be weighed with the significant risk of loneliness. As Samuel noted, “A meta-review of 70 studies found that loneliness increases your risk of premature mortality by 26 percent. Some experts say it’s as bad for your longevity as smoking. We know that it actually hurts our white blood cells.” We can try to alleviate that loneliness with Skype, Zoom, or phone calls — but, for some people, that’s not going to be enough.
“There are people suffering in isolation,” Marcus said. “In order to sustain this for months or even years, we have to think about how we can connect with others in a way that keeps risk as low as possible, that allows people to feel like they’re living their lives.”
It’s also possible to mitigate the risk of breaches in a closed circle by following the other tips on this list: Even when hanging out with your closed circle, go outside when possible, wear a mask, follow good hygiene, and keep physical distance from each other. A closed circle doesn’t have to be a license for much riskier behavior; it can just be an extra layer of protection if you want to regularly see other humans in person.
8) If you’re in an especially at-risk group, be extra careful
Some people are more vulnerable to the coronavirus. Certain chronic conditions, including asthma, diabetes, liver disease, and obesity, appear to heighten the risk of complications and death due to Covid-19. Those who are older, especially 65 and up, are at higher risk too.
It’s not fair, but it means that those who are at greater risk should be extra careful.
One way experts described this concept: If you fall into one of these at-risk groups, follow the advice on this list but take it to an extra level. If most people typically wash their hands seven times a day, someone in an at-risk group should do it 14 times. If others should stay 6 feet from people, those in at-risk groups should try 10 feet. If the typical person should minimize trips to the store to once a week, people in at-risk groups should try to minimize trips to once every two weeks. And so on.
The safest thing for older people and those with chronic conditions is, like everyone else, to stay home as much as possible. But just like everyone else, this isn’t going to be feasible for some people all day every day, or at least something everyone will be willing to do for weeks or months on end.
“People will take risks, whether we like it or not,” Marcus argued. “The best thing we can do is give them strategies to reduce harm in those situations. If we don’t do that, we’re missing an opportunity.”


vox--2020-07-03--How to weigh the risk of going out in the coronavirus pandemic, in one chart

How to weigh the risk of going out in the coronavirus pandemic , in one chart Share All sharing options for : How to weigh the risk of going out in the coronavirus pandemic , in one chart Since coronavirus lockdowns began in the US , most Americans have drastically changed their patterns : following instructions to stay home , limiting almost all contact with others , and venturing out only for essential trips and exercise .
As states have eased social distancing restrictions , and with the July Fourth weekend approaching , people are beginning to have more options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopened businesses or socialize in person , and more employers calling people back to work , survey and cellphone data suggests people are already starting to trickle out of their homes .
But for many people , it ’ s really not clear which kinds of gatherings are safe and which aren ’ t .
And that uncertainty can spark anxiety .
Fortunately , health experts know more about the coronavirus than they did when the lockdowns began , and they can point us to different levels of risk as we begin to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how to minimize harm .
“ There ’ s been a polarization between two purported options of staying home indefinitely … versus going back to business as usual , ” Julia Marcus , an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard , told me .
“ The idea of harm reduction gives us a way of thinking about risk as a continuum and thinking about the middle ground between those two options.
” Marcus and Boston University epidemiologist Eleanor Murray created an infographic showing the different scales of risk .
We at Vox were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Murray ’ s permission , adapted it : “ A lot of people , when they hear that you can ’ t completely get rid of your risk , they think , ‘ Well , that means that it ’ s inevitable , and I ’ ll just go and do everything that I was normally doing before , and if I get sick , I get sick , ’ ” Murray told me .
“ But there are lots of things you can do in between nothing and everything.
” First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been repeated for much of the past few months remains true : Your home is still the safest place to be during this pandemic .
You should continue trying to stay home as much as possible , because the virus is still circulating at a very high rate in many communities .
( If you want to be extra careful , some resources , like Covid Act Now , help show how much transmission there is in your area . )
But whether you need to for work or you ’ re simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s walls , there are ways to mitigate risk when you go out .
For one , outdoors is generally safer , thanks to the open air — where the virus can more easily disperse — and , potentially , the warm , sunny weather .
As Duke health policy expert Mark McClellan told me , “ It ’ s a good year for outdoor dining and outdoor shopping and outdoor all kinds of activities.
” It also matters who you ’ re hanging out with .
It ’ s okay to closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless one of you gets sick ; then whoever ’ s sick should isolate ) .
But you should try to keep your distance from people you don ’ t live with .
And you should try to avoid interacting with too many people at once ; even if it ’ s theoretically possible to keep 6 feet from others in a crowded space , it ’ s still better to avoid it .
That ’ s true for the outdoors , but it ’ s especially true for the indoors .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now-familiar precautions : Wash your hands .
Don ’ t touch your face .
Wear a mask , particularly in indoor public spaces .
Avoid shared surfaces and crowded settings , and keep physical distance — at least 6 feet — from people you don ’ t live with .
If you ’ re 65 or older or have chronic health conditions that could exacerbate Covid-19 , you should take all of this advice more seriously .
Separately , experts say it ’ s a good idea to space out trips outside your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by two weeks , to match the virus ’ s incubation period .
You could also establish a “ closed circle ” with people you want to regularly interact with , in which both sides agree to minimize contact with anyone else ( although some experts are skeptical of this idea ) .
With these tips , you can ’ t completely eliminate the risk of leaving your home .
But you can greatly reduce that risk .
For some , that could make the prospects of going out — with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your physical and mental health — much more feasible .
It all begins , though , with the understanding that risk during the coronavirus pandemic is really a spectrum , not a black-and-white choice .
“ People will take risks , whether we like it or not , ” Marcus said .
“ The best thing we can do is give them strategies to reduce harm in those situations .
If we don ’ t do that , we ’ re missing an opportunity.
” For more detailed tips for going out and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s full explainer .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

How to weigh the risk of going out in the coronavirus pandemic, in one chart
Share All sharing options for: How to weigh the risk of going out in the coronavirus pandemic, in one chart
Since coronavirus lockdowns began in the US, most Americans have drastically changed their patterns: following instructions to stay home, limiting almost all contact with others, and venturing out only for essential trips and exercise.
As states have eased social distancing restrictions, and with the July Fourth weekend approaching, people are beginning to have more options. Between those wanting to patronize newly reopened businesses or socialize in person, and more employers calling people back to work, survey and cellphone data suggests people are already starting to trickle out of their homes.
But for many people, it’s really not clear which kinds of gatherings are safe and which aren’t. And that uncertainty can spark anxiety.
Fortunately, health experts know more about the coronavirus than they did when the lockdowns began, and they can point us to different levels of risk as we begin to reengage. There’s also advice on how to minimize harm.
“There’s been a polarization between two purported options of staying home indefinitely … versus going back to business as usual,” Julia Marcus, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard, told me. “The idea of harm reduction gives us a way of thinking about risk as a continuum and thinking about the middle ground between those two options.”
Marcus and Boston University epidemiologist Eleanor Murray created an infographic showing the different scales of risk. We at Vox were inspired by it and, with Marcus and Murray’s permission, adapted it:
“A lot of people, when they hear that you can’t completely get rid of your risk, they think, ‘Well, that means that it’s inevitable, and I’ll just go and do everything that I was normally doing before, and if I get sick, I get sick,’” Murray told me. “But there are lots of things you can do in between nothing and everything.”
First and foremost, the advice that has been repeated for much of the past few months remains true: Your home is still the safest place to be during this pandemic. You should continue trying to stay home as much as possible, because the virus is still circulating at a very high rate in many communities. (If you want to be extra careful, some resources, like Covid Act Now, help show how much transmission there is in your area.)
But whether you need to for work or you’re simply tired of looking at your home’s walls, there are ways to mitigate risk when you go out.
For one, outdoors is generally safer, thanks to the open air — where the virus can more easily disperse — and, potentially, the warm, sunny weather. As Duke health policy expert Mark McClellan told me, “It’s a good year for outdoor dining and outdoor shopping and outdoor all kinds of activities.”
It also matters who you’re hanging out with. It’s okay to closely interact with people you live with (unless one of you gets sick; then whoever’s sick should isolate). But you should try to keep your distance from people you don’t live with. And you should try to avoid interacting with too many people at once; even if it’s theoretically possible to keep 6 feet from others in a crowded space, it’s still better to avoid it. That’s true for the outdoors, but it’s especially true for the indoors.
When you go out, also take the now-familiar precautions: Wash your hands. Don’t touch your face. Wear a mask, particularly in indoor public spaces. Avoid shared surfaces and crowded settings, and keep physical distance — at least 6 feet — from people you don’t live with. If you’re 65 or older or have chronic health conditions that could exacerbate Covid-19, you should take all of this advice more seriously.
Separately, experts say it’s a good idea to space out trips outside your home as much as possible — ideally, by two weeks, to match the virus’s incubation period. You could also establish a “closed circle” with people you want to regularly interact with, in which both sides agree to minimize contact with anyone else (although some experts are skeptical of this idea).
With these tips, you can’t completely eliminate the risk of leaving your home. But you can greatly reduce that risk. For some, that could make the prospects of going out — with the benefits that going out can entail for your physical and mental health — much more feasible.
It all begins, though, with the understanding that risk during the coronavirus pandemic is really a spectrum, not a black-and-white choice.
“People will take risks, whether we like it or not,” Marcus said. “The best thing we can do is give them strategies to reduce harm in those situations. If we don’t do that, we’re missing an opportunity.”
For more detailed tips for going out and the explanations for them, read Vox’s full explainer.


vox--2020-07-03--The Supreme Court just handed down some truly awful news for voting rights

The Supreme Court handed down two brief , unsigned orders on Friday concerning what restrictions states may place on absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic .
Though neither order is a final judgment — one grants a temporary stay of a lower court decision , the other denies expedited review of an important voting rights case — the practical impact of both orders is that voters in Alabama and Texas will find it harder to cast a ballot during the pandemic .
The Texas order is particularly ominous because it suggests that Texas will be able to apply election rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an easy time casting a ballot — while younger voters could be forced to risk infection in order to vote .
The Alabama case is Merrill v. People First of Alabama .
Alabama law allows anyone to cast an absentee ballot during the pandemic , but it also imposes certain restrictions on those voters .
Among other things , absentee voters must provide a copy of their photo ID , and their ballot must be signed by either two witnesses or one notary public .
A lower court blocked these restrictions “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the signatures of two witnesses or a notary public due to the COVID-19 pandemic ” and “ for absentee voters who are over the age of 65 or disabled and who can not safely obtain a copy of their photo ID due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
” But the Supreme Court stayed that lower court decision — ensuring that , at the very least , the restrictions will be in place for Alabama ’ s July 14 runoff primary election .
Notably , the Supreme Court ’ s order in Merrill was joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans .
All four Democratic appointees dissented .
Neither side explained why they voted the way that they did .
The Texas case , meanwhile , is Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott , and the stakes in that case are simply enormous .
Texas law permits voters over the age of 65 to request absentee ballots without difficulty .
But most voters under the age of 65 are not allowed to vote absentee .
During a pandemic election , that means that older voters — a demographic that has historically favored Republicans over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time participating in the November election .
But younger voters will likely have to risk infection at an in-person polling site if they wish to cast a ballot .
This arrangement is difficult to square with the 26th Amendment , which provides that “ the right of citizens of the United States , who are 18 years of age or older , to vote , shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
” The Court ’ s order in Texas Democratic Party is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Texas will be able to deny or abridge the right to vote on account of age , at least during the November election .
Last month , the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocked a trial judge ’ s order that would have allowed younger Texans to vote absentee .
Although this Fifth Circuit order is not the appeals court ’ s last word on this case , it is quite unlikely that the plaintiffs in Texas Democratic Party will prevail before the Fifth Circuit , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country .
So those plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear their case on an expedited basis .
On Friday , the Supreme Court denied that request .
As a practical matter , writes SCOTUSBlog ’ s Amy Howe , this refusal to expedite the Texas Democratic Party case “ all but eliminated the prospect that the justices will weigh in on the merits of that dispute before the 2020 election in November.
” Thus , even if the Supreme Court ultimately does decide that Texas ’ s age discrimination violates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly come too late to benefit anyone in November .
The Supreme Court ’ s orders in Merrill and Texas Democratic Party fit a pattern .
Last April , in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee , the Supreme Court granted a request from the Republican Party , and ordered all ballots mailed after a certain date in Wisconsin ’ s April elections to be tossed out — a decision that , in practice , likely forced thousands of voters to risk infection in order to cast an in-person ballot .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee was also 5-4 , with all five Republican justices in the majority and all four Democrats in dissent .
In recent weeks , the Court has handed down a handful of left-leaning decisions — including a narrow decision temporarily preserving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) program and an even narrower decision striking down a Louisiana anti-abortion law .
But on the most important question in a democracy — whether citizens are empowered to choose their own leaders — this Supreme Court remains unsympathetic to parties seeking to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest public health crisis in more than a century .

The Supreme Court handed down two brief, unsigned orders on Friday concerning what restrictions states may place on absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic. Though neither order is a final judgment — one grants a temporary stay of a lower court decision, the other denies expedited review of an important voting rights case — the practical impact of both orders is that voters in Alabama and Texas will find it harder to cast a ballot during the pandemic.
The Texas order is particularly ominous because it suggests that Texas will be able to apply election rules that ensure older, Republican-leaning voters have an easy time casting a ballot — while younger voters could be forced to risk infection in order to vote.
The Alabama case
The Alabama case is Merrill v. People First of Alabama. Alabama law allows anyone to cast an absentee ballot during the pandemic, but it also imposes certain restrictions on those voters. Among other things, absentee voters must provide a copy of their photo ID, and their ballot must be signed by either two witnesses or one notary public.
A lower court blocked these restrictions “for voters who cannot safely obtain the signatures of two witnesses or a notary public due to the COVID-19 pandemic” and “for absentee voters who are over the age of 65 or disabled and who cannot safely obtain a copy of their photo ID due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” But the Supreme Court stayed that lower court decision — ensuring that, at the very least, the restrictions will be in place for Alabama’s July 14 runoff primary election.
Notably, the Supreme Court’s order in Merrill was joined only by the Court’s five Republicans. All four Democratic appointees dissented. Neither side explained why they voted the way they did.
The Texas case
The Texas case, meanwhile, is Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, and the stakes in that case are simply enormous.
Texas law permits voters over the age of 65 to request absentee ballots without difficulty. But most voters under the age of 65 are not allowed to vote absentee. During a pandemic election, that means older voters — a demographic that has historically favored Republicans over Democrats — will have a fairly easy time participating in the November election. But younger voters will likely have to risk infection at an in-person polling site if they wish to cast a ballot.
This arrangement is difficult to square with the 26th Amendment, which provides that “the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.”
The Court’s order in Texas Democratic Party is subtle, but it most likely means that Texas will be able to deny or abridge the right to vote on account of age, at least during the November election.
Last month, the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocked a trial judge’s order that would have allowed younger Texans to vote absentee. Although this Fifth Circuit order is not the appeals court’s last word on this case, it is quite unlikely that the plaintiffs in Texas Democratic Party will prevail before the Fifth Circuit, which is among the most conservative courts in the country.
So those plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear their case on an expedited basis. On Friday, the Supreme Court denied that request. As a practical matter, writes SCOTUSBlog’s Amy Howe, this refusal to expedite the Texas Democratic Party case “all but eliminated the prospect that the justices will weigh in on the merits of that dispute before the 2020 election in November.”
Thus, even if the Supreme Court ultimately does decide that Texas’s age discrimination violates the 26th Amendment, that decision will almost certainly come too late to benefit anyone in November.
The Supreme Court’s orders in Merrill and Texas Democratic Party fit a pattern. Last April, in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court granted a request from the Republican Party, and ordered all ballots mailed after a certain date in Wisconsin’s April elections to be tossed out — a decision that, in practice, likely forced thousands of voters to risk infection in order to cast an in-person ballot.
The Court’s decision in Republican National Committee was also 5-4, with all five Republican justices in the majority and all four Democrats in dissent.
In recent weeks, the Court has handed down a handful of left-leaning decisions — including a narrow decision temporarily preserving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and an even narrower decision striking down a Louisiana anti-abortion law.
But on the most important question in a democracy — whether citizens are empowered to choose their own leaders — this Supreme Court remains unsympathetic to parties seeking to protect the right to vote, despite the greatest public health crisis in more than a century.


How to be alone

Many of us dread being alone .
We find isolation uncomfortable or downright scary .
If you want to know just how eager we are to avoid it , consider a scientific study that offered people a choice between giving themselves electric shocks or being alone with their thoughts for 15 minutes .
Believe it or not , many chose the electric shocks .
But here ’ s the good news : Being alone is a skill .
And , just like any other skill , you can get better at it with practice .
I want to suggest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get through the coronavirus pandemic .
Instead of dreading being alone , you can lean into it .
Whether you ’ re self-isolating at home in an effort to flatten the curve , or quarantined in your room because you have Covid-19 , you ’ ve probably felt at least a momentary surge of panic at the idea of being physically cut off from your friends for days or weeks or months .
That ’ s a reasonable feeling : Social distancing is brutal .
Full stop .
Human beings have evolved over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one another ’ s presence , so when we ’ re isolated , it hurts us on a physiological level .
At the same time , we can probably recognize that some of our fear about being alone is not unique to the current pandemic .
It ’ s a fear that has lurked in us for years , as we ’ ve forgotten — or perhaps never really learned — how to sit with ourselves , including with our uncomfortable thoughts and emotions .
“ I think most of us are afraid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know ourselves is a very fearsome process , ” Jack Fong , a sociologist who researches solitude at California State Polytechnic University , Pomona , told me .
To keep this fear at bay , lots of us have a podcast or TV show constantly playing in the background , or a rotation of friends we call one after another .
Many factors have conspired to make us bad at solitude .
They ’ re mostly not our fault .
As Jenny Odell lays out in her book How to Do Nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sociability and constant connectivity are rewarded , and where choosing to be by yourself marks you out as a loser , crazy , possibly immoral .
And when we do find ourselves alone , we ’ re increasingly at the mercy of an attention economy that bombards us with ever-present , ever-pleasant distractions .
With external stimulation always just a click away , it ’ s never been so easy to avoid our inner worlds .
Why would you sit with a feeling like boredom or sadness if you can distract yourself from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bingeing a Netflix show , or launching a Zoom call ?
And indeed , these technologies are the salves everyone seems to be proposing for pandemic-induced loneliness .
Don ’ t get me wrong : They can be genuinely useful .
Like I said , loneliness hurts us physically as well as mentally .
I live alone , so to stay sane , I ’ ve engaged in my fair share of Zoom dance parties over the past few weeks .
Nevertheless , these fixes feel unsatisfying because they ’ re all about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just , well , being alone .
And that avoidance stands to make us even more scared of our solitude .
Decades of psychology research have taught us that trying to escape a distressing emotion is a bad long-term strategy ; it teaches our brain that we can ’ t handle that emotion , and our distress actually grows more intense .
So how can we use this opportunity not to escape solitude but to lean into it ?
We can learn from people who figured out how to do this long before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can learn from survivors of solitary confinement For starters , we need to distinguish between voluntary solitude and enforced solitude .
Plenty of people who ’ ve experimented with the former — hermits and monks , philosophers and artists — have worthwhile lessons to teach us about being alone .
But it ’ s people in the latter category whose experience is most instructive for us now .
Consider what Keith LaMar , who ’ s been in solitary confinement in a supermax prison for 27 years , recently told Mother Jones .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ think solitary confinement is a form of torture that should be abolished , and it makes our self-enforced , tech-enabled isolation look like a walk in the park .
There is simply no comparing the two .
Yet LaMar — as well as Jason Rezaian , a journalist who survived solitary confinement in an Iranian prison — have discussed their experiences in the context of the wide-scale quarantining going on now , in an effort to help us through this period .
So let ’ s consider LaMar ’ s insights : Being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrown upon yourself : You ’ re running around , just like people do in your regular life , and now all of a sudden you ’ re confronted with yourself , and find that in a lot of cases you haven ’ t really put anything into yourself to occupy yourself .
Everything is outward directed .
That ’ s what happened to me 27 years ago , and what happens to a lot of guys who are initially thrown into this situation — it ’ s like being thrown into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to swim .
You have to learn how to deal with yourself .
I ’ ve been lucky in a lot of ways .
My cell has a bookshelf with three shelves , and there ’ s a table to sit and write .
I have a lot of music , books to read .
Not to distract myself from myself , but to take me deeper into myself .
I paint , I work out , I do yoga , I meditate .
I ’ ve watched quite a few people fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I went in another direction .
So 27 years later I ’ m still sound in mind and body and spirit .
I attribute that to just reading and cultivating myself .
That ’ s the thing , when you ’ re thrown upon yourself , you realize you are more equipped than you realized .
A lot of the system keeps us from realizing our own power .
It ’ s a good opportunity for people to tap into that .
… Hopefully young people being forced to stay home outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a glimpse of themselves and start pulling on that thread .
There ’ s a lot of wisdom in this perspective .
In fact , it echoes many of the key observations scholars have made over the years about solitude .
First , there ’ s the idea that to succeed at solitude , you have to accept that you ’ re being “ thrown upon yourself ” — to confront your reality rather than opting for distraction .
Then you have to “ put something into yourself ” — to make solitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into who you are and develops you further .
Matthew Bowker , a Medaille College researcher who studies solitude , says something very similar in The Handbook of Solitude .
He notes that being adept at being alone “ implies the capacity to generate meaningful and valuable experiences in the internal world , for if one wishes to be when alone and not merely to wither or starve , one must be able to generate and possess some of the vital stuff of being.
” In other words , you ’ ve got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in subtraction , and start seeing it as an experiment in addition .
What you ’ re adding is your self — a true self , because at last it ’ s you who ’ s building it , not anyone else .
You ’ re no longer looking to other people for their attention or approval .
The psychologist D.W. Winnicott often drew a distinction between the “ authentic self ” and the “ false self.
” Without realizing it , he said , we look to other people to scaffold our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s they who perform the construction of our identity .
When we ’ re alone — when their judgments and preferences are no longer there to shape our self-concept — it tends to break down .
That can be terrifying .
But it can also be a gift .
Because when the false self falls away , it leaves space for you to build a more authentic self .
What we can learn from people who pretend to live on Mars Another key ingredient to successful solitude , psychologists have found , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Steve Cole , a researcher at the University of California Los Angeles , studies interventions designed to help people cope with loneliness .
He ’ s found that the ones that work tend to focus not on decreasing loneliness but on increasing people ’ s sense of purpose .
Recalling one pilot program that paired isolated older people with elementary school kids whom they ’ re asked to tutor and look out for , Cole told Vox , “ Secretly , this is an intervention for the older people.
” Philosophers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear sense of purpose .
“ Nietzsche said if you find purpose in your suffering , you can tolerate all the pain that comes with it , ” Fong , the sociologist , told me .
“ It ’ s when people don ’ t see a purpose in their suffering that they freak out.
” In 2003 , Kate Greene moved into a geodesic dome on top of a Hawaiian volcano , where she spent four months pretending to be an astronaut on Mars .
NASA funded the experiment because it needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolation , so that real missions won ’ t go kaput just because someone gets lonely .
In a recent essay , Greene confesses that she had a hard time living in the dome .
Separated from her loved ones and troubled by confusing information from mission support , it was hard to remember her sense of purpose .
But when she did , it made all the difference , she writes : Billy Barr , who ’ s been living alone in an abandoned mining shack high up in the Rocky Mountains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar advice .
He says we should all keep track of something .
In his case , it ’ s the environment .
How high is the snow today ?
What animals appeared this month ?
For decades , he ’ s been keeping track of the answers to these questions , and his records have actually had a serious influence on climate change science .
Now , he suggests that people in isolation get through the coronavirus pandemic by participating in a citizen science project such as CoCoRaHS , which tracks rainfall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing that , ” he told WAMU .
“ You get a little rain gauge , put it outside and you ’ re part of a network where there ’ s thousands of other people doing the same thing as you , the same time of the day as you ’ re doing it.
” He and Greene both also emphasize the importance of routines — the little daily rituals that anchor us in time and give shape to a day .
The rewards — and risks — of solitude Isolation has many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can also harbor danger .
First , the virtues .
A long line of nature writers — from William Wordsworth and Henry David Thoreau to Annie Dillard and Mary Oliver — have described how solitude allows them to reconnect with nature , and through nature , a deep bliss .
Many artists insist that isolation is necessary for creative work .
“ I paint with my back to the world , ” said the painter Agnes Martin , because “ the best things in life happen to you when you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they ’ re ambivalent about solitude as a long-term path , acknowledge that it ’ s useful for fostering spiritual insight .
The Hebrew Bible says Moses spent 40 days alone on Mount Sinai before receiving the Torah .
In the Roman Empire , Symeon the Stylite lived on top of a 60-foot pillar — for 37 years !
Hinduism and Buddhism both have rich traditions of solitary forest dwellers .
And Christianity has countless recluses ; my favorite is Julian of Norwich , who at age 30 asked to be permanently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have visions of God and write about them .
The Trappist monk Thomas Merton and the psychologist Carl Jung both pointed out that dissociating from society allows us to perceive and call out its illusions .
“ I am a solitary , ” Jung wrote , “ because I know things and must hint at things which other people do not know , and usually do not even want to know.
” Nietzsche , in Thus Spoke Zarathustra , suggested that solitude can heal us from an overstimulating culture ( “ Flee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I see you dazed by the noise of men ” ) and reconnect us to ourselves ( “ go into isolation ... seek the way to yourself ” ) .
But isolation also comes with its fair share of danger .
The problem is that , as Nietzche ’ s Zarathustra puts it , “ whatever one brings into solitude grows in it , even the inner beast.
” That can mean anxiety , or melancholy , or some other kind of distress .
For this reason , the philosopher said “ solitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Nietzche was prescient enough to know that solitude is a dangerous project , ” Fong told me .
“ If you are not ready for it , the cave you enter can be a very scary place .
For those who have unresolved issues that may not have been attended to by a mental health expert , this may not be a good place to go.
” That ’ s why psychologists typically recommend gradual exposure .
If being alone is scary to you , ideally you want to seek it out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — once you ’ ve proven to your brain that it can in fact tolerate the distress — slowly increase the dose .
If you ’ re in the midst of a full-blown panic attack , that ’ s not a good time to practice honing a new skill ; you may need to first soothe the distress a bit .
Engaging the senses to bring yourself back into your body is one commonly recommended way to do that ( it ’ s no coincidence that everyone on social media is suddenly baking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unfortunately , a pandemic doesn ’ t allow us to take the stepladder of solitude as gradually as we might like ; our quarantines have come upon us suddenly .
It ’ s not ideal , but even under these circumstances , we can build up to the skill of being alone .
How to practice “ distress tolerance skills ” for being alone : A practical guide The best step-by-step guide I ’ ve read for this purpose comes from the Centre for Clinical Interventions , supported by the Australian government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there have published a comprehensive guide to developing “ distress tolerance skills.
” It ’ s free , it ’ s online , and it uses an evidence-based approach rooted in cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based therapy .
It ’ s worth checking out the whole guide , but I ’ ll give a capsule summary of the process it recommends .
First , accept the distress you ’ re feeling .
Instead of engaging in your usual escape methods for avoiding uncomfortable emotions ( whether it ’ s bingeing TV , numbing out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commit to doing the opposite : Stay with the emotion .
Second , watch the emotion .
Noting how it ’ s manifesting in your clenched muscles or using imagery to describe it ( “ this feeling is not me , it ’ s just like a cloud floating past in the sky ” ) , may help you detach from it a bit .
Keep observing it until it naturally subsides .
Third , turn your attention back to a task you want to do in the present moment .
It can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on your breath , or an outward task like volunteering to help people in need during the pandemic .
Expect that the distressing feelings will come back .
But know , too , that by actually facing them rather than running away from them , you ’ re teaching yourself that you ’ re strong enough to handle them .
If this is sounding a bit familiar , that ’ s because it echoes the strategies laid out by the experienced solitaries we met above , like the survivor of solitary confinement and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Accepting your isolation , letting it take you deeper into yourself , remembering your purpose — these are tried-and-true strategies for successful solitude .
You will find the same strategies echoed in other sources , from contemporary Western psychologists and mindfulness teachers to ancient Buddhist texts .
And perhaps there ’ s some comfort in that .
As alone as you might feel right now , remember that many human beings have experienced isolation before you , and they ’ ve left you their best tips for how to make the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re in community with them right now .
You ’ re also in community with the friends and family you have access to through your phone , Zoom , and so on .
We should absolutely keep using these distance-collapsing technologies .
But there ’ s a difference between using them from a place of desperation , where we ’ re scrambling to generate a constant stream of chatter to distract us from our aloneness , and using them from a place of mindfulness , where we ’ ve already faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it naturally subside .
When we do the latter , psychologists say , that Zoom dance party becomes a reward for approaching rather than avoiding our solitude .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Many of us dread being alone. We find isolation uncomfortable or downright scary. If you want to know just how eager we are to avoid it, consider a scientific study that offered people a choice between giving themselves electric shocks or being alone with their thoughts for 15 minutes. Believe it or not, many chose the electric shocks.
But here’s the good news: Being alone is a skill. And, just like any other skill, you can get better at it with practice. I want to suggest that honing this skill now can help you get through this pandemic winter. Instead of dreading being alone, you can lean into it.
Whether you’re skipping holidays with your family in an effort to contain the current coronavirus surge, or quarantined in your room because you have Covid-19, you’ve probably felt at least a momentary surge of panic at the idea of being physically cut off from your loved ones for days or weeks or months.
That’s a reasonable feeling: Social distancing is brutal. Full stop. Human beings have evolved over thousands of years to take comfort in one another’s presence, so when we’re isolated, it hurts us on a physiological level.
At the same time, we can probably recognize that some of our fear about being alone is not unique to the current pandemic. It’s a fear that has lurked in us for years, as we’ve forgotten — or perhaps never really learned — how to sit with ourselves, including with our uncomfortable thoughts and emotions.
“I think most of us are afraid to be alone with ourselves because getting to know ourselves is a very fearsome process,” Jack Fong, a sociologist who researches solitude at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, told me. To keep this fear at bay, lots of us have a podcast or TV show constantly playing in the background, or a rotation of friends we call one after another.
Many factors have conspired to make us bad at solitude. They’re mostly not our fault. As Jenny Odell lays out in her book How to Do Nothing, we live in a culture where sociability and constant connectivity are rewarded, and where choosing to be by yourself marks you out as a loser, crazy, possibly immoral.
And when we do find ourselves alone, we’re increasingly at the mercy of an attention economy that bombards us with ever-present, ever-pleasant distractions. With external stimulation always just a click away, it’s never been so easy to avoid our inner worlds. Why would you sit with a feeling like boredom or sadness if you can distract yourself from it by texting a friend, or bingeing a Netflix show, or launching a Zoom call?
And indeed, these technologies are the salves everyone seems to be proposing for pandemic-induced loneliness. Don’t get me wrong: They can be genuinely useful. Like I said, loneliness hurts us physically as well as mentally. I live alone, so to stay sane, I’ve engaged in my fair share of Zoom dance parties.
Nevertheless, these fixes feel unsatisfying because they’re all about how to avoid being alone instead of just, well, being alone. And that avoidance stands to make us even more scared of our solitude. Decades of psychology research have taught us that trying to escape a distressing emotion is a bad long-term strategy; it teaches our brain that we can’t handle that emotion, and our distress actually grows more intense.
So how can we use this opportunity not to escape solitude but to lean into it? We can learn from people who figured out how to do this long before the coronavirus came knocking.
What we can learn from survivors of solitary confinement
For starters, we need to distinguish between voluntary solitude and enforced solitude. Plenty of people who’ve experimented with the former — hermits and monks, philosophers and artists — have worthwhile lessons to teach us about being alone. But it’s people in the latter category whose experience is most instructive for us now.
Consider what Keith LaMar, who’s been in solitary confinement in a supermax prison for 27 years, recently told Mother Jones. I want to be clear that I think solitary confinement is a form of torture that should be abolished, and it makes our self-enforced, tech-enabled isolation look like a walk in the park. There is simply no comparing the two.
Yet LaMar — as well as Jason Rezaian, a journalist who survived solitary confinement in an Iranian prison — have discussed their experiences in the context of the wide-scale quarantining going on now, in an effort to help us through this period. So let’s consider LaMar’s insights:
Being in solitary confinement is really just being thrown upon yourself: You’re running around, just like people do in your regular life, and now all of a sudden you’re confronted with yourself, and find that in a lot of cases you haven’t really put anything into yourself to occupy yourself. Everything is outward directed. That’s what happened to me 27 years ago, and what happens to a lot of guys who are initially thrown into this situation — it’s like being thrown into the ocean. You have to learn how to swim. You have to learn how to deal with yourself. I’ve been lucky in a lot of ways. My cell has a bookshelf with three shelves, and there’s a table to sit and write. I have a lot of music, books to read. Not to distract myself from myself, but to take me deeper into myself. I paint, I work out, I do yoga, I meditate. I’ve watched quite a few people fall apart, lose their minds. But I went in another direction. So 27 years later I’m still sound in mind and body and spirit. I attribute that to just reading and cultivating myself. That’s the thing, when you’re thrown upon yourself, you realize you are more equipped than you realized. A lot of the system keeps us from realizing our own power. It’s a good opportunity for people to tap into that. … Hopefully young people being forced to stay home outside of the mainstream curriculum are able to get a glimpse of themselves and start pulling on that thread.
There’s a lot of wisdom in this perspective. In fact, it echoes many of the key observations scholars have made over the years about solitude.
First, there’s the idea that to succeed at solitude, you have to accept that you’re being “thrown upon yourself” — to confront your reality rather than opting for distraction. Then you have to “put something into yourself” — to make solitude a generative practice that takes you deeper into who you are and develops you further.
Matthew Bowker, a Medaille College researcher who studies solitude, says something very similar in The Handbook of Solitude. He notes that being adept at being alone “implies the capacity to generate meaningful and valuable experiences in the internal world, for if one wishes to be when alone and not merely to wither or starve, one must be able to generate and possess some of the vital stuff of being.”
In other words, you’ve got to quit seeing solitude as an experiment in subtraction, and start seeing it as an experiment in addition. What you’re adding is your self — a true self, because at last it’s you who’s building it, not anyone else. You’re no longer looking to other people for their attention or approval.
The psychologist D.W. Winnicott often drew a distinction between the “authentic self” and the “false self.” Without realizing it, he said, we look to other people to scaffold our sense of who we are. It’s they who perform the construction of our identity. When we’re alone — when their judgments and preferences are no longer there to shape our self-concept — it tends to break down. That can be terrifying. But it can also be a gift. Because when the false self falls away, it leaves space for you to build a more authentic self.
What we can learn from people who pretend to live on Mars
Another key ingredient to successful solitude, psychologists have found, is having a clear sense of purpose.
Steve Cole, a researcher at the University of California Los Angeles, studies interventions designed to help people cope with loneliness. He’s found that the ones that work tend to focus not on decreasing loneliness but on increasing people’s sense of purpose. Recalling one pilot program that paired isolated older people with elementary school kids whom they’re asked to tutor and look out for, Cole told Vox, “Secretly, this is an intervention for the older people.”
Philosophers have also noted the fortifying effects of a clear sense of purpose. “Nietzsche said if you find purpose in your suffering, you can tolerate all the pain that comes with it,” Fong, the sociologist, told me. “It’s when people don’t see a purpose in their suffering that they freak out.”
In 2003, Kate Greene moved into a geodesic dome on top of a Hawaiian volcano, where she spent four months pretending to be an astronaut on Mars. NASA funded the experiment because it needs to know how human beings deal with isolation, so that real missions won’t go kaput just because someone gets lonely. In a recent essay, Greene confesses that she had a hard time living in the dome. Separated from her loved ones and troubled by confusing information from mission support, it was hard to remember her sense of purpose. But when she did, it made all the difference, she writes:
Remembering that we were doing something that might be good for the future of human exploration and maybe even humanity kept me grounded when I wanted to be flying and let me fly when I felt heavy and stuck. To be part of something historic, to do something potentially grand for others — it was remarkable how focusing on that was often enough.
Billy Barr, who’s been living alone in an abandoned mining shack high up in the Rocky Mountains for almost 50 years, has very similar advice. He says we should all keep track of something.
In his case, it’s the environment. How high is the snow today? What animals appeared this month? For decades, he’s been keeping track of the answers to these questions, and his records have actually had a serious influence on climate change science.
Now, he suggests that people in isolation get through the coronavirus pandemic by participating in a citizen science project such as CoCoRaHS, which tracks rainfall.
“I would definitely recommend people doing that,” he told WAMU. “You get a little rain gauge, put it outside and you’re part of a network where there’s thousands of other people doing the same thing as you, the same time of the day as you’re doing it.”
He and Greene both also emphasize the importance of routines — the little daily rituals that anchor us in time and give shape to a day.
The rewards — and risks — of solitude
Isolation has many virtues. But, harnessed incorrectly, it can also harbor danger.
First, the virtues. A long line of nature writers — from William Wordsworth and Henry David Thoreau to Annie Dillard and Mary Oliver — have described how solitude allows them to reconnect with nature, and through nature, a deep bliss. Many artists insist that isolation is necessary for creative work. “I paint with my back to the world,” said the painter Agnes Martin, because “the best things in life happen to you when you’re alone.”
Most world religions, even if they’re ambivalent about solitude as a long-term path, acknowledge that it’s useful for fostering spiritual insight. The Hebrew Bible says Moses spent 40 days alone on Mount Sinai before receiving the Torah. In the Roman Empire, Symeon the Stylite lived on top of a 60-foot pillar — for 37 years! Hinduism and Buddhism both have rich traditions of solitary forest dwellers. And Christianity has countless recluses; my favorite is Julian of Norwich, who at age 30 asked to be permanently shut into a cell so she could have visions of God and write about them.
The Trappist monk Thomas Merton and the psychologist Carl Jung both pointed out that dissociating from society allows us to perceive and call out its illusions. “I am a solitary,” Jung wrote, “because I know things and must hint at things which other people do not know, and usually do not even want to know.”
Nietzsche, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, suggested that solitude can heal us from an overstimulating culture (“Flee, my friend, into your solitude! I see you dazed by the noise of men”) and reconnect us to ourselves (“go into isolation ... seek the way to yourself”).
But isolation also comes with its fair share of danger. The problem is that, as Nietzche’s Zarathustra puts it, “whatever one brings into solitude grows in it, even the inner beast.” That can mean anxiety, or melancholy, or some other kind of distress. For this reason, the philosopher said “solitude is ill-advised” for many people.
“Nietzche was prescient enough to know that solitude is a dangerous project,” Fong told me. “If you are not ready for it, the cave you enter can be a very scary place. For those who have unresolved issues that may not have been attended to by a mental health expert, this may not be a good place to go.”
That’s why psychologists typically recommend gradual exposure. If being alone is scary to you, ideally you want to seek it out in small doses first, and then — once you’ve proven to your brain that it can in fact tolerate the distress — slowly increase the dose. If you’re in the midst of a full-blown panic attack, that’s not a good time to practice honing a new skill; you may need to first soothe the distress a bit. Engaging the senses to bring yourself back into your body is one commonly recommended way to do that (it’s no coincidence that everyone on social media is now baking sourdough bread and planting fragrant herbs).
Unfortunately, a pandemic doesn’t allow us to take the stepladder of solitude as gradually as we might like. It’s not ideal, but even under these circumstances, we can build up to the skill of being alone.
How to practice “distress tolerance skills” for being alone: A practical guide
The best step-by-step guide I’ve read for this purpose comes from the Centre for Clinical Interventions, supported by the Australian government’s department of health. Psychologists there have published a comprehensive guide to developing “distress tolerance skills.” It’s free, it’s online, and it uses an evidence-based approach rooted in cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based therapy. It’s worth checking out the whole guide, but I’ll give a capsule summary of the process it recommends.
First, accept the distress you’re feeling. Instead of engaging in your usual escape methods for avoiding uncomfortable emotions (whether it’s bingeing TV, numbing out with alcohol, or whatever), commit to doing the opposite: Stay with the emotion.
Second, watch the emotion. Noting how it’s manifesting in your clenched muscles or using imagery to describe it (“this feeling is not me, it’s just like a cloud floating past in the sky”) may help you detach from it a bit. Keep observing it until it naturally subsides.
Third, turn your attention back to a task you want to do in the present moment. It can be a simple inward task like focusing on your breath, or an outward task like volunteering to help people in need during the pandemic.
Expect that the distressing feelings will come back. But know, too, that by actually facing them rather than running away from them, you’re teaching yourself that you’re strong enough to handle them.
If this is sounding a bit familiar, that’s because it echoes the strategies laid out by the experienced solitaries we met above, like the survivor of solitary confinement and the woman on the ersatz Mars mission. Accepting your isolation, letting it take you deeper into yourself, remembering your purpose — these are tried-and-true strategies for successful solitude. You will find the same strategies echoed in other sources, from contemporary Western psychologists and mindfulness teachers to ancient Buddhist texts.
And perhaps there’s some comfort in that. As alone as you might feel right now, remember that many human beings have experienced isolation before you, and they’ve left you their best tips for how to make the most of it. In a sense, you’re in community with them right now.
You’re also in community with the friends and family you have access to through your phone, Zoom, and so on. We should absolutely keep using these distance-collapsing technologies.
But there’s a difference between using them from a place of desperation, where we’re scrambling to generate a constant stream of chatter to distract us from our aloneness, and using them from a place of mindfulness, where we’ve already faced the distress of being alone and experienced it naturally subside. When we do the latter, psychologists say, that Zoom dance party becomes a reward for approaching rather than avoiding our solitude.
Reporting for this article was supported by Public Theologies of Technology and Presence, a journalism and research initiative based at the Institute of Buddhist Studies and funded by the Henry Luce Foundation.