vox--2020-08-06--A new study finds that giving kids deworming treatment still benefits them 20 years later

In 1998 and 1999 , public health workers in Kenya set out to treat children in Kenyan schools for common intestinal parasites , including hookworm , roundworm , whipworm , and schistosomiasis .
The parasites , prevalent in poor areas , were affecting kids ’ nutrition and health .
The hope was that mass treatment programs might mean a generation of kids could grow up without negative effects from worm infestations .
In the years since , deworming campaigns have become a favorite initiative of national governments as well as donors looking to give effectively .
Some research suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important public health interventions in the world .
But there has hardly been unanimity on the subject of their efficacy .
Studies like the original 2003 paper by development economists Edward Miguel and Michael Kremer of that group of students in Kenya found astounding results from mass deworming campaigns .
Students were healthier , stayed in school longer , and earned more money as adults .
But others criticized that study , and other studies of mass deworming haven ’ t found results nearly as large .
As is the case with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case for mass deworming has some real evidence behind it , but there are still unanswered questions , and questions where our existing research is frustratingly contradictory .
This year , Miguel and Kremer , along with co-authors Joan Hamory , Michael Walker , and Sarah Baird , returned to the original Kenyan sample where they ’ d first discovered the potentially life-changing impacts of mass deworming campaigns .
Following up with the original participants 20 years later , they wanted to answer the question : Are the benefits they initially discovered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more time in school and higher adult incomes — still showing up ?
In a new paper published in NBER ’ s working paper series on August 3 , they found that they are .
“ Individuals who received deworming as children experience substantial increases in adult consumption , hourly earnings , nonagricultural employment , and urban residence , ” the study concludes .
The effects on income and spending are slightly smaller than those observed in a follow-up at the 10-year mark , but they ’ re very notable nonetheless .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatments in school translates to 13 percent higher hourly earnings , 14 percent higher consumer spending , and significantly increased odds of working outside of agriculture ( in jobs that largely pay better and offer more opportunity for growth ) .
The researchers calculate that the investment in deworming Kenya ’ s children has so far had a 37 percent annualized rate of return .
“ What this shows is , even in the very long run , these child health investments have a durable impact on people ’ s living standards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The results are certainly eye-popping .
Most global poverty interventions , even if they work , don ’ t produce a 37 percent annualized rate of return that lasts decades ( which is perhaps one reason for skepticism about the findings ) .
It ’ s very rare to do anything in public policy that still has significant effects 20 years later — let alone effects this large .
But on the other hand , when interventions do have long-term effects , they tend to be health interventions .
Healthier children grow taller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more while they ’ re in school , and are less likely to be sick as adults .
If anything can have a lifelong impact , such interventions in health can .
The debate over what the Kenya study teaches us about worms This study is the latest contribution in a long-running debate in the global public health world over the effects of deworming campaigns .
In 2015 , British epidemiologists Alexander Aiken and Calum Davey published a reanalysis of the data from the original Kenya schools and argued that when the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little evidence for some previously-reported indirect effects of a deworming intervention .
Effects on worm infections , nutritional status , examination performance and school attendance on children in intervention schools were largely unchanged.
” Other researchers pushed back .
Sure , the first worm study wasn ’ t perfect — its school assignments were not quite perfectly random , there were no placebos ( meaning students could have behaved differently because they knew they were in the treatment group ) , and there were some genuine errors in the paper .
But its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children exposed to deworming have since had life outcomes that are measurably a lot better .
The reanalysis leaned on statistical techniques that wouldn ’ t find significant results on this data set even if there were significant results to be found .
Kremer and Miguel also defended their findings .
Deworming “ is a highly cost-effective policy with evidence from multiple studies on educational and economic outcomes , ” Kremer told my colleague Julia Belluz in 2015 .
“ There is evidence on the long-term educational and economic impact of deworming from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , Kevin Croke ’ s work on Uganda , Owen Ozier ’ s work on Kenya , and our own long-term follow-up in Kenya.
” ( Kremer went on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2019 . )
The new paper adds to that body of evidence .
But critics likely still won ’ t be fully satisfied .
For instance , they might ask : If deworming had such enormous and profound effects in Kenya , why haven ’ t similar effects been found elsewhere ?
“ There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or no effect , ” Miguel agreed .
But he argued they were mostly from settings with lower worm prevalence , which would make the effects much harder to detect .
“ If you just look at the settings where earlier short-run studies were done , and you only look at the studies with at least a prevalence of 20 percent , in the short run there are gains in nutrition , ” he told me .
“ But no one ’ s taken experimental data with a large sample and seen what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the long-term effects of deworming programs that are most notable and most important .
That opens up another question : How does treating intestinal parasites increase income two decades later ?
Especially when the short-term medical impacts are quite minimal ?
“ The surer we are that the short-term impacts are small , the harder it is to believe that the long-term impacts are big , ” David Roodman , writing for GiveWell , summarized this concern in 2016 .
Some of the effects of deworming come through causing students to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on keeping students in school does not find effects on income of this magnitude 20 years down the line .
So if deworming is really creating such large benefits , they likely can ’ t just be a consequence of keeping students in school .
What might account for the rest of the benefits ?
One possibility , Miguel told me , was effects on a community from all of its students having stayed in school longer .
Students whose school did deworming programs are likely to work in a job they heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example .
But this , too , can ’ t account for the full effect size .
And students who got worm treatment are now likelier to have left the rural communities they grew up in to live in a big city — perhaps being healthier makes the big risks of moving to a city seem more worthwhile .
It would be really valuable to understand how deworming has the effects it does on income , but we may not be able to determine that just from data from trials like this one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue of exactly why and through what channels deworming affected adult outcomes , ” the paper acknowledges .
It ’ s hard to tease apart each of the different possible avenues by which deworming might affect people because many of them are related — early boosts in income might lead to longer-lasting boosts in income , for example , as well as lead people to be more likely to migrate , as well as lead them to seek other medical care when needed and be healthier .
Then there ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most of the world does not have worm prevalence as high as Kenya did in the late 1990s .
So mass deworming will show smaller effects in other communities — and indeed , that ’ s what studies have found .
And even setting aside specific concerns like those , researchers often find that interventions work less well when scaled up and offered in other regions , even when there ’ s no clear reason why that ’ d be the case .
Questions over deworming remain — but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even with some questions still unanswered , what evidence we do have suggests that the potential long-term benefits are big enough to make mass deworming programs one of the best bets we know of to improve outcomes for children in poor countries .
They ’ re consistently among the top charities recommended by GiveWell as cost-effective interventions .
( GiveWell considers it likely that deworming does much less good in the typical case than the measured results from Kenya , but still considers it a top global health intervention . )
No single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our doubts , but studies can be put together to formulate a best guess .
My best guess is that , at least in areas with high worm prevalence , school-wide deworming programs are a very good idea .
And policymakers have been taking that very seriously for the last two decades , rolling out large-scale deworming programs that have treated many of the most vulnerable students .
“ We ’ ve reached over 78 percent of all vulnerable children at an average cost of 45 cents per child per year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which runs top deworming nonprofit Deworm the World , said .
But the problem is far from solved .
“ There ’ s an estimated prevalence of over 800 million people still at risk , ” Plata said .
And things are getting worse .
Schools are canceled throughout much of the world due to the coronavirus , and that means public health interventions that typically happen at schools aren ’ t happening at all .
The new study from Kenya is just our latest reminder that that is an enormous loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be disadvantaged from it 20 years later .
“ Our study suggests that we have to find some way to deliver those services to kids , ” Miguel told me , “ or else the long-run costs could be really large.
” One key takeaway : We don ’ t have to have settled all the questions about deworming in order to pursue cost-effective deworming programs based on the evidence we do have .
There ’ s still more to learn about deworming .
Formulating global public health policy is confusing , difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in hindsight .
But it ’ s also really important .
All we can do is keep trying , keep learning , stay curious , and move ahead with our current best guess .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @

In 1998 and 1999, public health workers in Kenya set out to treat children in Kenyan schools for common intestinal parasites, including hookworm, roundworm, whipworm, and schistosomiasis. The parasites, prevalent in poor areas, were affecting kids’ nutrition and health. The hope was that mass treatment programs might mean a generation of kids could grow up without negative effects from worm infestations.
In the years since, deworming campaigns have become a favorite initiative of national governments as well as donors looking to give effectively. Some research suggests that such campaigns may be some of the most important public health interventions in the world.
But there has hardly been unanimity on the subject of their efficacy. Studies like the original 2003 paper by development economists Edward Miguel and Michael Kremer of that group of students in Kenya found astounding results from mass deworming campaigns. Students were healthier, stayed in school longer, and earned more money as adults.
But others criticized that study, and other studies of mass deworming haven’t found results nearly as large. As is the case with lots of other public health interventions, the case for mass deworming has some real evidence behind it, but there are still unanswered questions, and questions where our existing research is frustratingly contradictory.
This year, Miguel and Kremer, along with co-authors Joan Hamory, Michael Walker, and Sarah Baird, returned to the original Kenyan sample where they’d first discovered the potentially life-changing impacts of mass deworming campaigns. Following up with the original participants 20 years later, they wanted to answer the question: Are the benefits they initially discovered from childhood deworming treatment — which included more time in school and higher adult incomes — still showing up?
In a new paper published in NBER’s working paper series on August 3, they found that they are. “Individuals who received deworming as children experience substantial increases in adult consumption, hourly earnings, nonagricultural employment, and urban residence,” the study concludes.
The effects on income and spending are slightly smaller than those observed in a follow-up at the 10-year mark, but they’re very notable nonetheless. An extra two or three years of deworming treatments in school translates to 13 percent higher hourly earnings, 14 percent higher consumer spending, and significantly increased odds of working outside of agriculture (in jobs that largely pay better and offer more opportunity for growth). The researchers calculate that the investment in deworming Kenya’s children has so far had a 37 percent annualized rate of return.
“What this shows is, even in the very long run, these child health investments have a durable impact on people’s living standards,” author Edward Miguel told me.
The results are certainly eye-popping. Most global poverty interventions, even if they work, don’t produce a 37 percent annualized rate of return that lasts decades (which is perhaps one reason for skepticism about the findings). It’s very rare to do anything in public policy that still has significant effects 20 years later — let alone effects this large.
But on the other hand, when interventions do have long-term effects, they tend to be health interventions. Healthier children grow taller, stay in school longer, learn more while they’re in school, and are less likely to be sick as adults. If anything can have a lifelong impact, such interventions in health can.
The debate over what the Kenya study teaches us about worms
This study is the latest contribution in a long-running debate in the global public health world over the effects of deworming campaigns.
In 2015, British epidemiologists Alexander Aiken and Calum Davey published a reanalysis of the data from the original Kenya schools and argued that when the data was properly analyzed, “we found little evidence for some previously-reported indirect effects of a deworming intervention. Effects on worm infections, nutritional status, examination performance and school attendance on children in intervention schools were largely unchanged.”
Other researchers pushed back. Sure, the first worm study wasn’t perfect — its school assignments were not quite perfectly random, there were no placebos (meaning students could have behaved differently because they knew they were in the treatment group), and there were some genuine errors in the paper. But its core result was very robust. The children exposed to deworming have since had life outcomes that are measurably a lot better. The reanalysis leaned on statistical techniques that wouldn’t find significant results on this data set even if there were significant results to be found.
Kremer and Miguel also defended their findings. Deworming “is a highly cost-effective policy with evidence from multiple studies on educational and economic outcomes,” Kremer told my colleague Julia Belluz in 2015. “There is evidence on the long-term educational and economic impact of deworming from a number of other studies: for example, Kevin Croke’s work on Uganda, Owen Ozier’s work on Kenya, and our own long-term follow-up in Kenya.” (Kremer went on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2019.)
The new paper adds to that body of evidence. But critics likely still won’t be fully satisfied.
For instance, they might ask: If deworming had such enormous and profound effects in Kenya, why haven’t similar effects been found elsewhere?
“There’ve been some reviews that found modest or no effect,” Miguel agreed. But he argued they were mostly from settings with lower worm prevalence, which would make the effects much harder to detect.
“If you just look at the settings where earlier short-run studies were done, and you only look at the studies with at least a prevalence of 20 percent, in the short run there are gains in nutrition,” he told me. “But no one’s taken experimental data with a large sample and seen what happens over time.” And it’s the long-term effects of deworming programs that are most notable and most important.
Related The author of a contentious study on deworming finally speaks out
That opens up another question: How does treating intestinal parasites increase income two decades later? Especially when the short-term medical impacts are quite minimal? “The surer we are that the short-term impacts are small, the harder it is to believe that the long-term impacts are big,” David Roodman, writing for GiveWell, summarized this concern in 2016.
Some of the effects of deworming come through causing students to stay in school longer, but other research on keeping students in school does not find effects on income of this magnitude 20 years down the line. So if deworming is really creating such large benefits, they likely can’t just be a consequence of keeping students in school. What might account for the rest of the benefits?
One possibility, Miguel told me, was effects on a community from all of its students having stayed in school longer. Students whose school did deworming programs are likely to work in a job they heard about from a school friend, for example. But this, too, can’t account for the full effect size. And students who got worm treatment are now likelier to have left the rural communities they grew up in to live in a big city — perhaps being healthier makes the big risks of moving to a city seem more worthwhile.
It would be really valuable to understand how deworming has the effects it does on income, but we may not be able to determine that just from data from trials like this one. “The analysis does not resolve the issue of exactly why and through what channels deworming affected adult outcomes,” the paper acknowledges. It’s hard to tease apart each of the different possible avenues by which deworming might affect people because many of them are related — early boosts in income might lead to longer-lasting boosts in income, for example, as well as lead people to be more likely to migrate, as well as lead them to seek other medical care when needed and be healthier.
Then there’s the question of how well the results generalize. Most of the world does not have worm prevalence as high as Kenya did in the late 1990s. So mass deworming will show smaller effects in other communities — and indeed, that’s what studies have found. And even setting aside specific concerns like those, researchers often find that interventions work less well when scaled up and offered in other regions, even when there’s no clear reason why that’d be the case.
Questions over deworming remain — but it’s still a good public health bet
But even with some questions still unanswered, what evidence we do have suggests that the potential long-term benefits are big enough to make mass deworming programs one of the best bets we know of to improve outcomes for children in poor countries.
They’re consistently among the top charities recommended by GiveWell as cost-effective interventions. (GiveWell considers it likely that deworming does much less good in the typical case than the measured results from Kenya, but still considers it a top global health intervention.) No single study will likely ever clear away all of our doubts, but studies can be put together to formulate a best guess. My best guess is that, at least in areas with high worm prevalence, school-wide deworming programs are a very good idea.
And policymakers have been taking that very seriously for the last two decades, rolling out large-scale deworming programs that have treated many of the most vulnerable students. “We’ve reached over 78 percent of all vulnerable children [in Kenya] at an average cost of 45 cents per child per year,” spokesperson Gabriel Plata of Evidence Action, which runs top deworming program Deworm the World, said. But the problem is far from solved. “There’s an estimated prevalence of over 800 million people still at risk,” Plata said.
And things are getting worse. Schools are canceled throughout much of the world due to the coronavirus, and that means public health interventions that typically happen at schools aren’t happening at all. The new study from Kenya is just our latest reminder that that is an enormous loss, and the children affected may still be disadvantaged from it 20 years later.
“Our study suggests that we have to find some way to deliver those services to kids,” Miguel told me, “or else the long-run costs could be really large.”
One key takeaway: We don’t have to have settled all the questions about deworming in order to pursue cost-effective deworming programs based on the evidence we do have. There’s still more to learn about deworming. Formulating global public health policy is confusing, difficult, frustrating, and always much easier in hindsight. But it’s also really important. All we can do is keep trying, keep learning, stay curious, and move ahead with our current best guess.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.


vox--2020-08-06--Worried parents have become an easy target for online misinformation in this pandemic

It ’ s the beginning of August , and I ’ ve spent nearly five months looking out my front door at my son ’ s desolate elementary school playground across the street .
I never dreamed it would be sitting empty this long .
As the coronavirus pandemic swept through the nation and schools converted to Zoom lessons after shutting their doors , I thought nothing could be as frightening as those early days of lockdown this spring .
With 1-month-old twins and a 4-year-old , those earliest days are already a jumble in my memory , a caregiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chaos .
But it turns out there is indeed something scarier than being told to stay in your house as much as possible : being tasked to make all of our own risk calculations and decisions about a pandemic that ’ s still far from under control .
In early July , our school district in Durham , North Carolina , announced it was prepping an in-person option for elementary and middle school students at half capacity , five days a week ; virtual-only instruction for high school ; and an online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was briefly elated at the prospect that maybe things would be more like “ normal ” this fall .
But as the days went by , my certainty that sending my son back was the right choice started to waiver .
Without many more details coming from our district or school about what the year would look like , I found myself doing way too much doomscrolling .
“ I know this is already all over FB and mom ’ s groups , but I ’ m really interested in this group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to do about school , ” one mom , an essential health care worker , posted in a smaller Facebook group I ’ m in .
She admitted she was worried about being shamed in other , larger social media groups for considering in-person school .
Another started : “ How are you all dealing with this massive uncertainty right now ?
I am anxious about not going back to school in person because of the impact on our students and their families , and anxious about going back to school in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ALL.
” Further anguishing parents is that there ’ s no universal formula in making a decision .
Factors around local infection numbers , school board politics , family economics , mental health , learning loss , and a child ’ s age and affinity for online school create a complex personal matrix .
And no parent alive today has been through this situation before .
We can ’ t fall back on what we ’ ve always done , or what our own parents did for us .
So many of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internet has started to feel like one giant search party , everyone scrolling for the story , the argument , the expert opinion , the statistic , or the new data that will help us clarify the “ right ” thing to do .
As I dove further into these online discussions , I noticed that people were starting to share ideas and writing and statistics from people they thought had some special insight .
There was a cut-and-pasted post , supposedly from an unnamed Covid-19 doctor at Duke University Hospital , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her kids to school , which I later found shared in multiple local Facebook groups .
There was a long , ranty post about how we don ’ t know the long-term health effects of Covid-19 .
I first saw it shared with no author , and another time it was attributed to Dr. Anthony Fauci , for which I found no evidence .
Then there was a post shared by a Facebook friend who said reading it made her reconsider in-person school .
It was written by a public school parent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim to be any kind of expert yet had calculated that if his school district reopened with in-person classes , several hundred students would die of Covid-19 .
Reading his post , I was both scared and puzzled .
As a journalist and former fact-checker , and as someone who has my local Health and Human Services website bookmarked , I knew something didn ’ t quite add up .
It turns out the problem was his math .
He made a bunch of errors in his calculation — the statistical likelihood of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Covid-19 was close to zero .
I messaged him to point out the error , as did a few other commenters , but he declined to change anything in the post .
As of this writing , it ’ s been shared 24,000 times and has more than 600 comments , with many parents thanking him for opening their eyes to the dangers of in-person school .
Since the uncertainty about the upcoming school year set in this summer , I ’ ve witnessed a steady stream of unsourced and unvetted information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best to make huge , anxiety-filled , life-altering decisions about school and day care .
I get why .
Every day we ’ re bombarded with contradicting information about Covid-19 , kids , school openings , and risk as we try our best to tackle the complex pandemic decisions that lie in front of us .
But why is it so hard to find trustworthy information ?
And how should parents navigate decision-making during this unsettling time ?
In mid-March I felt so overwhelmed by the news that I had to shut it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times app off my phone , too upset to read stories about the overwhelmed hospitals and the death toll in New York , a city I once lived in for nearly 12 years .
I removed Apple News from my welcome screen so I wasn ’ t hit with some shatteringly awful piece of information when I checked a text message .
The only news I allowed myself to consume was from my local paper , the Raleigh News & Observer , so that I could stay up to date on relevant state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and issues .
Since the pandemic started , hyperlocal news has never been more relevant as testing , hospitalization , and death rates vary wildly from state to state .
Yet the timing couldn ’ t be worse for the news industry .
Over the last 15 years , more than 2,000 local newspapers have closed , according to a report from the University of North Carolina .
Despite the fact that subscriptions and readership are up for some outlets during the pandemic , advertising and live event revenue has tanked , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pandemic “ an extinction-level event.
” Nearly 36,000 journalists have lost their jobs , been furloughed , or had their pay cut since the start of the crisis .
In the absence of multiple robust , trusted news sources , what thrives online is opinion — and misinformation .
Nora Benavidez , director of US free expression programs at PEN America and an expert on media literacy and misinformation , says part of the pernicious effect of misinformation is that it plays into two psychological phenomena — illusory truth and confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents search for answers and make high-stakes decisions .
Illusory truth is the idea that repeated exposure to an idea makes us more likely to believe it , such as when we see a post being shared multiple times on social media .
“ This illusory truth effect can occur despite being aware that the source of a statement is unreliable , despite previously knowing that the information is false , ” Dr. Joe Pierre writes in Psychology Today .
In other words , seeing multiple people share something that says hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could make us more likely to believe that Covid-19 kills a lot of children — even if we know that math is wrong .
Confirmation bias is when we seek out and better absorb information and opinions that validate either our existing worldview or something we hope is true , such as deciding in-person school is the vastly superior choice for your family , and then paying attention only to information that validates that belief .
“ We constantly have to actually undo those passive reactions where it ’ s just our instinct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve seen , ” Benavidez explains .
Beyond social media , the complexity of the news landscape means it can also be difficult to know which news sources are trustworthy .
“ Not all local , or national news for that matter , is created equal , ” Viktorya Vilk , director of digital safety and free expression programs at PEN America and lead author of the PEN America report “ Losing the News : The Decimation of Local News and the Search for Solutions , ” explains .
She advises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a news source .
“ Have you heard of it ?
Is it local ?
Do you trust it ?
Does it have a masthead ?
Can you find out who ’ s actually the leader of it ?
Do they say anything about an ethics policy or fact-checking policy ?
Do they correct things when they ’ ve made mistakes ?
” she says .
However , even going to “ reliable ” news sites doesn ’ t always provide easy answers .
I asked Brown University economics professor Emily Oster , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writer of the ParentData newsletter , about a spate of recent scary-sounding headlines ( including “ Nearly a Thousand Covid-19 Cases Reported in California Day Cares , ” published by an NBC TV affiliate .
“ One thousand out of what ?
” Oster counters .
“ One of the problems with many of these articles is that there is a lot of reporting of cases and almost no reporting of rates .
Remember , the US is big .
California is big.
” Although it may sound like obvious advice , Benavidez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you share , and making sure the articles provide relevant context with regard to numbers .
Benavidez and Oster also recommend primary sources , such as medical institutions , state health department dashboards , the Center for Disease Control and Prevention , and the World Health Organization , as more reliable sources of data .
Of course , we don ’ t always have the time , resources , or expertise to become amateur public health officials or epidemiologists digging through government websites .
One easy way to be a more sophisticated consumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the poster .
Can you confirm with a quick search that they ’ re actually , say , a professor of public health ?
Take cut-and-pasted text that ’ s not tied to an original author or news story with a serious grain of salt , and be wary of unsourced numbers , screenshots , or viral memes , even if they “ sound right ” and echo your own hunches or beliefs .
Not succumbing to panic and actually confirming something is true with additional sources before sharing potentially unreliable information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We can ’ t control what others say or do online , but we can control our reactions and if we share it , ” explains Benavidez .
” Media literacy is a constant and ongoing process that you ’ ll get better at as you do it.
” Once you find particular news outlets that meet your standards and that you trust , “ Keep going to those sources and ideally pay for them , because if you don ’ t they ’ ll go away , to put it bluntly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a decision when there are no good choices Although learning about how to find reliable information is important , information alone doesn ’ t do the toughest part for parents faced with pandemic schooling choices .
On the topic of school and day care , Oster cautions that “ people should try not to think about this until they are able to actually think about it concretely .
Until your school district has said what they ’ re doing , you can ’ t develop contingency plans .
The first step is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what some of the options are .
And then start to think about what you see as the alternatives.
” Oster also points out that , despite some drawbacks , social media can be very helpful in connecting with people and sharing resources .
Building community and a “ kitchen cabinet ” of trusted advisers to be sounding boards for ideas as we navigate these uncharted waters can be crucial for parents , and social media platforms can help foster those discussions .
“ We need to have a community of allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these issues [ with ] , including how to evaluate trustworthy information , ” Benavidez points out .
I get how hard it is to sort through the news avalanche right now .
My brain is constantly humming with new information and anxieties , fear , and dread that rises and falls with each new headline .
Remember back in March , when the Surgeon General begged people not to wear masks ?
Remember when not spending two hours wiping down your groceries after you brought them home was seen as highly reckless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to slow down , read carefully , evaluate , and avoid panic-sharing as we all do our best to search for solutions to the near-impossible choices we ’ re being presented with .
As for my own decision about in-person kindergarten for my son ?
After long discussions with my husband , my parents , and a few friends , our choice ... was no choice at all .
Our school district changed course and decided to go all-virtual for all students for at least the first nine weeks .
I know there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where I ’ ll have to decide whether to send him back to school .
But it ’ s not today .
And in the meantime , my babies will grow older , and I ’ ll spend many more weeks staring at that empty playground .
Katherine Goldstein is a journalist and the creator of a reported podcast called The Double Shift about a new generation of working mothers .
Find her on Twitter @ kgeee or sign up for her newsletter .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

It’s the beginning of August, and I’ve spent nearly five months looking out my front door at my son’s desolate elementary school playground across the street. I never dreamed it would be sitting empty this long.
As the coronavirus pandemic swept through the nation and schools converted to Zoom lessons after shutting their doors, I thought nothing could be as frightening as those early days of lockdown this spring. With 1-month-old twins and a 4-year-old, those earliest days are already a jumble in my memory, a caregiving chess match to keep on top of the chaos. But it turns out there is indeed something scarier than being told to stay in your house as much as possible: being tasked to make all of our own risk calculations and decisions about a pandemic that’s still far from under control.
In early July, our school district in Durham, North Carolina, announced it was prepping an in-person option for elementary and middle school students at half capacity, five days a week; virtual-only instruction for high school; and an online option for anyone who wanted it. I was briefly elated at the prospect that maybe things would be more like “normal” this fall. But as the days went by, my certainty that sending my son back was the right choice started to waver.
Without many more details coming from our district or school about what the year would look like, I found myself doing way too much doomscrolling. “I know this is already all over FB and mom’s groups, but I’m really interested in this group’s perspective on what you are going to do about school,” one mom, an essential health care worker, posted in a smaller Facebook group I’m in. She admitted she was worried about being shamed in other, larger social media groups for considering in-person school. Another started: “How are you all dealing with this massive uncertainty right now? I am anxious about not going back to school in person because of the impact on our students and their families, and anxious about going back to school in person because of the impact on us ALL.”
Further anguishing parents is that there’s no universal formula in making a decision. Factors around local infection numbers, school board politics, family economics, mental health, learning loss, and a child’s age and affinity for online school create a complex personal matrix. And no parent alive today has been through this situation before. We can’t fall back on what we’ve always done, or what our own parents did for us. So many of us keep looking for answers that the parent internet has started to feel like one giant search party, everyone scrolling for the story, the argument, the expert opinion, the statistic, or the new data that will help us clarify the “right” thing to do.
As I dove further into these online discussions, I noticed that people were starting to share ideas and writing and statistics from people they thought had some special insight. There was a cut-and-pasted post, supposedly from an unnamed Covid-19 doctor at Duke University Hospital, about why she wouldn’t risk sending her kids to school, which I later found shared in multiple local Facebook groups. There was a long, ranty post about how we don’t know the long-term health effects of Covid-19. I first saw it shared with no author, and another time it was attributed to Dr. Anthony Fauci, for which I found no evidence.
Then there was a post shared by a Facebook friend who said reading it made her reconsider in-person school. It was written by a public school parent in a neighboring state who didn’t claim to be any kind of expert yet had calculated that if his school district reopened with in-person classes, several hundred students would die of Covid-19. Reading his post, I was both scared and puzzled.
As a journalist and former fact-checker, and as someone who has my local Health and Human Services website bookmarked, I knew something didn’t quite add up. It turns out the problem was his math. He made a bunch of errors in his calculation — the statistical likelihood of a child in his school district dying from Covid-19 was close to zero. I messaged him to point out the error, as did a few other commenters, but he declined to change anything in the post. As of this writing, it’s been shared 24,000 times and has more than 600 comments, with many parents thanking him for opening their eyes to the dangers of in-person school.
Since the uncertainty about the upcoming school year set in this summer, I’ve witnessed a steady stream of unsourced and unvetted information circulating among parents who are trying their best to make huge, anxiety-filled, life-altering decisions about school and day care. I get why. Every day we’re bombarded with contradicting information about Covid-19, kids, school openings, and risk as we try our best to tackle the complex pandemic decisions that lie in front of us. But why is it so hard to find trustworthy information? And how should parents navigate decision-making during this unsettling time?
The risks of spreading misinformation online
In mid-March I felt so overwhelmed by the news that I had to shut it off. I took the New York Times app off my phone, too upset to read stories about the overwhelmed hospitals and the death toll in New York, a city I once lived in for nearly 12 years. I removed Apple News from my welcome screen so I wasn’t hit with some shatteringly awful piece of information when I checked a text message.
The only news I allowed myself to consume was from my local paper, the Raleigh News & Observer, so that I could stay up to date on relevant state and local case counts, decisions, and issues. Since the pandemic started, hyperlocal news has never been more relevant as testing, hospitalization, and death rates vary wildly from state to state.
Yet the timing couldn’t be worse for the news industry. Over the past 15 years, more than 2,000 local newspapers have closed, according to a report from the University of North Carolina. Despite the fact that subscriptions and readership are up for some outlets during the pandemic, advertising and live event revenue has tanked, and some experts are calling the financial strain of the pandemic “an extinction-level event.” Nearly 36,000 journalists have lost their jobs, been furloughed, or had their pay cut since the start of the crisis. In the absence of multiple robust, trusted news sources, what thrives online is opinion — and misinformation.
Nora Benavidez, director of US free expression programs at PEN America and an expert on media literacy and misinformation, says part of the pernicious effect of misinformation is that it plays into two psychological phenomena — illusory truth and confirmation bias — that are currently thriving as parents search for answers and make high-stakes decisions. Illusory truth is the idea that repeated exposure to an idea makes us more likely to believe it, such as when we see a post being shared multiple times on social media. “This illusory truth effect can occur despite being aware that the source of a statement is unreliable, despite previously knowing that the information is false,” Dr. Joe Pierre writes in Psychology Today. In other words, seeing multiple people share something that says hundreds of kids in one school district will die could make us more likely to believe that Covid-19 kills a lot of children — even if we know that math is wrong.
Confirmation bias is when we seek out and better absorb information and opinions that validate either our existing worldview or something we hope is true, such as deciding in-person school is the vastly superior choice for your family and then paying attention only to information that validates that belief. “We constantly have to actually undo those passive reactions where it’s just our instinct to want to believe more of what we’ve seen,” Benavidez explains.
Beyond social media, the complexity of the news landscape means it can also be difficult to know which news sources are trustworthy. “Not all local, or national news, for that matter, is created equal,” Viktorya Vilk, director of digital safety and free expression programs at PEN America and lead author of the PEN America report “Losing the News: The Decimation of Local News and the Search for Solutions,” explains. She advises asking yourself a series of questions about a news source. “Have you heard of it? Is it local? Do you trust it? Does it have a masthead? Can you find out who’s actually the leader of it? Do they say anything about an ethics policy or fact-checking policy? Do they correct things when they’ve made mistakes?”
However, even going to “reliable” news sites doesn’t always provide easy answers. I asked Brown University economics professor Emily Oster, co-creator of the COVID Explained website and writer of the ParentData newsletter, about a spate of recent scary-sounding headlines (including “Nearly a Thousand Covid-19 Cases Reported in California Day Cares,” published by an NBC TV affiliate.
“One thousand out of what?” Oster counters. “One of the problems with many of these articles is that there is a lot of reporting of cases and almost no reporting of rates. Remember, the US is big. California is big.” Although it may sound like obvious advice, Benavidez recommends reading beyond headlines, especially before you share, and making sure the articles provide relevant context with regard to numbers.
Benavidez and Oster also recommend primary sources, such as medical institutions, state health department dashboards, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization, as more reliable sources of data. Of course, we don’t always have the time, resources, or expertise to become amateur public health officials or epidemiologists digging through government websites. One easy way to be a more sophisticated consumer of information is to check the credentials of the poster. Can you confirm with a quick search that they’re actually, say, a professor of public health? Take cut-and-pasted text that’s not tied to an original author or news story with a serious grain of salt, and be wary of unsourced numbers, screenshots, or viral memes, even if they “sound right” and echo your own hunches or beliefs.
Not succumbing to panic and actually confirming something is true with additional sources before sharing potentially unreliable information are important parts of the solution.
“We can’t control what others say or do online, but we can control our reactions and if we share it,” explains Benavidez. ”Media literacy is a constant and ongoing process that you’ll get better at as you do it.”
Once you find particular news outlets that meet your standards and that you trust, “Keep going to those sources and ideally pay for them, because if you don’t, they’ll go away, to put it bluntly,” emphasizes Vilk.
How to make a decision when there are no good choices
Although learning about how to find reliable information is important, information alone doesn’t do the toughest part for parents faced with pandemic schooling choices. On the topic of school and day care, Oster cautions that “people should try not to think about this until they are able to actually think about it concretely. Until your school district has said what they’re doing, you can’t develop contingency plans. The first step is [to] just wait until you know what some of the options are. And then start to think about what you see as the alternatives.”
Oster also points out that, despite some drawbacks, social media can be very helpful in connecting with people and sharing resources. Building community and a “kitchen cabinet” of trusted advisers to be sounding boards for ideas as we navigate these uncharted waters can be crucial for parents, and social media platforms can help foster those discussions. “We need to have a community of allies that we’re weighing all of these issues [with], including how to evaluate trustworthy information,” Benavidez points out.
I get how hard it is to sort through the news avalanche right now. My brain is constantly humming with new information and anxieties, fear, and dread that rises and falls with each new headline. Remember back in March, when the surgeon general begged people not to wear masks? Remember when not spending two hours wiping down your groceries after you brought them home was seen as highly reckless? But it’s worth it to slow down, read carefully, evaluate, and avoid panic-sharing as we all do our best to search for solutions to the near-impossible choices we’re being presented with.
As for my decision about in-person kindergarten for my son? After long discussions with my husband, my parents, and a few friends, our choice ... was no choice at all. Our school district changed course and decided to go all-virtual for all students for at least the first nine weeks.
I know there is a moment coming, someday, where I’ll have to decide whether to send him back to school. But it’s not today. And in the meantime, my babies will grow older, and I’ll spend many more weeks staring at that empty playground.
Katherine Goldstein is a journalist and the creator of a reported podcast called The Double Shift about a new generation of working mothers. Find her on Twitter @kgeee or sign up for her newsletter.


vox--2020-08-06--Why Senate Republicans are split on the next stimulus bill

Despite a dire need for unemployment support , the looming threat of thousands of evictions , and growing food insecurity across the country , some Republicans still aren ’ t sold on more stimulus .
“ If you ’ re looking for total consensus among Republican senators , you ’ re not going to find one , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday when asked about GOP support for a potential deal .
“ I ’ m not anticipating a 100-nothing vote in the Senate this time.
” That ’ s a stark change from four months ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass the CARES Act .
The difference might seem surprising — the economy isn ’ t much better than it was in March , and most US adults say they want the government to do more to curtail the coronavirus pandemic and help Americans weather its fallout .
But passing the initial $ 2.2 trillion stimulus was a large enough step for some Republican lawmakers : Now , more traditional GOP concerns — namely , the national debt — are rising to the fore .
“ I think we should be focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trillions of dollars out of Washington .
I think this bill is the wrong approach , ” Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) told reporters last week .
The GOP split on the stimulus has complicated negotiations , even as key support programs expire and the 2020 election draws nearer .
It has also underscored an awkward tension in the party : While some members acknowledge the necessity of doing more , and may even depend on it for reelection , others seem eager to stake out a more fiscally conservative position to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line .
Many Republicans want to get something done , particularly battleground senators There ’ s a swath of Republicans — particularly battleground senators — who are interested in approving more stimulus , albeit at much lower levels than what Democrats have proposed .
Lawmakers in this camp include moderates Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) , Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) , and Rob Portman ( R-OH ) , as well as vulnerable members up for reelection in November , such as Susan Collins ( R-ME ) and Martha McSally ( R-AZ ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has backed the HEALS Act , a $ 1 trillion counterproposal to the $ 3 trillion HEROES Act that Democrats passed in May .
Some Republicans have come around recently , as state reopenings have floundered and the government struggles to get the pandemic under control .
Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) , for example , told Politico in early June that he saw the economy beginning to “ come back.
” More recently , however , Cornyn has argued that the Senate shouldn ’ t leave for recess until a stimulus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s now a “ broad ” sense that more action is required , even if calls for it are far from unanimous , a GOP aide told Vox .
Among the Senate Republicans most eager to strike a deal with Democrats are those up for reelection in 2020 .
Vulnerable Republican incumbents , including Collins , McSally , and Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner , have made the CARES Act ’ s coronavirus aid to their states a central part of their reelection pitch to voters .
And they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a safer incumbent representing a traditionally red state that ’ s become a coronavirus hot spot , is pushing for an agreement ; on Wednesday , Romney , Collins , and McSally even introduced their own plan for unemployment insurance , which would offer a supplemental benefit lower than what the Democrats want but more generous than what other Republicans have proposed .
“ Taking steps now so these candidates can come back in October to say we ’ ve done this , we ’ ve addressed this ... is really huge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is so important , ” Republican pollster Neil Newhouse told Vox .
“ It impacts the political environment ; it adds stress to families .
It may not change people ’ s votes — at least not significantly — but it ’ s just another challenge to overcome for our candidates.
” Before the coronavirus forced a mass shutdown of American businesses , the economy had always been Trump ’ s and Republicans ’ strong suit .
Earlier this year , many Republicans were optimistic the economy would return after the initial coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been the thing that Republicans and Trump have pointed to throughout his entire presidency , and I do think there were a lot of voters that were willing to excuse Trump ’ s behavior because the economy was strong , ” said Jessica Taylor , Senate editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report .
Now it ’ s becoming clear that Trump ’ s and the federal government ’ s complete mismanagement of the coronavirus crisis means the economy will continue to lag .
“ Arguably , [ the economy ] was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had we taken this virus more seriously from the get-go , ” Taylor said .
“ I think the two are sort of inextricably linked.
” And if the trend of new coronavirus hot spots flaring up and continuing to depress the economy — or if Congress can ’ t pass more economic relief to save people from evictions or losing their homes — lingers , that doesn ’ t bode well for the party in power .
“ The picture gets more complicated as we get in the fall because of kids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being up in the air , unemployment benefits running out and people not being able to pay their rent or mortgages because of this , ” Newhouse said .
Even as these vulnerable Republicans urge leadership to come to an agreement on the stimulus deal , one of their chief opponents may be conservative members of their party who seem content to reject the GOP ’ s efforts .
“ Depending on how popular stimulus is in some of these states , how many people are fearing unemployment , it can certainly cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done , says Brian Riedl , a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who ’ s previously served as the chief economist for Sen. Portman .
Some Republicans are increasingly worried about the national debt While their colleagues call for more aid , a vocal contingent of Republicans have criticized their party ’ s bill on the stimulus and espoused concerns about adding to the national debt .
“ The White House is trying to solve bad polling by agreeing to indefensibly bad debt , ” Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-NE ) said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not targeted to fix precise problems — it ’ s about Democrats and Trumpers competing to outspend each other.
” It ’ s a somewhat puzzling position — also held by Sens .
Rand Paul ( KY ) and Cruz ( TX ) — given the electoral fallout the party could experience if it doesn ’ t take action , and the severe economic difficulties that millions of people and businesses around the country continue to grapple with .
“ It ’ s not a winning hand that Republicans are trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Vox .
“ I think it ’ s only made matters complicated that they ’ re at war with their own caucus.
” As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has emphasized , concerns about the debt are warranted , but “ this is not the time to act on those concerns ” due to the scope of the economic crisis .
It ’ s worth noting , too , that lower interest rates currently make borrowing less burdensome for the federal government , not to mention that Senate Republicans were far less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they approved tax cuts back in 2017 .
There are a couple of reasons that Republicans could be retreating to this positioning , however : With the deficit set to hit a record high this year , some lawmakers may be genuinely wary of the implications , as well as concerned about blowback from conservative voters .
“ Politically , I ’ m guessing that a lot of Republicans are sensing that we are a year or two away from the Tea Party backlash , ” says Riedl .
As Club for Growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP bill , has argued , a segment of voters could be less likely to turn out or support Republican candidates because of their backing for what they view as excessive spending .
In a poll that the organization fielded among likely voters in battleground states , 33 percent said they ’ d be less likely to back the GOP candidate if they supported another trillion-dollar addition to the debt while money from the CARES Act still hasn ’ t been spent .
But Newhouse , the Republican pollster whose firm is working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said many voters have more immediate concerns — like where the money for their rent and food is going to come from .
“ The concerns about adding to the deficit are far outweighed by the health concerns and economic concerns of Americans due to coronavirus , ” Newhouse said .
“ The challenge for Republican candidates seeking reelection is not the Republican base ; it ’ s independents , it ’ s moderates , it ’ s swing voters .
And the furthest thing from their minds is running up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too , that the government needs to wait to approve any more stimulus until all the money from the CARES Act has been spent .
Some states , like Indiana , for example , have not used the federal funds they ’ ve been allocated yet because there ’ s been inconsistent communication about restrictions on how the money can be used .
“ The argument is let ’ s look at what we ’ ve already done and see the impact on the economy , ” the GOP aide told Vox .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ CARES Act a chance to go to work.
” ( The argument doesn ’ t take into account the fact that certain provisions in the CARES Act , like enhanced UI , have already expired . )
There ’ s also been speculation that some Republicans could be setting themselves up for a post-Trump future by taking an aggressive stance on fiscal responsibility , an approach that could help reestablish themselves as the “ party of no ” if Biden is elected , Bloomberg reports .
As one Democratic aide theorized , fiscal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideological touchstone for the party as it tries to figure out what it stands for in a new administration .
Meanwhile , Trump ’ s role in negotiations — and coronavirus response — is an ongoing wild card As has been the case with many congressional negotiations , the White House , too , plays an important role in any final deal .
Unlike some Senate Republicans , the White House hasn ’ t been as concerned about the size of the bill .
As a result , negotiators like Treasury Secretary Steven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures than many Republicans would like to stomach , though it ’ s unclear if that will happen again this time around .
Thus far , there have been breaks between the White House and Senate Republicans on other provisions as well : Although McConnell has said that liability protections aimed at shielding businesses from lawsuits were a key tenet for congressional lawmakers , the White House has indicated it ’ s open to a deal without them , the Washington Post reported .
Senate Republicans have also opposed a push from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the design and construction of a new FBI building .
And even if Republicans and Democrats agree on a coronavirus aid package , Trump ’ s overall coronavirus response still presents a big problem for Republican senators in November .
“ What ’ s hurting Republicans the most is President Trump not appearing to take this seriously , ” Taylor told Vox .
Trump ’ s lackluster response to the coronavirus is becoming a big issue in the 2020 campaign .
It would be one thing if Congress were passing more aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitively flattened the coronavirus curve , but the United States is still seeing new coronavirus hot spots flaring up , as Vox ’ s Dylan Scott reported .
And despite recently endorsing commonsense things like mask-wearing , the president keeps veering off message .
Pressed by Axios reporter Jonathan Swan about a recent spike in coronavirus deaths , Trump said , “ They are dying .
That ’ s true .
It is what it is .
...
It ’ s under control as much as you can control it.
” And asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Wednesday Fox & Friends appearance , Trump said of the coronavirus , “ This thing is going away .
It will go away like things go away , and my view is that schools should be open.
” Trump is still adamant that the virus will “ go away , ” even as his administration remains unwilling to take even basic steps to improve access to testing , contact tracing , and isolating infected individuals , therefore allowing the virus to spread further .
The country is already in dire economic straits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently say the country is headed in the wrong direction .
“ It ’ s an extraordinary flip of the mood in the country in a short amount of time ... that portends change , ” Newhouse said .
“ Whether [ voters ] hold Trump or Republicans in the House or Senate accountable or not , they ’ re still going to vote for change.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to @ @ @

Despite a dire need for unemployment support, the looming threat of thousands of evictions, and growing food insecurity across the country, some Republicans still aren’t sold on more stimulus.
“If you’re looking for total consensus among Republican senators, you’re not going to find one,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday when asked about GOP support for a potential deal. “I’m not anticipating a 100-nothing vote in the Senate this time.”
That’s a stark change from four months ago, when the Senate voted 96-0 to pass the CARES Act. The difference might seem surprising — the economy isn’t much better than it was in March, and most US adults say they want the government to do more to curtail the coronavirus pandemic and help Americans weather its fallout. But passing the initial $2.2 trillion stimulus was a large enough step for some Republican lawmakers: Now more traditional GOP concerns — namely, the national debt — are rising to the fore.
“I think we should be focused on reopening the economy, not simply shoveling trillions of dollars out of Washington. I think this bill is the wrong approach,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told reporters last week.
The GOP split on the stimulus has complicated negotiations, even as key support programs expire and the 2020 election draws nearer. It has also underscored an awkward tension in the party: While some members acknowledge the necessity of doing more, and may even depend on it for reelection, others seem eager to stake out a more fiscally conservative position to prevent blowback from the base down the line.
Many Republicans want to get something done, particularly battleground senators
A swath of Republicans — particularly battleground senators — are interested in approving more stimulus, albeit at much lower levels than what Democrats have proposed.
Lawmakers in this camp include moderates Mitt Romney (R-UT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Rob Portman (R-OH), as well as vulnerable members up for reelection in November, such as Susan Collins (R-ME) and Martha McSally (R-AZ). Senate Republican leadership, too, has backed the HEALS Act, a $1 trillion counterproposal to the $3 trillion HEROES Act that Democrats passed in May.
Some Republicans have come around recently, as state reopenings have floundered and the government struggles to get the pandemic under control. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), for example, told Politico in early June that he saw the economy beginning to “come back.” More recently, however, he has argued that the Senate shouldn’t leave for recess until a stimulus deal gets worked out with the Democrats. There’s now a “broad” sense that more action is required, even if calls for it are far from unanimous, a GOP aide told Vox.
Among the Senate Republicans most eager to strike a deal with Democrats are those up for reelection in 2020.
Vulnerable Republican incumbents, including Collins, McSally, and Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, have made the CARES Act’s coronavirus aid to their states a central part of their reelection pitch to voters. And they’re not the only ones. Cornyn, a safer incumbent representing a traditionally red state that’s become a coronavirus hot spot, is pushing for an agreement; on Wednesday, Romney, Collins, and McSally even introduced their own plan for unemployment insurance, which would offer a supplemental benefit lower than what the Democrats want but more generous than what other Republicans have proposed.
“Taking steps now so these candidates can come back in October to say we’ve done this, we’ve addressed this ... is really huge, and that’s why this stuff is so important,” Republican pollster Neil Newhouse told Vox. “It impacts the political environment; it adds stress to families. It may not change people’s votes — at least not significantly — but it’s just another challenge to overcome for our candidates.”
Before the coronavirus forced a mass shutdown of American businesses, the economy had always been Trump’s and Republicans’ strong suit. Earlier this year, many Republicans were optimistic the economy would return after the initial coronavirus spikes were contained.
“The economy has been the thing that Republicans and Trump have pointed to throughout his entire presidency, and I do think there were a lot of voters that were willing to excuse Trump’s behavior because the economy was strong,” said Jessica Taylor, Senate editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
Now it’s becoming clear that Trump and the federal government’s complete mismanagement of the coronavirus crisis means the economy will continue to lag.
“Arguably, [the economy] was something that could have been less hit had we taken this virus more seriously from the get-go,” Taylor said. “I think the two are sort of inextricably linked.” And if the trend of new coronavirus hot spots flaring up and continuing to depress the economy — or if Congress can’t pass more economic relief to save people from evictions or losing their homes — lingers, that doesn’t bode well for the party in power.
“The picture gets more complicated as we get in the fall because of kids going back to school, child care being up in the air, unemployment benefits running out, and people not being able to pay their rent or mortgages because of this,” Newhouse said.
Even as these vulnerable Republicans urge leadership to come to an agreement on the stimulus deal, one of their chief opponents may be conservative members of their party who seem content to reject the GOP’s efforts.
“Depending on how popular stimulus is in some of these states, how many people are fearing unemployment, it can certainly cost votes for Republicans” if nothing gets done, says Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who’s previously served as the chief economist for Sen. Portman.
Some Republicans are increasingly worried about the national debt
While their colleagues call for more aid, a vocal contingent of Republicans have criticized their party’s bill on the stimulus and espoused concerns about adding to the national debt.
“The White House is trying to solve bad polling by agreeing to indefensibly bad debt,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said in a statement. “This proposal is not targeted to fix precise problems — it’s about Democrats and Trumpers competing to outspend each other.”
It’s a somewhat puzzling position — also held by Sens. Rand Paul (KY) and Cruz (TX) — given the electoral fallout the party could experience if it doesn’t take action, and the severe economic difficulties that millions of people and businesses around the country continue to grapple with.
“It’s not a winning hand that Republicans are trying to play here,” a Democratic operative told Vox. “I think it’s only made matters complicated that they’re at war with their own caucus.”
As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has emphasized, concerns about the debt are warranted, but “this is not the time to act on those concerns” due to the scope of the economic crisis. It’s worth noting, too, that lower interest rates currently make borrowing less burdensome for the federal government, not to mention that Senate Republicans were far less wary of adding to the debt when they approved tax cuts back in 2017.
There are a couple of reasons that Republicans could be retreating to this positioning, however: With the deficit set to hit a record high this year, some lawmakers may be genuinely wary of the implications, as well as concerned about blowback from conservative voters.
“Politically, I’m guessing that a lot of Republicans are sensing that we are a year or two away from the Tea Party backlash,” says Riedl.
As Club for Growth, a conservative group that opposes the GOP bill, has argued, a segment of voters could be less likely to turn out or support Republican candidates because of their backing for what they view as excessive spending. In a poll that the organization fielded among likely voters in battleground states, 33 percent said they’d be less likely to back the GOP candidate if they supported another trillion-dollar addition to the debt while money from the CARES Act still hasn’t been spent.
But Newhouse, the Republican pollster whose firm is working for a number of Republican Senate candidates, said many voters have more immediate concerns — like where the money for their rent and food is going to come from.
“The concerns about adding to the deficit are far outweighed by the health concerns and economic concerns of Americans due to coronavirus,” Newhouse said. “The challenge for Republican candidates seeking reelection is not the Republican base; it’s independents, it’s moderates, it’s swing voters. And the furthest thing from their minds is running up the deficit.”
Some senators have argued, too, that the government needs to wait to approve any more stimulus until all the money from the CARES Act has been spent. Some states, like Indiana, for example, have not used the federal funds they’ve been allocated yet because there’s been inconsistent communication about restrictions on how the money can be used.
“The argument is let’s look at what we’ve already done and see the impact on the economy,” the GOP aide told Vox. “We need to give ... the CARES Act a chance to go to work.” (The argument doesn’t take into account the fact that certain provisions in the CARES Act, like enhanced UI, have already expired.)
There’s also been speculation that some Republicans could be setting themselves up for a post-Trump future by taking an aggressive stance on fiscal responsibility, an approach that could help reestablish themselves as the “party of no” if Biden is elected, Bloomberg reports. As one Democratic aide theorized, fiscal conservatism could help serve as a key ideological touchstone for the party as it tries to figure out what it stands for in a new administration.
Meanwhile, Trump’s role in negotiations — and coronavirus response — is an ongoing wild card
As has been the case with many congressional negotiations, the White House, too, plays an important role in any final deal.
Unlike some Senate Republicans, the White House hasn’t been as concerned about the size of the bill. As a result, negotiators like Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have previously pushed for more expansive measures than many Republicans would like to stomach, though it’s unclear if that will happen again this time around.
Thus far, there have been breaks between the White House and Senate Republicans on other provisions as well: Although McConnell has said that liability protections aimed at shielding businesses from lawsuits were a key tenet for congressional lawmakers, the White House has indicated it’s open to a deal without them, the Washington Post reported. Senate Republicans have also opposed a push from the White House to include $1.75 billion for the design and construction of a new FBI building.
And even if Republicans and Democrats agree on a coronavirus aid package, Trump’s overall coronavirus response still presents a big problem for Republican senators in November.
“What’s hurting Republicans the most is President Trump not appearing to take this seriously,” Taylor told Vox.
Trump’s lackluster response to the coronavirus is becoming a big issue in the 2020 campaign. It would be one thing if Congress were passing more aid in a country that had successfully and definitively flattened the coronavirus curve, but the United States is still seeing new coronavirus hot spots flaring up, as Vox’s Dylan Scott reported. And despite recently endorsing commonsense things like mask-wearing, the president keeps veering off message.
Pressed by Axios reporter Jonathan Swan about a recent spike in coronavirus deaths, Trump said, “They are dying. That’s true. It is what it is. ... It’s under control as much as you can control it.”
And asked about the latest with schools reopening on a Wednesday Fox & Friends appearance, Trump said of the coronavirus, “This thing is going away. It will go away like things go away, and my view is that schools should be open.”
Trump is still adamant that the virus will “go away,” even as his administration remains unwilling to take even basic steps to improve access to testing, contact tracing, and isolating infected individuals, therefore allowing the virus to spread further. The country is already in dire economic straits, and the majority of Americans polled recently say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
“It’s an extraordinary flip of the mood in the country in a short amount of time ... that portends change,” Newhouse said. “Whether [voters] hold Trump or Republicans in the House or Senate accountable or not, they’re still going to vote for change.”