vox--2020-08-13--Why you’re unlikely to get the coronavirus from runners or cyclists

Share All sharing options for : Why you ’ re unlikely to get the coronavirus from runners or cyclists Under social distancing , we ’ re all doing our best to stay sane , and one of the best ways to maintain sanity is to go out for some nice fresh air .
But venturing outside can be stressful if you ’ re worried that the very air is full of virus particles just waiting to infect you .
So , how worried should you be that any time you go outside , you ’ ll contract coronavirus from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who happens to exhale as they pass by ?
The answer is , you probably don ’ t need to freak out about it .
As long as you ’ re maintaining at least 6 feet of distance from other people and you ’ re not in a high-risk group , you ’ re engaged in a very low-risk activity , particularly if you and others are wearing masks .
In April , Belgian and Dutch engineers publicized some findings that went viral online and gave people the opposite impression .
The engineers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simulate the spread of droplets we generate as we walk , run , or bike .
Since the particles hit a trailing athlete who was farther than 6 feet away , the engineers concluded we need to maintain more distance than that to avoid the risk of contracting Covid-19 .
They recommended staying 16 feet behind someone who ’ s walking , 33 feet behind someone who ’ s running or biking slowly , and 65 feet behind someone who ’ s biking hard .
Those sorts of distances are almost impossible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the findings made the rounds online , lots of people panicked .
But this research — despite being branded as a “ study ” in a much-shared Medium post aiming to summarize it — contained no input from epidemiologists or virologists and was not peer-reviewed .
Its logic is deeply flawed .
“ I think we should be very careful with making assumptions about transmission based on that ‘ study , ’ since it didn ’ t account for any variables related to transmissibility , ” said Angela Rasmussen , a virologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s important to understand that infections are started with a minimum infectious dose of virus.
” In other words , the “ study ” failed to consider two key questions : How easy is it for particles traveling in the air outdoors to infect you ?
And how many particles containing infectious virus would you have to inhale to become infected ?
The engineers simply concluded that any exposure was too much .
But that ’ s not the case ; the truth is more reassuring .
Let ’ s break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn .
How easy is it for particles traveling in the air outdoors to infect you ?
To start with , we should get clear on something that has proven confusing to lots of people : Is the coronavirus “ airborne ” ?
The confusion stems from the fact that there ’ s an everyday meaning of the word “ airborne ” — carried in the air — and a technical scientific meaning , which is based on the size of the virus particles and how long the virus can linger in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health experts like to refer to bigger particles that are heavy and thus fall fast as “ droplets , ” and tiny particles that evaporate faster than they can fall as “ aerosols.
” When a virus is transmissible as aerosols , they say it ’ s “ airborne.
” We know for sure that the coronavirus moves as droplets .
But what about aerosols ?
“ There ’ s no debate at all as to whether or not aerosols are generated ( they are [ at least in hospitals where medically invasive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not they contain virus ( they do [ at least at first ] ) , and whether or not a particularly violent sneeze can propel them across a room ( it can ) , ” said Jennifer Kasten , a pathologist with training in infectious disease epidemiology and global health .
Research by MIT ’ s Lydia Bourouiba has shown that coughs and sneezes can release turbulent clouds of particles in droplet and aerosol form alike .
The particles from a cough can travel as far as 16 feet and particles from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 26 feet .
That , and a handful of other studies , have left some people wondering if maybe we do need to stay much farther apart from one another than the recommended 6 feet .
But if we focus solely on the aerodynamics of particle dispersion , we obscure more crucial unanswered questions : How hardy is the virus when it ’ s in aerosol form ?
How long can it linger in the air before its protective coat of moisture dries up and it falls apart , ceasing to be infectious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clusters , like the one originating in a choir practice in Washington state , that seem to indicate that asymptomatic people can generate aerosols that make other people sick — at least when they ’ re closely packed together in an enclosed space , for a few hours , singing , which generates higher pressures than does breathing or speech .
Fortunately , increasing your distance , decreasing the duration of your exposure , and improving the ventilation of the air around you can all lower your risk .
And being outdoors generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The risks of virus transmissibility in the air outdoors is likely quite low in those contexts , although this risk hasn ’ t been definitively measured , ” Rasmussen said .
“ Outside , things like sunlight , wind , rain , ambient temperature , and humidity can affect virus infectivity and transmissibility , so while we can ’ t say there ’ s zero risk , it ’ s likely low unless you are engaging in activities as part of a large crowd ( such as a protest ) .
Solitary outdoor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kasten both noted that a perfect sequence of events has to happen for a virus to jump from an infected passerby outdoors to you .
The particles — enough of them to be able to kickstart an infection — have to spray out of the passerby with enough force to make their way over to you .
The virus inside the particles has to survive while sunlight , humidity , wind , and other forces work to decay and disperse them .
The particles have to land right in your upper throat or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which you then use to touch your eyes , nose , or mouth — and they have to get past all the barriers to infection in the respiratory system , like nose hairs and mucus .
Then they have to dock up with your cells ’ ACE-2 receptors and use them to enter the cells .
This is a pretty arduous sequence to execute properly , and it ’ s even more difficult for the virus if everyone involved — say , both you and the runner in front of you — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see why , if you ’ re standing outdoors several feet away from an infected person , the virus might have a hard time making its way over to you at a high enough dose to actually infect you .
How many particles do you have to inhale to launch an infection ?
One thing we ’ d all love to know about Covid-19 is what constitutes the infectious dose — that is , how many live virus particles you need to inhale at once before they kickstart an infection .
Unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer yet .
“ As animal model data continues to come out , we ’ ll have a much better idea about estimated ranges of infectious dose , ” Rasmussen said .
In the meantime , some experts are estimating the infectious dose for Covid-19 from previous coronaviruses that have infected humans , like Middle East Respiratory Syndrome ( MERS ) .
To develop a MERS infection , the number of virus particles you need to inhale is somewhere in the thousands , perhaps as high as 10,000 .
Willem van Schaik , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Birmingham , estimates that to develop Covid-19 , that number is lower , perhaps in the high hundreds or low thousands .
That ’ s just an educated guess , but it ’ s reasonable to assume it takes fewer particles to launch an infection in the case of Covid-19 than MERS , because Covid-19 is much more transmissible .
Each person with Covid-19 infects two or three others on average , while for MERS that number is less than one .
Although we don ’ t know exactly how many particles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the point to bear in mind here is that you ’ re not going to contract Covid-19 if a single particle falls on you .
One of the problems with the Belgian-Dutch exercise “ study ” is that its recommendations seem to be based on the idea that any exposure is too much .
Obviously , you don ’ t want to walk through someone ’ s fresh sneeze or cough cloud , and if this accidentally happens you should go home , change , and shower .
But if you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passerby is generating with their exhalations , it may help to know that a study managed to quantify how many virus particles were detectable after patients who had Covid-19 and who were not wearing masks coughed five times into a petri dish at a distance of roughly 8 inches .
The scientists detected 363 virus particles on average per 1 ml of petri dish .
That seems like a lot , but again , that was at a distance of 8 inches .
If you ’ re 6 feet away ( 72 inches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before you can inhale it — particularly if you ’ re outdoors , where factors like increased distance , decreased duration of exposure , and improved air ventilation are all working in your favor .
It may also help to know about some studies suggesting that most Covid-19 transmission happens indoors , not outdoors .
In China , a study of 318 outbreaks found that transmission occurred outdoors in only one of them .
In Japan , a study found that “ the odds that a primary case transmitted Covid-19 in a closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an open-air environment.
” Note , however , that both of these are preprint papers ( not yet peer reviewed ) .
An understanding of infectious dose , combined with an understanding of transmissibility as laid out above , should also help calm excessive levels of worry about picking up the virus from objects like mail or groceries .
Remember that to kickstart an illness , you have to have enough virus particles to get an infection going , and it ’ s got to be live , infectious virus , not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t harm you ) .
The latter will simply fall apart after enough time on inert objects — up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to three days on plastic and stainless steel .
“ Viral RNA does not imply the presence of infectious virus , ” Kasten explained .
“ The virus , without host cells and a bit of moisture to keep it temporarily going , can fall apart , leaving bits of its RNA lying around like bleached bones in the sun .
A researcher can come along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a common method in molecular biology ] and detect the RNA , but that doesn ’ t necessarily mean they detected infectious virus.
” So , when you see a headline that seems frightening — for example , one saying that researchers found coronavirus on a cruise ship 17 days after passengers disembarked — just remember that doesn ’ t necessarily mean it was live , infectious virus .
“ The good news is that we do know that while the virus can persist in the environment on different surfaces and in different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , ” Rasmussen said .
“ So if you inhale a large number of total [ virus particles ] but only a small number of them are infectious , you are at much lower risk of actually getting infected.
” None of this is to say you should be cavalier when you venture into the outside world .
Washing your hands , avoiding touching your face , being diligent about physical distancing , wearing masks in public , and disinfecting communal surfaces — all these things likely reduce transmission risk , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
But she also said she feels fine about taking a walk with her husband outdoors .
Psychologically , different people have different levels of tolerance for risk .
For some people , any risk that can be minimized , should be , no matter how small .
For others , the recommended 6-foot distance , with masks , and the known decay of both the amount and the infectiousness of the virus — that ’ s good enough .
“ The people who are 26-footers should know , though , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endangering others unnecessarily , ” Kasten said .
Asked if she could offer a way to assess the risk of various activities in terms we can easily wrap our minds around , Kasten said to consider the difference in the risk between taking a stroll through the park on an even path versus climbing up a steep cliff face .
“ Sure , you could slip , fall , strike your head , and die on that path in the park .
Likewise , you could free-solo successfully to the top of El @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept the risk of the stroll and not accept [ the risk of ] dangling from the cliff , ” she said .
“ Breathing in someone ’ s sneeze cloud , close by , without a mask — that ’ s the cliff face .
Jogging several feet away , or getting the mail — that ’ s the park.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Share All sharing options for: Why you’re unlikely to get the coronavirus from runners or cyclists
Under social distancing, we’re all doing our best to stay sane, and one of the best ways to maintain sanity is to go out for some nice fresh air. But venturing outside can be stressful if you’re worried that the very air is full of virus particles just waiting to infect you.
So, how worried should you be that any time you go outside, you’ll contract coronavirus from a fellow pedestrian, runner, or cyclist who happens to exhale as they pass by?
The answer is, you probably don’t need to freak out about it. As long as you’re maintaining at least 6 feet of distance from other people and you’re not in a high-risk group, you’re engaged in a very low-risk activity, particularly if you and others are wearing masks.
In April, Belgian and Dutch engineers publicized some findings that went viral online and gave people the opposite impression. The engineers used a spray nozzle particle generator to simulate the spread of droplets we generate as we walk, run, or bike. Since the particles hit a trailing athlete who was farther than 6 feet away, the engineers concluded we need to maintain more distance than that to avoid the risk of contracting Covid-19.
They recommended staying 16 feet behind someone who’s walking, 33 feet behind someone who’s running or biking slowly, and 65 feet behind someone who’s biking hard. Those sorts of distances are almost impossible to maintain in big cities. So, as the findings made the rounds online, lots of people panicked.
But this research — despite being branded as a “study” in a much-shared Medium post aiming to summarize it — contained no input from epidemiologists or virologists and was not peer-reviewed. Its logic is deeply flawed.
“I think we should be very careful with making assumptions about transmission based on that ‘study,’ since it didn’t account for any variables related to transmissibility,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, adding, “It’s important to understand that infections are started with a minimum infectious dose of virus.”
In other words, the “study” failed to consider two key questions: How easy is it for particles traveling in the air outdoors to infect you? And how many particles containing infectious virus would you have to inhale to become infected?
The engineers simply concluded that any exposure was too much. But that’s not the case; the truth is more reassuring. Let’s break down each of the two questions in turn.
How easy is it for particles traveling in the air outdoors to infect you?
To start with, we should get clear on something that has proven confusing to lots of people: Is the coronavirus “airborne”?
The confusion stems from the fact that there’s an everyday meaning of the word “airborne” — carried in the air — and a technical scientific meaning, which is based on the size of the virus particles and how long the virus can linger in the air before losing its infectivity.
Public health experts like to refer to bigger particles that are heavy and thus fall fast as “droplets,” and tiny particles that evaporate faster than they can fall as “aerosols.” When a virus is transmissible as aerosols, they say it’s “airborne.”
We know for sure that the coronavirus moves as droplets. But what about aerosols?
“There’s no debate at all as to whether or not aerosols are generated (they are [at least in hospitals where medically invasive procedures are performed]), whether or not they contain virus (they do [at least at first]), and whether or not a particularly violent sneeze can propel them across a room (it can),” said Jennifer Kasten, a pathologist with training in infectious disease epidemiology and global health.
Research by MIT’s Lydia Bourouiba has shown that coughs and sneezes can release turbulent clouds of particles in droplet and aerosol form alike. The particles from a cough can travel as far as 16 feet and particles from a sneeze can travel as far as 26 feet.
That, and a handful of other studies, have left some people wondering if maybe we do need to stay much farther apart from one another than the recommended 6 feet.
But if we focus solely on the aerodynamics of particle dispersion, we obscure more crucial unanswered questions: How hardy is the virus when it’s in aerosol form? How long can it linger in the air before its protective coat of moisture dries up and it falls apart, ceasing to be infectious?
We’ve seen Covid-19 case clusters, like the one originating in a choir practice in Washington state, that seem to indicate that asymptomatic people can generate aerosols that make other people sick — at least when they’re closely packed together in an enclosed space, for a few hours, singing, which generates higher pressures than does breathing or speech.
Fortunately, increasing your distance, decreasing the duration of your exposure, and improving the ventilation of the air around you can all lower your risk. And being outdoors generally helps you do all three.
“The risks of virus transmissibility in the air outdoors is likely quite low in those contexts, although this risk hasn’t been definitively measured,” Rasmussen said. “Outside, things like sunlight, wind, rain, ambient temperature, and humidity can affect virus infectivity and transmissibility, so while we can’t say there’s zero risk, it’s likely low unless you are engaging in activities as part of a large crowd (such as a protest). Solitary outdoor exercise is likely low-risk.”
Rasmussen and Kasten both noted that a perfect sequence of events has to happen for a virus to jump from an infected passerby outdoors to you. The particles — enough of them to be able to kickstart an infection — have to spray out of the passerby with enough force to make their way over to you. The virus inside the particles has to survive while sunlight, humidity, wind, and other forces work to decay and disperse them. The particles have to land right in your upper throat or respiratory tract — or on your hands, which you then use to touch your eyes, nose, or mouth — and they have to get past all the barriers to infection in the respiratory system, like nose hairs and mucus. Then they have to dock up with your cells’ ACE-2 receptors and use them to enter the cells.
This is a pretty arduous sequence to execute properly, and it’s even more difficult for the virus if everyone involved — say, both you and the runner in front of you — is wearing a mask. You can see why, if you’re standing outdoors several feet away from an infected person, the virus might have a hard time making its way over to you at a high enough dose to actually infect you.
How many particles do you have to inhale to launch an infection?
One thing we’d all love to know about Covid-19 is what constitutes the infectious dose — that is, how many live virus particles you need to inhale at once before they kickstart an infection. Unfortunately, scientists just don’t have the answer yet.
“As animal model data continues to come out, we’ll have a much better idea about estimated ranges of infectious dose,” Rasmussen said.
In the meantime, some experts are estimating the infectious dose for Covid-19 from previous coronaviruses that have infected humans, like Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).
To develop a MERS infection, the number of virus particles you need to inhale is somewhere in the thousands, perhaps as high as 10,000. Willem van Schaik, a professor of microbiology at the University of Birmingham, estimates that to develop Covid-19, that number is lower, perhaps in the high hundreds or low thousands.
That’s just an educated guess, but it’s reasonable to assume it takes fewer particles to launch an infection in the case of Covid-19 than MERS, because Covid-19 is much more transmissible. Each person with Covid-19 infects two or three others on average, while for MERS that number is less than one.
Although we don’t know exactly how many particles it takes — 900? 1,500? — the point to bear in mind here is that you’re not going to contract Covid-19 if a single particle falls on you. One of the problems with the Belgian-Dutch exercise “study” is that its recommendations seem to be based on the idea that any exposure is too much.
Obviously, you don’t want to walk through someone’s fresh sneeze or cough cloud, and if this accidentally happens you should go home, change, and shower. But if you’re worrying about how many particles a passerby is generating with their exhalations, it may help to know that a study managed to quantify how many virus particles were detectable after patients who had Covid-19 and who were not wearing masks coughed five times into a petri dish at a distance of roughly 8 inches.
The scientists detected 363 virus particles on average per 1 ml of petri dish. That seems like a lot, but again, that was at a distance of 8 inches. If you’re 6 feet away (72 inches), much of that will disperse before you can inhale it — particularly if you’re outdoors, where factors like increased distance, decreased duration of exposure, and improved air ventilation are all working in your favor.
It may also help to know about some studies suggesting that most Covid-19 transmission happens indoors, not outdoors. In China, a study of 318 outbreaks found that transmission occurred outdoors in only one of them. In Japan, a study 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.” Note, however, that both of these are preprint papers (not yet peer reviewed).
An understanding of infectious dose, combined with an understanding of transmissibility as laid out above, should also help calm excessive levels of worry about picking up the virus from objects like mail or groceries. Remember that to kickstart an illness, you have to have enough virus particles to get an infection going, and it’s got to be live, infectious virus, not just dead RNA (genetic material that won’t harm you). The latter will simply fall apart after enough time on inert objects — up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to three days on plastic and stainless steel.
“Viral RNA does not imply the presence of infectious virus,” Kasten explained. “The virus, without host cells and a bit of moisture to keep it temporarily going, can fall apart, leaving bits of its RNA lying around like bleached bones in the sun. A researcher can come along with PCR [polymerase chain reaction, a common method in molecular biology] and detect the RNA, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they detected infectious virus.”
So, when you see a headline that seems frightening — for example, one saying that researchers found coronavirus on a cruise ship 17 days after passengers disembarked — just remember that doesn’t necessarily mean it was live, infectious virus.
“The good news is that we do know that while the virus can persist in the environment on different surfaces and in different environments, it does lose infectivity over time,” Rasmussen said. “So if you inhale a large number of total [virus particles] but only a small number of them are infectious, you are at much lower risk of actually getting infected.”
None of this is to say you should be cavalier when you venture into the outside world. Washing your hands, avoiding touching your face, being diligent about physical distancing, wearing masks in public, and disinfecting communal surfaces — all these things likely reduce transmission risk, and we should keep doing them, Rasmussen said. But she also said she feels fine about taking a walk with her husband outdoors.
Psychologically, different people have different levels of tolerance for risk. For some people, any risk that can be minimized, should be, no matter how small. For others, the recommended 6-foot distance, with masks, and the known decay of both the amount and the infectiousness of the virus — that’s good enough.
“The people who are 26-footers should know, though, that the 6-footers are not being foolhardy or endangering others unnecessarily,” Kasten said.
Asked if she could offer a way to assess the risk of various activities in terms we can easily wrap our minds around, Kasten said to consider the difference in the risk between taking a stroll through the park on an even path versus climbing up a steep cliff face.
“Sure, you could slip, fall, strike your head, and die on that path in the park. Likewise, you could free-solo successfully to the top of El Capitan. But most of us would accept the risk of the stroll and not accept [the risk of] dangling from the cliff,” she said. “Breathing in someone’s sneeze cloud, close by, without a mask — that’s the cliff face. Jogging several feet away, or getting the mail — that’s the park.”


vox--2020-08-13--The Supreme Court just rejected a Republican effort to make it harder to vote

The Supreme Court just handed a defeat to the Republican Party , rejecting the GOP ’ s effort to make it harder for voters to cast absentee ballots in Rhode Island .
Only three justices publicly dissented in Republican National Committee v. Common Cause Rhode Island — Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , and Neil Gorsuch .
Republican National Committee is the GOP ’ s most recent effort to make it harder for voters to cast absentee ballots amid a pandemic that ’ s likely to discourage many voters from gathering at the polls .
Ordinarily , Rhode Island @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by two witnesses or a notary .
In a normal election , this is a fairly minor restriction on voters : Most individuals will have a fairly easy time finding two friends , neighbors , or coworkers who can act as witnesses — and fewer voters typically request absentee ballots in the first place when it is safe to go to the polls .
During a time of social distancing , however , many voters could struggle to find the required witnesses .
Significantly , Rhode Island ’ s top election officials all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the witness requirement should be suspended during the state ’ s upcoming elections .
After two voting rights groups and three voters sued Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea and the seven members of Rhode Island ’ s board of elections , seeking to waive the witness requirement in these elections , Gorbea and her fellow defendants consented to a federal court order — known as a “ consent judgment ” — giving the plaintiffs the relief they seek .
The only reason this case was in front of the justices is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even a party to the lawsuit , asked the Court to block this consent judgment .
( Federal rules of judicial procedure sometimes allow a non-party to “ intervene ” in a lawsuit , and even to appeal a judgment that the parties do not wish to appeal . )
But a majority of the Supreme Court rejected the GOP ’ s arguments .
“ The state election officials support the challenged decree , and no state official has expressed opposition , ” the Court ’ s brief order in Republican National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP lacks “ a cognizable interest ” in forcing the state to enforce a requirement that its own top elections officials wish to suspend .
In brief orders such as the one handed down in Republican National Committee , the Court does not always disclose how each justice voted .
We know that at least five justices voted against the GOP , because at least five votes are necessary to form a majority .
And we know that Thomas , Alito , and Gorsuch voted with the GOP because they chose to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , with certainty , how the other six justices voted .
Nevertheless , it is very likely that Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority .
Though Roberts did not disclose his vote , the Court ’ s decision in Republican National Committee is consistent with Roberts ’ s prior decisions in Covid-related cases .
And the parties defending the consent judgment all relied heavily on Roberts ’ s previous opinions in their briefs .
Though Roberts is a conservative Republican , he votes with his liberal colleagues more often than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s conservative bloc .
Roberts ’ s Covid-related opinions emphasize that courts should defer to “ the politically accountable officials of the States ” when those officials announce public health policies related to the pandemic .
The Court ’ s decision in Republican National Committee , which turns on the fact that Rhode Island ’ s election officials agree with the plaintiffs , is consistent with Roberts ’ s prior calls for deference to state officials .
Roberts ’ s deference to state officials often cuts against voting rights Just last month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Supreme Court blocked a lower court order halting an Alabama witness requirement that is quite similar to the one in Rhode Island .
That decision was 5-4 , with all five Republicans voting in the majority , including Roberts .
The primary difference between Merrill and Republican National Committee , however , is that state officials supported the plaintiffs in the later case , while Alabama state officials chose to defend their absentee ballot rules in court .
“ Unlike Merrill v. People First of Alabama , and other similar cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the Court ’ s order in Republican National Committee explains , “ here the state election officials support the challenged decree , and no state official has expressed opposition.
” As mentioned above , Roberts ’ s pandemic-related opinions often focus on his belief that courts should defer to “ the politically accountable officials of the States.
” Indeed , less than two weeks ago , in Little v. Reclaim Idaho , Roberts faulted a lower court for failing to “ accord sufficient weight to the State ’ s discretionary judgments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the election system as a whole ” in the midst of the pandemic .
That means that Republican National Committee is likely to be a very narrow victory for voting rights .
Roberts ’ s deference to state officials suggests he is likely to vote in favor of voting rights only in cases involving states led by people who already support voting rights .
When state officials resist voting rights , Roberts is likely to defer to those officials .
Moreover , when state officials are divided on whether to alter their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters from being infected with Covid-19 , Roberts has shown little sympathy for voting rights .
Consider , for example , Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee , an April case where the Supreme Court ’ s Republican majority effectively ordered Wisconsin to toss out many absentee ballots .
Though many Wisconsin officials supported a lower court ’ s order that would have ensured that many of those ballots were counted , the state ’ s Republican-controlled legislature did not .
Roberts sided with the GOP legislature in that case .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , suggests that the Supreme Court will not act entirely as a rubber stamp for the Republican Party when the GOP asks the Court to limit voting rights .
But that decision should provide little comfort to most voting rights plaintiffs .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Supreme Court just handed a defeat to the Republican Party, rejecting the GOP’s effort to make it harder for voters to cast absentee ballots in Rhode Island. Only three justices publicly dissented in Republican National Committee v. Common Cause Rhode Island — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.
Republican National Committee is the GOP’s most recent effort to make it harder for voters to cast absentee ballots amid a pandemic that’s likely to discourage many voters from gathering at the polls.
Ordinarily, Rhode Island law requires absentee ballots to be signed by two witnesses or a notary. In a normal election, this is a fairly minor restriction on voters: Most individuals will have a fairly easy time finding two friends, neighbors, or coworkers who can act as witnesses — and fewer voters typically request absentee ballots in the first place when it is safe to go to the polls. During a time of social distancing, however, many voters could struggle to find the required witnesses.
Significantly, Rhode Island’s top election officials all agreed with the plaintiffs in this case that the witness requirement should be suspended during the state’s upcoming elections. After two voting rights groups and three voters sued Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea and the seven members of Rhode Island’s board of elections, seeking to waive the witness requirement in these elections, Gorbea and her fellow defendants consented to a federal court order — known as a “consent judgment” — giving the plaintiffs the relief they seek.
The only reason this case was in front of the justices is that the Republican Party, which isn’t even a party to the lawsuit, asked the Court to block this consent judgment. (Federal rules of judicial procedure sometimes allow a non-party to “intervene” in a lawsuit, and even to appeal a judgment that the parties do not wish to appeal.)
But a majority of the Supreme Court rejected the GOP’s arguments. “The state election officials support the challenged decree, and no state official has expressed opposition,” the Court’s brief order in Republican National Committee explains. Under those circumstances, the GOP lacks “a cognizable interest” in forcing the state to enforce a requirement that its own top elections officials wish to suspend.
In brief orders such as the one handed down in Republican National Committee, the Court does not always disclose how each justice voted. We know that at least five justices voted against the GOP, because at least five votes are necessary to form a majority. And we know that Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch voted with the GOP because they chose to publicly dissent. We don’t know, with certainty, how the other six justices voted.
Nevertheless, it is very likely that Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority. Though Roberts did not disclose his vote, the Court’s decision in Republican National Committee is consistent with Roberts’s prior decisions in Covid-related cases. And the parties defending the consent judgment all relied heavily on Roberts’s previous opinions in their briefs.
Though Roberts is a conservative Republican, he votes with his liberal colleagues more often than any other member of the Court’s conservative bloc.
Roberts’s Covid-related opinions emphasize that courts should defer to “the politically accountable officials of the States” when those officials announce public health policies related to the pandemic. The Court’s decision in Republican National Committee, which turns on the fact that Rhode Island’s election officials agree with the plaintiffs, is consistent with Roberts’s prior calls for deference to state officials.
Roberts’s deference to state officials often cuts against voting rights
Just last month, in Merrill v. People First of Alabama, the Supreme Court blocked a lower court order halting an Alabama witness requirement that is quite similar to the one in Rhode Island. That decision was 5-4, with all five Republicans voting in the majority, including Roberts.
The primary difference between Merrill and Republican National Committee, however, is that state officials supported the plaintiffs in the later case, while Alabama state officials chose to defend their absentee ballot rules in court. “Unlike Merrill v. People First of Alabama, and other similar cases where a State defends its own law,” the Court’s order in Republican National Committee explains, “here the state election officials support the challenged decree, and no state official has expressed opposition.”
As mentioned above, Roberts’s pandemic-related opinions often focus on his belief that courts should defer to “the politically accountable officials of the States.” Indeed, less than two weeks ago, in Little v. Reclaim Idaho, Roberts faulted a lower court for failing to “accord sufficient weight to the State’s discretionary judgments about how to prioritize limited state resources across the election system as a whole” in the midst of the pandemic.
That means that Republican National Committee is likely to be a very narrow victory for voting rights. Roberts’s deference to state officials suggests he is likely to vote in favor of voting rights only in cases involving states led by people who already support voting rights. When state officials resist voting rights, Roberts is likely to defer to those officials.
Moreover, when state officials are divided on whether to alter their ordinary elections practices in order to prevent voters from being infected with Covid-19, Roberts has shown little sympathy for voting rights.
Consider, for example, Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, an April case where the Supreme Court’s Republican majority effectively ordered Wisconsin to toss out many absentee ballots. Though many Wisconsin officials supported a lower court’s order that would have ensured that many of those ballots were counted, the state’s Republican-controlled legislature did not.
Roberts sided with the GOP legislature in that case.
The Rhode Island decision, in other words, suggests that the Supreme Court will not act entirely as a rubber stamp for the Republican Party when the GOP asks the Court to limit voting rights. But that decision should provide little comfort to most voting rights plaintiffs.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-13--Israel and the UAE just struck a historic peace deal. It’s a big win for Trump.

Israel and the United Arab Emirates just agreed to a historic deal to normalize their long-strained relations — and it may not have happened without the input of President Donald Trump ’ s administration .
In a surprise announcement Thursday , the US , Israel , and the United Arab Emirates put out a joint statement outlining how the two Middle Eastern nations will develop ties in numerous areas including investment , security , tourism , technology , and energy , and will establish formal embassies in each other ’ s countries .
But at the heart of the agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lays out , Israel will “ suspend declaring sovereignty over ” parts of the West Bank that it had previously expressed intentions to annex .
In exchange , the UAE will treat Israel as it would any other country it has friendly relations with — making it only the third Arab country to have such open relations with Jerusalem .
“ This historic diplomatic breakthrough will advance peace in the Middle East region and is a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of the three leaders and the courage of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new path that will unlock the great potential in the region , ” the statement reads .
Trump , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , and UAE leader Mohammed Bin Zayed , the crown prince of Abu Dhabi , finalized the terms of the agreement — to be known as the “ Abraham Accords ” in a nod to the patriarch of both the Jewish and Muslim faiths — during a Thursday phone call .
Trump also hinted in the Oval Office that more “ things are happening , ” while Netanyahu tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historic day.
” This is a momentous agreement by almost any conceivable measure The announcement was sudden , so everyone will learn more about it and its implications down the line .
But for now , two main reasons stick out for why this is such a big deal .
First , it means Israel won ’ t — at least for now — annex parts of the West Bank , a move that would have all but shut the door on a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians .
The Israeli-occupied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million Palestinians as well some 500,000 Jewish settlers , and would form a critical part of any future independent state of Palestine .
Under the two-state framework historically supported by the United States and the international community , the vast bulk of the West Bank would be returned to the Palestinians .
As part of a final peace deal , Israelis and Palestinians would negotiate what to do about the settlements , with some heavily populated blocs near Israel ’ s recognized borders likely to be ceded to Israel .
But peace talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no deal anywhere on the horizon .
Instead , the Israeli right has been pushing for Netanyahu ’ s government to just go ahead and unilaterally annex significant portions of the West Bank that it wants to keep , making them officially part of Israel proper , regardless of what the Palestinians think about it .
In January , the Trump administration unveiled its “ peace plan , ” developed by US and Israeli officials without the input of Palestinian leaders , who refused to participate .
The plan helped create the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unilateral annexation , and for months , it looked as though Netanyahu was going to do it .
In fact , it was supposed to officially happen as soon as July 1 .
Now we know the likely reason for the stalled annexation : Trump and his team aimed to strike a deal to convince Netanyahu otherwise .
However , some claim the Israeli leader needed a way to back out of such a controversial promise .
“ Bibi climbs down from a tree it never seemed like he really wanted to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writer at the Jewish news-focused Tablet Magazine , tweeted after the deal ’ s revelation .
Even if that is right , getting the UAE to normalize ties with the country is a pretty good way to get out of a corner .
Second , this makes life a bit easier for Israel .
The last peace deal it struck with an Arab country was with Jordan in 1994 ( it signed one with Egypt in 1979 ) .
Now Israel can claim it has more friends in the region , possibly reducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Palestinians .
Granted , both nations had quietly been working together in myriad areas , namely technology , for several years .
But now , the countries can openly work together in key areas , mostly pressingly on a cure for the coronavirus .
Indeed , Thursday ’ s joint statement said both countries would now accelerate their cooperation in search of a treatment and a vaccine .
That ’ s a marked shift from just two months ago when Netanyahu announced a coronavirus partnership with the UAE , only to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say the only ties were between companies from both nations , not their governments .
This agreement may help the UAE do business with Israel , which in turn should help the Arab nation ’ s economy .
Put together , this deal is mostly a win-win for the UAE : It helps itself , and reduces the risk of a calamity happening in the region .
But not everyone is happy about the agreement Many caveats still apply , though .
Among other possibilities , Israel and the UAE could hit many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly , to normalize relations .
Netanyahu will likely face anger from the Israeli far right , particularly the thousands of Israeli settlers in the West Bank who hoped Netanyahu would follow through on his annexation promise .
“ We were tricked , ” Shai Alon , head of the pro-settler Beit El Regional Council , said in a statement Thursday .
“ We ’ ve been betrayed.
” Palestinian leaders , too , have expressed outrage over the agreement .
“ Israel got rewarded for not declaring openly what it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the beginning of the occupation , ” tweeted Hanan Ashrawi , a member of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization , the official national representative of the Palestinian people .
“ The UAE has come out in the open on its secret dealings/normalization with Israel .
Please don ’ t do us a favor .
We are nobody ’ s fig leaf !
” Still , some experts are cautiously optimistic .
“ The UAE-Israel announcement is good news , and breaks an important barrier , ” Dan Shapiro , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under President Barack Obama , told me .
Two long-estranged nations have agreed to be openly friendly with each other , and the US helped — giving Trump one of his biggest foreign policy victories as the election draws near .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Israel and the United Arab Emirates just agreed to a historic deal to normalize their long-strained relations — and it may not have happened without the input of President Donald Trump’s administration.
In a surprise announcement Thursday, the US, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates put out a joint statement outlining how the two Middle Eastern nations will develop ties in numerous areas including investment, security, tourism, technology, and energy, and will establish formal embassies in each other’s countries.
But at the heart of the agreement is a trade: As the statement lays out, Israel will “suspend declaring sovereignty over” parts of the West Bank that it had previously expressed intentions to annex. In exchange, the UAE will treat Israel as it would any other country it has friendly relations with — making it only the third Arab country to have such open relations with Jerusalem.
“This historic diplomatic breakthrough will advance peace in the Middle East region and is a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of the three leaders and the courage of the United Arab Emirates and Israel to chart a new path that will unlock the great potential in the region,” the statement reads.
Joint Statement of the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates pic.twitter.com/oVyjLxf0jd — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 13, 2020
Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and UAE leader Mohammed Bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, finalized the terms of the agreement — to be known as the “Abraham Accords” in a nod to the patriarch of both the Jewish and Muslim faiths — during a Thursday phone call.
Trump also hinted in the Oval Office that more “things are happening,” while Netanyahu tweeted in Hebrew that Thursday is “A historic day.”
This is a momentous agreement by almost any conceivable measure
The announcement was sudden, so everyone will learn more about it and its implications down the line. But for now, two main reasons stick out for why this is such a big deal.
First, it means Israel won’t — at least for now — annex parts of the West Bank, a move that would have all but shut the door on a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli-occupied West Bank is home to nearly 3 million Palestinians as well some 500,000 Jewish settlers, and would form a critical part of any future independent state of Palestine.
As my colleague Jen Kirby explained:
Under the two-state framework historically supported by the United States and the international community, the vast bulk of the West Bank would be returned to the Palestinians. As part of a final peace deal, Israelis and Palestinians would negotiate what to do about the settlements, with some heavily populated blocs near Israel’s recognized borders likely to be ceded to Israel. But peace talks have stalled for years, and there is no deal anywhere on the horizon. Instead, the Israeli right has been pushing for Netanyahu’s government to just go ahead and unilaterally annex significant portions of the West Bank that it wants to keep, making them officially part of Israel proper, regardless of what the Palestinians think about it. In January, the Trump administration unveiled its “peace plan,” developed by US and Israeli officials without the input of Palestinian leaders, who refused to participate. The plan helped create the conditions for Netanyahu to move forward with unilateral annexation, and for months, it looked as though Netanyahu was going to do it. In fact, it was supposed to officially happen as soon as July 1. But it didn’t.
Now we know the likely reason for the stalled annexation: Trump and his team aimed to strike a deal to convince Netanyahu otherwise.
However, some claim the Israeli leader needed a way to back out of such a controversial promise. “Bibi climbs down from a tree it never seemed like he really wanted to be in,” Yair Rosenberg, a writer at the Jewish news-focused Tablet Magazine, tweeted after the deal’s revelation. Even if that is right, getting the UAE to normalize ties with the country is a pretty good way to get out of a corner.
Second, this makes life a bit easier for Israel. The last peace deal it struck with an Arab country was with Jordan in 1994 (it signed one with Egypt in 1979). Now Israel can claim it has more friends in the region, possibly reducing the pressure on it regarding its relations with Palestinians.
Granted, both nations had quietly been working together in myriad areas, namely technology, for several years. But now, the countries can openly work together in key areas, mostly pressingly on a cure for the coronavirus.
Indeed, Thursday’s joint statement said both countries would now accelerate their cooperation in search of a treatment and a vaccine. That’s a marked shift from just two months ago when Netanyahu announced a coronavirus partnership with the UAE, only to have the Arab country a few hours later say the only ties were between companies from both nations, not their governments.
This agreement may help the UAE do business with Israel, which in turn should help the Arab nation’s economy. Put together, this deal is mostly a win-win for the UAE: It helps itself, and reduces the risk of a calamity happening in the region.
But not everyone is happy about the agreement
Many caveats still apply, though. Among other possibilities, Israel and the UAE could hit many snags as they work on how, exactly, to normalize relations.
Netanyahu will likely face anger from the Israeli far right, particularly the thousands of Israeli settlers in the West Bank who hoped Netanyahu would follow through on his annexation promise. “We were tricked,” Shai Alon, head of the pro-settler Beit El Regional Council, said in a statement Thursday. “We’ve been betrayed.”
Palestinian leaders, too, have expressed outrage over the agreement. “Israel got rewarded for not declaring openly what it’s been doing to Palestine illegally & persistently since the beginning of the occupation,” tweeted Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the official national representative of the Palestinian people. “The UAE has come out in the open on its secret dealings/normalization with Israel. Please don’t do us a favor. We are nobody’s fig leaf!”
Still, some experts are cautiously optimistic. “The UAE-Israel announcement is good news, and breaks an important barrier,” Dan Shapiro, who served as US ambassador to Israel under President Barack Obama, told me.
Two long-estranged nations have agreed to be openly friendly with each other, and the US helped — giving Trump one of his biggest foreign policy victories as the election draws near.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-13--Is Russia first to a Covid-19 vaccine? Not so fast.

The entire world wants an effective Covid-19 vaccine .
This week , Russia claimed it has one .
On Tuesday , Russian President Vladimir Putin said that his country had become the first to register a vaccine for the novel coronavirus .
“ I know that it works quite effectively , forms strong immunity , and I repeat , it has passed all the needed checks , ” Putin said on state-run television , according to Reuters .
His daughter has even received it , he added .
The vaccine is called “ Sputnik V , ” a sign Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of propaganda .
“ In 1957 the successful launch of the first space satellite by the Soviet Union reinvigorated space research around the world , ” the website explains .
“ The new Russian COVID-19 vaccine is therefore called Sputnik V. ” But scientists and health experts around the world are deeply skeptical of Putin ’ s claim of efficacy , and worry that a premature announcement of success could cause harm .
Unlike other leading efforts to develop a vaccine in countries including the United Kingdom , China , and the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or phase three trials , where the vaccine is administered to thousands of people .
Those trials are critically important to find out how effective the vaccine is , and whether participants experience any less common side effects undetected in the first rounds .
The Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology in Moscow developed the vaccine but hasn ’ t shared many of its findings .
According to Jon Cohen at Science Magazine , the vaccine has only been tested in 76 people .
Russia has been telegraphing the vaccine announcement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achievement at home and abroad .
It ’ s the latest example of “ vaccine nationalism , ” where discovery and distribution becomes a competition , and countries try to advance their own interests before those of the global community .
But the risks of pushing an untested and unvetted vaccine are grave , and could have stunning consequences for public health and trust in the safety of vaccines more broadly .
“ The hard part is ensuring quality control , quality assurance , and showing that the vaccine actually works and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expert in vaccine development and dean at the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine , told me .
“ I worry the Russians may have skipped the most important step.
” If geopolitics co-opts science and cooperation , the world loses out .
“ We have the Chinese vaccine , the American vaccine , the British vaccine , now the Russian vaccine — and it ’ s not supposed to work that way , ” Hotez said .
“ It ’ s counterproductive , and ultimately , it reduces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have access to vaccines.
” What to know about this Russian vaccine Last month , the United States , Canada , and the United Kingdom accused hackers tied to Russian intelligence of trying to probe their drug companies and research groups .
The Russians denied the charges , because , they said , they didn ’ t need any help .
Kirill Dmitriev , the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund , said the hacking allegations represented a smear campaign “ because the Russian vaccine could potentially be the first to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most effective vaccine out there.
” In that way , Russia has been touting its vaccine success since before Putin declared it on Tuesday .
What little is known about the vaccine suggests it ’ s using a technology similar to one being pursued by other firms in some other vaccine trials around the world .
Specifically , researchers are using a type of adenovirus , which can cause the common cold .
According to Science News , Russia ’ s vaccine includes a dose and then a booster shot .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published its findings .
Paul Offit , a University of Pennsylvania vaccine expert , told Politico that when it came to data on Russia ’ s vaccine , “ We ’ re relying on the word of Vladimir Putin.
” The premature approval has many scientists and experts worried about what Russia did to even get to this phase , and that Russia could begin vaccinating people either at home or abroad without having done the necessary due diligence .
Judy Twigg , an expert in Russian politics and health at the Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s very clear that the “ message from the top down in Russia to those labs has been that it ’ s okay to cut corners , it ’ s okay to accelerate the process , circumvent what would normally be required phases of clinical trials .
The message has been it ’ s okay to do that in order to get us out of the gate first.
” Russia has denied that it ’ s gone rogue in its vaccine development process .
Dmitriev told reporters Tuesday that “ no corners have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News .
“ Russian science is more advanced in this [ area ] than many other nations , ” he added .
A World Health Organization spokesperson , citing experts at the agency , told Vox it ’ s aware that Russia has registered a Covid-19 vaccine , and welcomes “ all advances in Covid-19 research and development.
” But , the WHO spokesperson added , while it ’ s important to invest in treatment and vaccines , it can ’ t be done by compromising safety .
“ WHO reiterates that accelerating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processes through every step of development , to ensure that any vaccines that eventually go into production are both safe and effective.
” This doesn ’ t mean the vaccine can ’ t successfully and safely protect against the coronavirus — we just don ’ t have the evidence yet .
Twigg pointed out that post-Soviet Russia has a bit of a history of making premature claims about scientific and technical progress .
As the Associated Press noted , Putin has bragged about the effectiveness of its Ebola vaccines , though there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely used .
And there ’ s no better time than during a global pandemic for Russia to try to flex its science credentials .
This is straight from Putin ’ s playbook Putin ’ s announcement , in a lot of ways , is about as textbook Putin as it comes .
This has to do with his chance to assert Russian power to the rest of the world , and for him to bolster his own position domestically .
In Russia , this was supposed to be Putin ’ s year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 75th anniversary of the victory over the Nazis , a vote to basically keep him in power for life .
But the coronavirus derailed many of Putin ’ s plans , especially as Russia struggled to contain the pandemic .
Putin has seen some of his lowest trust ratings ever , and though they ’ re high compared to Western countries , it ’ s a sign of his flagging support .
Chris Miller , a Russia expert and assistant professor of international history at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way for Putin to reassert himself .
“ And , of course , this comes after months where Russia ’ s done relatively badly compared to its closest neighbors in terms of actually suppressing Covid , ” Miller said .
“ So in some ways , this helps turn the narrative around at home.
” This is Putin ’ s big win , one he can sell to Russians , a reminder that he ’ s still their guy , a reliable leader .
And , he can brag that Russia battled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everyone else trying to develop a vaccine , and won .
“ For a country that , I think , has long coveted its science expertise but has been perceived — both by Russians and by the world — as lagging in science and technology over the past couple of decades , this is seen by the government as a way to assert Russian scientific prowess on the international stage , ” Miller said .
Putin wants the rest of the world to believe in Russia , too .
Almost two dozen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s vaccine .
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said he ’ d be a “ guinea pig ” and would take it .
Brazil has also signed a memorandum of understanding with Moscow to potentially produce the vaccine in 2021 .
“ Russia is clearly trying to forge alliances and enhance its global positioning , ” Twigg said .
In this way , Russia may be using its vaccine “ victory ” to try to bolster its geopolitical status as a world power and global health leader .
Russia talking to other countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily a bad thing , but it is deeply concerning because it hasn ’ t yet proved to be safe and effective .
This is vaccine diplomacy at its worst — an attempt by Russia to assert itself politically , without giving much consideration to humanitarian concerns .
“ That ’ s not what you ’ re supposed to use vaccines for — especially ones that you don ’ t know necessarily if they ’ re safe and effective , ” Hotez said .
“ This even has this smell of Cold War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States has retreated from multilateral institutions , including the World Health Organization , Russia can seize the opportunity and try to fill the void — much in the way most expected China to do .
The US-China rivalry had also been at the forefront of the quest for a vaccine , but now Russia gets to muscle its way into the conversation and carve out its own sphere of influence , too .
“ I think there is a sense in Russia that the past couple of years have provided some opportunity with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing for Russia to assert itself as another pole of power and influence in the world stage , ” Miller said .
“ You see that in the military sphere , you see that in the diplomatic sphere , but also , I think , this is another way to buttress that.
” Russia ’ s announcement makes the world ’ s quest for a vaccine even riskier As some experts told me , Russia ’ s vaccine endeavor is extraordinarily risky — for the Russian people and for the rest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t safe or effective , it could potentially offset and undermine the public ’ s broader trust in vaccines , something that ’ s especially concerning in low- and middle-income countries that already lack the resources to control the pandemic and may rely on foreign or outside aide for public health and vaccination initiatives .
Imagine the Russians skip over large-scale , phase three trials entirely , Twigg said , “ and they just start giving this vaccine .
And those side effects start unexpectedly to show up .
Can you imagine how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ball and run with it ?
” Vaccines often have side effects , but phase three data can show exactly what the risks are .
Even if those risks are minor , if people don ’ t know what to expect , this adds to mistrust and fear .
There ’ s also the risk that the vaccine , without large-scale testing , just doesn ’ t work , or doesn ’ t work well enough , or doesn ’ t last very long .
This could give recipients , and governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading to the abandonment of public health measures like mask-wearing and social distancing .
And that means the coronavirus could roar back .
It ’ s also not clear if Russia ’ s vaccine will be affordable , or what access will look like — will it be equitably distributed , or widely available ?
As the world battles the coronavirus pandemic , equitable and affordable access worldwide will be critical to halting outbreaks .
Experts I spoke to did not necessarily think that Russia ’ s announcement would lead other countries or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accelerate the process .
In a way , it might even help bolster it ; Russia ’ s vaccine might be first , but the US or China could claim its vaccine is the best because it followed the proper protocols .
Even so , Russia ’ s move spoke to a kind of Wild West in the global health sphere at a time when both cooperation and scientific rigor are the best defenses to defeat the pandemic .
Ana B. Amaya , a global health expert and assistant professor at Pace University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk overtaking good public health practices , because there isn ’ t any way to really force countries to obey a set of rules .
But transparency is key , she said .
The more likely that everyone can have confidence that Russia ’ s vaccine actually works is a good thing — including , very much so , for Russia .
“ The very important part right now is getting the science right , and making sure that we ’ re producing the vaccine that ’ s actually going to be safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for all .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The entire world wants an effective Covid-19 vaccine. This week, Russia claimed it has one.
On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that his country had become the first to register a vaccine for the novel coronavirus. “I know that it works quite effectively, forms strong immunity, and I repeat, it has passed all the needed checks,” Putin said on state-run television, according to Reuters. His daughter has even received it, he added.
The vaccine is called “Sputnik V,” a sign Russia very much sees this as a tool of propaganda. “In 1957 the successful launch of the first space satellite by the Soviet Union reinvigorated space research around the world,” the website explains. “The new Russian COVID-19 vaccine is therefore called Sputnik V.”
But scientists and health experts around the world are deeply skeptical of Putin’s claim of efficacy, and worry that a premature announcement of success could cause harm. Unlike other leading efforts to develop a vaccine in countries including the United Kingdom, China, and the United States, Russia bypassed large-scale trials, or phase three trials, where the vaccine is administered to thousands of people. Those trials are critically important to find out how effective the vaccine is, and whether participants experience any less common side effects undetected in the first rounds.
The Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology in Moscow developed the vaccine but hasn’t shared many of its findings. According to Jon Cohen at Science Magazine, the vaccine has only been tested in 76 people.
Russia has been telegraphing the vaccine announcement, with Putin framing it as a major achievement at home and abroad. It’s the latest example of “vaccine nationalism,” where discovery and distribution becomes a competition, and countries try to advance their own interests before those of the global community. But the risks of pushing an untested and unvetted vaccine are grave, and could have stunning consequences for public health and trust in the safety of vaccines more broadly.
“The hard part is ensuring quality control, quality assurance, and showing that the vaccine actually works and is safe,” Peter Hotez, an expert in vaccine development and dean at the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told me. “I worry the Russians may have skipped the most important step.”
If geopolitics co-opts science and cooperation, the world loses out. “We have the Chinese vaccine, the American vaccine, the British vaccine, now the Russian vaccine — and it’s not supposed to work that way,” Hotez said. “It’s counterproductive, and ultimately, it reduces the likelihood that people across the world will have access to vaccines.”
What to know about this Russian vaccine
Last month, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom accused hackers tied to Russian intelligence of trying to probe their drug companies and research groups. The Russians denied the charges, because, they said, they didn’t need any help. Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, said the hacking allegations represented a smear campaign “because the Russian vaccine could potentially be the first to the market and it could potentially be the most effective vaccine out there.”
In that way, Russia has been touting its vaccine success since before Putin declared it on Tuesday.
What little is known about the vaccine suggests it’s using a technology similar to one being pursued by other firms in some other vaccine trials around the world. Specifically, researchers are using a type of adenovirus, which can cause the common cold. According to Science News, Russia’s vaccine includes a dose and then a booster shot.
But the lab hasn’t shared or published its findings. Paul Offit, a University of Pennsylvania vaccine expert, told Politico that when it came to data on Russia’s vaccine, “We’re relying on the word of Vladimir Putin.”
The premature approval has many scientists and experts worried about what Russia did to even get to this phase, and that Russia could begin vaccinating people either at home or abroad without having done the necessary due diligence.
Judy Twigg, an expert in Russian politics and health at the Virginia Commonwealth University, told me it’s very clear that the “message from the top down in Russia to those labs has been that it’s okay to cut corners, it’s okay to accelerate the process, circumvent what would normally be required phases of clinical trials. The message has been it’s okay to do that in order to get us out of the gate first.”
Russia has denied that it’s gone rogue in its vaccine development process. Dmitriev told reporters Tuesday that “no corners have been cut,” according to CBS News. “Russian science is more advanced in this [area] than many other nations,” he added.
A World Health Organization spokesperson, citing experts at the agency, told Vox it’s aware that Russia has registered a Covid-19 vaccine, and welcomes “all advances in Covid-19 research and development.”
But, the WHO spokesperson added, while it’s important to invest in treatment and vaccines, it can’t be done by compromising safety. “WHO reiterates that accelerating vaccine research should be done following established processes through every step of development, to ensure that any vaccines that eventually go into production are both safe and effective.”
This doesn’t mean the vaccine can’t successfully and safely protect against the coronavirus — we just don’t have the evidence yet. Twigg pointed out that post-Soviet Russia has a bit of a history of making premature claims about scientific and technical progress. As the Associated Press noted, Putin has bragged about the effectiveness of its Ebola vaccines, though there’s little data to suggest they were widely used.
And there’s no better time than during a global pandemic for Russia to try to flex its science credentials.
This is straight from Putin’s playbook
Putin’s announcement, in a lot of ways, is about as textbook Putin as it comes. This has to do with his chance to assert Russian power to the rest of the world, and for him to bolster his own position domestically.
In Russia, this was supposed to be Putin’s year — a big parade to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the victory over the Nazis, a vote to basically keep him in power for life. But the coronavirus derailed many of Putin’s plans, especially as Russia struggled to contain the pandemic. Putin has seen some of his lowest trust ratings ever, and though they’re high compared to Western countries, it’s a sign of his flagging support.
Chris Miller, a Russia expert and assistant professor of international history at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, said this is a way for Putin to reassert himself. “And, of course, this comes after months where Russia’s done relatively badly compared to its closest neighbors in terms of actually suppressing Covid,” Miller said. “So in some ways, this helps turn the narrative around at home.”
This is Putin’s big win, one he can sell to Russians, a reminder that he’s still their guy, a reliable leader. And, he can brag that Russia battled the US, the UK, and China and everyone else trying to develop a vaccine, and won. “For a country that, I think, has long coveted its science expertise but has been perceived — both by Russians and by the world — as lagging in science and technology over the past couple of decades, this is seen by the government as a way to assert Russian scientific prowess on the international stage,” Miller said.
Putin wants the rest of the world to believe in Russia, too. Almost two dozen countries have expressed some interest in Russia’s vaccine. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said he’d be a “guinea pig” and would take it. Brazil has also signed a memorandum of understanding with Moscow to potentially produce the vaccine in 2021.
“Russia is clearly trying to forge alliances and enhance its global positioning,” Twigg said.
In this way, Russia may be using its vaccine “victory” to try to bolster its geopolitical status as a world power and global health leader. Russia talking to other countries about distributing a vaccine isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it is deeply concerning because it hasn’t yet proved to be safe and effective. This is vaccine diplomacy at its worst — an attempt by Russia to assert itself politically, without giving much consideration to humanitarian concerns. “That’s not what you’re supposed to use vaccines for — especially ones that you don’t know necessarily if they’re safe and effective,” Hotez said. “This even has this smell of Cold War meddling to it.”
As the United States has retreated from multilateral institutions, including the World Health Organization, Russia can seize the opportunity and try to fill the void — much in the way most expected China to do. The US-China rivalry had also been at the forefront of the quest for a vaccine, but now Russia gets to muscle its way into the conversation and carve out its own sphere of influence, too.
“I think there is a sense in Russia that the past couple of years have provided some opportunity with the tension between the US and China growing for Russia to assert itself as another pole of power and influence in the world stage,” Miller said. “You see that in the military sphere, you see that in the diplomatic sphere, but also, I think, this is another way to buttress that.”
Russia’s announcement makes the world’s quest for a vaccine even riskier
As some experts told me, Russia’s vaccine endeavor is extraordinarily risky — for the Russian people and for the rest of the world.
If its vaccine isn’t safe or effective, it could potentially offset and undermine the public’s broader trust in vaccines, something that’s especially concerning in low- and middle-income countries that already lack the resources to control the pandemic and may rely on foreign or outside aide for public health and vaccination initiatives.
Imagine the Russians skip over large-scale, phase three trials entirely, Twigg said, “and they just start giving this vaccine. And those side effects start unexpectedly to show up. Can you imagine how the anti-vaxxers are going to pick up that ball and run with it?”
Vaccines often have side effects, but phase three data can show exactly what the risks are. Even if those risks are minor, if people don’t know what to expect, this adds to mistrust and fear.
There’s also the risk that the vaccine, without large-scale testing, just doesn’t work, or doesn’t work well enough, or doesn’t last very long. This could give recipients, and governments, a false sense of security, leading to the abandonment of public health measures like mask-wearing and social distancing. And that means the coronavirus could roar back.
It’s also not clear if Russia’s vaccine will be affordable, or what access will look like — will it be equitably distributed, or widely available? As the world battles the coronavirus pandemic, equitable and affordable access worldwide will be critical to halting outbreaks.
Experts I spoke to did not necessarily think that Russia’s announcement would lead other countries or vaccine-makers to cut corners or try to accelerate the process. In a way, it might even help bolster it; Russia’s vaccine might be first, but the US or China could claim its vaccine is the best because it followed the proper protocols. Even so, Russia’s move spoke to a kind of Wild West in the global health sphere at a time when both cooperation and scientific rigor are the best defenses to defeat the pandemic.
Ana B. Amaya, a global health expert and assistant professor at Pace University, told me that political interests always risk overtaking good public health practices, because there isn’t any way to really force countries to obey a set of rules. But transparency is key, she said. The more likely that everyone can have confidence that Russia’s vaccine actually works is a good thing — including, very much so, for Russia.
“The very important part right now is getting the science right, and making sure that we’re producing the vaccine that’s actually going to be safe and help people against Covid-19,” she said.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-08-13--Trump’s new favorite talking point about US coronavirus cases is highly misleading

President Donald Trump wants the public to believe that countries like Germany , Japan , and Australia are doing as poorly as the United States when it comes to the coronavirus .
His continued insistence that this is the case misrepresents the facts : In reality , the outbreaks here and in those countries are worlds apart in scale .
During his press briefing on Wednesday , Trump said , “ Now you look at the explosion of countries ’ ties that you would ’ ve said did such a good job ... when you look at the job we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve done a great job.
” He echoed that same thing during Wednesday ’ s briefing when he noted that “ the virus continues to increase in nations across the globe ” — a statement that ’ s technically true but highly misleading .
“ Last week , France and Germany both recorded their highest daily number of cases in three months , ” Trump continued .
“ Not that I want to bring that up , but might as well explain it to the media .
The seven-day case average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since last week , unfortunately .
And that is truly unfortunate .
It ’ s increased by 82 percent in France.
” That might sound bad in a vacuum .
But the crucial context Trump omitted is that new coronavirus cases in Germany topped out at 1,147 on August 7 .
Meanwhile , on Tuesday alone , the US reported 54,443 new cases — or just under 50 times more than Germany at its recent peak .
It is true that the US has far more people than Germany and could be expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even adjusted for population , it ’ s an apples-and-oranges comparison , as depicted by this graph posted to Twitter by Daniel Dale of CNN that shows the US has about six times as many cases per 1 million people as Germany : Although just a few minutes of research reveals the problem with this particular talking point , Trump has invoked it on a near-daily basis in recent weeks .
During his briefing on Monday , for instance , Trump noted that “ in recent days , cases have rapidly increased in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t say is that the number of new cases in the US on Sunday was more than 20 times the number of new cases in Japan and Australia combined .
While it ’ s true that Japan is experiencing a relative increase in new cases , the implication that Japan ’ s surge is somehow comparable with the US ’ s is not .
As of Sunday , Japan averaged 1,381 new cases over the seven preceding days — a number that pales in comparison with the 67,317 averaged by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And as Philip Bump of the Washington Post detailed , that difference is still glaring even when adjusted for population : That ’ s not to say there aren ’ t countries Trump could legitimately compare the US to .
It ’ s just that they are often ones without the sort of public health infrastructure the US aspires to have , and include countries that , like the US , have been criticized for their Covid-19 response .
As this graph shows , in terms of new cases , the US these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in places like Peru , Brazil , South Africa , and Iraq — but not the European and East Asian countries Trump regularly invokes .
Testing has nothing to do with the US ’ s case count Trump also often falsely insists that the only reason the US has so many new cases is because it does so much testing .
But even with respect to Covid-19 deaths adjusted for population , the US is among the hardest-hit countries in the world — and countries like Italy and Spain that once had higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job getting the virus under control than we have .
The US is also in the top 10 countries for Covid-19 deaths after adjusting for population , with more than 490 deaths per million people .
In this sense , America remains comparable to some of its developed peers ; Belgium , the United Kingdom , Spain , Italy , and Sweden have all suffered higher death rates , and France is only a bit behind .
But others have done much better , with Germany and Denmark reporting less than a fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Japan and South Korea reporting between 1 and 2 percent of the death rate of the US .
With deaths in the US totaling more than 1,000 a day in late July and August , America ’ s rank on this metric could get even worse in the coming weeks .
Eric Feigl-Ding , an epidemiologist and senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists , told me that “ compared to other countries that have acted quickly , tested prodigiously , contact-traced aggressively , recognized aerosol risk readily , encouraged/mandated masking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and altogether used public health science to guide response — the US has done poorly or outright failed in most of these key measures when it mattered most versus other countries .
“ And when these public health measures were done often matters as much if not more —being early , aggressive on containment is key , ” he added .
“ And in all those fronts , Trump and [ Vice President Mike ] Pence have mostly failed.
” Germany , South Korea , and Japan were willing to do what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , countries like South Korea and Germany took strong measures to get the virus under control during the early days of the pandemic , such as ramping up robust testing systems and quickly implementing social distancing regulations .
Trump , by contrast , spent those crucial days trying to wish away the virus , and throughout the pandemic has been more concerned with the economic fallout of stay-at-home orders and mandated business closures than he has with controlling the public health crisis created by Covid-19 .
So while other countries reopen schools and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US finds itself in a situation where Florida has had more Covid-19 deaths in the past 12 days than Japan and South Korea have had combined since the pandemic began .
That reality doesn ’ t reflect positively on Trump ’ s response to a pandemic that has killed more than 165,000 Americans and is shaping up to be the defining issue in this November ’ s election .
It also undercuts his administration ’ s push to get schools to reopen for in-person learning .
But instead of developing and implementing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under control , Trump — as he is wont to do — has opted for trying to turn reality on its head .
Will you become our 20,000th supporter ?
When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions , we weren ’ t sure how it would go .
Today , we ’ re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in .
The reason is both lovely and surprising : Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can access it , too .
We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy .
That ’ s never been more important than today , during a public health crisis , racial justice protests , a recession , and a presidential election .
But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive , and advertising alone won ’ t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will help keep Vox free for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump wants the public to believe that countries like Germany, Japan, and Australia are doing as poorly as the United States when it comes to the coronavirus. His continued insistence that this is the case misrepresents the facts: In reality, the outbreaks here and in those countries are worlds apart in scale.
During his press briefing on Wednesday, Trump said, “Now you look at the explosion of countries’ ties that you would’ve said did such a good job ... when you look at the job we’ve done compared to others, we’ve done a great job.”
Trump is really trying to convince people that up is down and the US hasn't been hit that hard by the coronavirus in comparison with other countries. (With 164,000 deaths, the US has more than tripled every other country with the exception of Brazil.) pic.twitter.com/pgOTPQCbka — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 12, 2020
He echoed that same thing during Wednesday’s briefing when he noted that “the virus continues to increase in nations across the globe” — a statement that’s technically true but highly misleading.
“Last week, France and Germany both recorded their highest daily number of cases in three months,” Trump continued. “Not that I want to bring that up, but might as well explain it to the media. The seven-day case average for Germany has increased by 62 percent since last week, unfortunately. And that is truly unfortunate. It’s increased by 82 percent in France.”
That might sound bad in a vacuum. But the crucial context Trump omitted is that new coronavirus cases in Germany topped out at 1,147 on August 7. Meanwhile, on Tuesday alone, the US reported 54,443 new cases — or just under 50 times more than Germany at its recent peak.
Trump tries to compare the US coronavirus outbreak with Germany. Germany had 436 cases on Monday, the US had more than 40,000. The outbreaks are not comparable. pic.twitter.com/VoQodOpt66 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 11, 2020
It is true that the US has far more people than Germany and could be expected to have a larger caseload. But even adjusted for population, it’s an apples-and-oranges comparison, as depicted by this graph posted to Twitter by Daniel Dale of CNN that shows the US has about six times as many cases per 1 million people as Germany:
For those asking (fairly), here's US vs. Germany adjusted for population. pic.twitter.com/XqnlJ7dL2G — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) August 11, 2020
Although just a few minutes of research reveals the problem with this particular talking point, Trump has invoked it on a near-daily basis in recent weeks.
During his briefing on Monday, for instance, Trump noted that “in recent days, cases have rapidly increased in Japan and Australia.” But what he didn’t say is that the number of new cases in the US on Sunday was more than 20 times the number of new cases in Japan and Australia combined.
Trump says "in recent days, cases have rapidly increased in Japan and Australia." Those two countries together had under 2,000 new cases on Monday. The US had 48,769 on Sunday.
The outbreaks aren't comparable. pic.twitter.com/hvQBz4PTtz — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 10, 2020
While it’s true that Japan is experiencing a relative increase in new cases, the implication that Japan’s surge is somehow comparable with the US’s is not.
As of Sunday, Japan averaged 1,381 new cases over the seven preceding days — a number that pales in comparison with the 67,317 averaged by the US over the same time frame. And as Philip Bump of the Washington Post detailed, that difference is still glaring even when adjusted for population:
Of course, the United States is much larger than Australia or Japan. If we adjust for population, though, the comparison doesn’t get much better. Australia’s peak was 22 cases per million residents and Japan’s was 11. The United States’ new high saw 204 new cases for every million residents late last month.
That’s not to say there aren’t countries Trump could legitimately compare the US to. It’s just that they are often ones without the sort of public health infrastructure the US aspires to have, and include countries that, like the US, have been criticized for their Covid-19 response.
As this graph shows, in terms of new cases, the US these days has an outbreak comparable to those in places like Peru, Brazil, South Africa, and Iraq — but not the European and East Asian countries Trump regularly invokes.
Testing has nothing to do with the US’s case count
Trump also often falsely insists that the only reason the US has so many new cases is because it does so much testing. But even with respect to Covid-19 deaths adjusted for population, the US is among the hardest-hit countries in the world — and countries like Italy and Spain that once had higher death rates have done a much better job getting the virus under control than we have.
As my colleague German Lopez explained:
The US is also in the top 10 countries for Covid-19 deaths after adjusting for population, with more than 490 deaths per million people. In this sense, America remains comparable to some of its developed peers; Belgium, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, and Sweden have all suffered higher death rates, and France is only a bit behind. But others have done much better, with Germany and Denmark reporting less than a fourth the death rate of the US, and Japan and South Korea reporting between 1 and 2 percent of the death rate of the US. With deaths in the US totaling more than 1,000 a day in late July and August, America’s rank on this metric could get even worse in the coming weeks.
Eric Feigl-Ding, an epidemiologist and senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, told me that “compared to other countries that have acted quickly, tested prodigiously, contact-traced aggressively, recognized aerosol risk readily, encouraged/mandated masking up prevalently, closed down quickly, and altogether used public health science to guide response — the US has done poorly or outright failed in most of these key measures when it mattered most versus other countries.
“And when these public health measures were done often matters as much if not more —being early, aggressive on containment is key,” he added. “And in all those fronts, Trump and [Vice President Mike] Pence have mostly failed.”
Germany, South Korea, and Japan were willing to do what the US has not
As Feigl-Ding alluded to, countries like South Korea and Germany took strong measures to get the virus under control during the early days of the pandemic, such as ramping up robust testing systems and quickly implementing social distancing regulations. Trump, by contrast, spent those crucial days trying to wish away the virus, and throughout the pandemic has been more concerned with the economic fallout of stay-at-home orders and mandated business closures than he has with controlling the public health crisis created by Covid-19.
So while other countries reopen schools and allow fans back to sporting events, the US finds itself in a situation where Florida has had more Covid-19 deaths in the past 12 days than Japan and South Korea have had combined since the pandemic began.
Reported coronavirus deaths yesterday:
• France: 0
• United Kingdom: 0
• Canada: 4
• Germany: 6
• Italy: 6
• United States: 1,450https://t.co/ZqucXYl6sT pic.twitter.com/OzRNvFsE7P — Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) August 12, 2020
That reality doesn’t reflect positively on Trump’s response to a pandemic that has killed more than 165,000 Americans and is shaping up to be the defining issue in this November’s election. It also undercuts his administration’s push to get schools to reopen for in-person learning.
But instead of developing and implementing a plan to get US Covid-19 cases under control, Trump — as he is wont to do — has opted for trying to turn reality on its head.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.