vox--2020-05-28--Just 3 states meet these basic criteria to reopen and stay safe

All 50 states are moving to reopen their economies , at least partially , after shutting down businesses and gatherings in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
But a Vox analysis suggests that most states haven ’ t made the preparations needed to contain future waves of the pandemic — putting themselves at risk for a rise in Covid-19 cases and deaths should they continue to reopen .
Experts told me states need three things to be ready to reopen .
State leaders , from the governor to the legislature to health departments , need to ensure the SARS-CoV-2 virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need the testing capacity to track and isolate the sick and their contacts .
And they need the hospital capacity to handle a potential surge in Covid-19 cases .
More specifically , states should meet at least five basic criteria .
They should see a two-week drop in coronavirus cases , indicating that the virus is actually abating .
They should have fewer than four daily new cases per 100,000 people per day — to show that cases aren ’ t just dropping , but also below dangerous levels .
They need at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per day , letting them quickly track and contain outbreaks .
They need an overall positive rate for tests below 5 percent — another critical indicator for testing capacity .
And states should have more than 40 percent of their ICU beds free to actually treat an influx of people stricken with Covid-19 should it be necessary .
These metrics line up with experts ’ recommendations , as well as the various policy plans put out by both independent groups and government officials to deal with the coronavirus .
Meeting these metrics doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to reopen its economy — a process that describes a wide range of local and state actions .
And failing them doesn ’ t mean a state is in immediate danger of a coronavirus outbreak if it starts to reopen ; with Covid-19 , there ’ s always an element of luck and other factors .
But with these metrics , states can gauge if they have repressed the coronavirus while building the capacity to contain future outbreaks should they come .
In other words , the benchmarks show how ready states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight .
So far , most states are not there .
As of May 27 , just three states — Alaska , Kentucky , and New York — met four or five of the goals , which demonstrates strong progress .
Thirty states hit two or three of the benchmarks .
The other 17 achieved zero or one .
Even the states that have made the most progress aren ’ t necessarily ready to safely reopen .
There ’ s a big difference between Alaska — which has not suffered from a high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York , and no expert would say that all of New York is ready to get back to normal .
Nor do the metrics cover everything that states should do before they can reopen .
They don ’ t show , for example , if states have the capacity to do contact tracing , in which people who came into contact with someone who ’ s sick with Covid-19 are tracked down by “ disease detectives ” and quarantined .
Contact tracing is key to containing an epidemic , but states don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve hired in a standardized , readily available way .
They also don ’ t have ready data for health care workers ’ access to personal protective equipment , such as masks and gloves — a critical measure of the health care system ’ s readiness that is difficult to track .
But the map gives an idea of how much progress states have made toward containing the coronavirus and keeping it contained .
States will have to follow these kinds of metrics as they reopen .
If the numbers — especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction again , experts said governments should be ready to bring back restrictions .
If states move too quickly to reopen or respond too slowly to a turn for the worse , they could see a renewed surge in Covid-19 cases .
“ Planning for reclosing is part of planning for reopening , ” Mark McClellan , a health policy expert at Duke , told me .
“ There will be outbreaks , and there will be needs for pauses and going back — hopefully not too much if we do this carefully.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in progress , at least until we get a Covid-19 vaccine or the pandemic otherwise ends , whether by natural or human means .
But the metrics can at least help give states an idea of how far along they are in finally starting to open back up .
What ’ s the goal ?
A 10 percent drop in daily new coronavirus cases compared to two weeks ago and a 5 percent drop in cases compared to one week ago .
Which states meet the goal ?
Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kentucky , Massachusetts , Michigan , Missouri , Nebraska , New Jersey , New York , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , and Texas — 17 states in all .
Why is this important ?
Guidance from the White House and several independent groups emphasize that states need to see coronavirus cases drop consistently over two weeks before they can say they ’ re ready to begin reopening .
After all , nothing shows you ’ re out of an outbreak like a sustained reduction in infections .
“ The first and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a continued decrease in cases , ” Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist , told me .
“ It ’ s a huge piece.
” A simple reduction in cases compared to two weeks prior isn ’ t enough ; it has to be a significant drop , and it has to be sustained over the two weeks .
So for Vox ’ s map , states need at least a 10 percent drop in daily new cases compared to two weeks prior and at least a 5 percent drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases can be a reflection of testing capacity : More testing will pick up more cases , and less testing will pick up fewer .
So it ’ s important that the decrease occur while testing is either growing or already sufficient .
And since states have recently boosted their testing abilities , increases in Covid-19 cases can also reflect improvements in testing .
Even after meeting this benchmark , continued caution is warranted .
If a state meets the goal of a reduction in cases compared to one and two weeks ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent days , then perhaps it ’ s not time to reopen just yet .
“ You have to use common sense , ” Cyrus Shahpar , a director at the public health policy group Resolve to Save Lives , told me .
For states with small outbreaks , this goal is infeasible .
Montana has seen around one to two new Covid-19 cases a day for several weeks .
Getting that down to zero would be nice , but the current level of daily new cases isn ’ t a big threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one reason Vox ’ s map lets states meet four or five of the five goals — in case they miss one goal that doesn ’ t make sense for them but hit others .
Still , the two-week reduction in cases is the most cited by experts and proposals to ease social distancing .
What ’ s the goal ?
Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Florida , Hawaii , Idaho , Kentucky , Maine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Oregon , South Carolina , Texas , Vermont , Washington , West Virginia , and Wyoming — 17 states .
Why is this important ?
One of the best ways to know you ’ re getting away from a disease outbreak is to no longer see a high number of daily new infections .
While there ’ s no universally accepted number , experts said that four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people is a decent ceiling .
“ If I go from one to two to three [ coronavirus cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different than going from 1,000 to 2,000 to 3,000 , even though the percent difference is the same , ” Shahpar said .
“ That ’ s why you have to take into account the overall level , too.
” This number can balance out the shortcomings in other metrics on this list .
For example , New York — which has suffered the worst coronavirus outbreak in the country — has seen its reported daily new coronavirus cases drop for weeks , meeting the goal of a sustained drop in cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a huge high , even a month of sustained decreases may not be enough .
New York has to make sure it falls below a threshold of new cases , too .
At the same time , if your state is now below four daily new cases per 100,000 but it ’ s seen a recent uptick in cases , that ’ s a reason for caution .
New York , after all , saw just a handful of confirmed coronavirus cases before an exponential explosion of the disease took the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if your state is below the threshold , it ’ s in a pretty solid place relative to most other states .
What ’ s the goal ?
At least 150 tests per 100,000 people per day .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Connecticut , Delaware , Georgia , Illinois , Louisiana , Nevada , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Dakota , and Rhode Island — for a total of 12 states .
Why is this important ?
Since the beginning of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US needs the capacity for about 500,000 Covid-19 tests a day .
Controlling for population , that adds up to about 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day .
Testing is crucial to getting the coronavirus outbreak under control .
When paired with contact tracing , testing lets officials track the scale of the outbreak , isolate the sick , quarantine those the sick came into contact with , and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary .
Testing and tracing are how other countries , like South Korea and Germany , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reopen their economies .
The idea , experts said , is to have enough surveillance to detect embers before they turn into full wildfires .
“ States should be shoring up their testing capacity not just for what it looks like right now while everyone ’ s in their homes , but as people start to move more , ” Jen Kates , the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me .
“ As people start doing more movement , you ’ ll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to come into contact with each other more.
” The 500,000-a-day goal is the minimum .
Some experts have recommended as many as millions of tests nationwide each day .
But 500,000 is the most often-cited goal , and it ’ s , at the very least , a good start .
This goal is supposed to be for diagnostic tests , not antibody tests .
Diagnostic tests gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is , therefore , sick right at the moment of the test .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been sick in the past .
Since diagnostic tests give a more recent gauge of the level of infection , they ’ re seen as much more reliable for evaluating the current state of the Covid-19 outbreak in a state .
But some states — including Georgia , which purportedly hits this goal — have started to , despite experts ’ advice to the contrary , include antibody tests in their test counts .
States shouldn ’ t do this .
But since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tracking Project collects is the best testing data we have , it ’ s hard to tease out how much antibody tests are skewing the total .
“ The virus isn ’ t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable ; it ’ s going to continue to spread , ” Crystal Watson , a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
“ It ’ s better to really understand what ’ s going on and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting these numbers , though , they ’ re a critical measure of their ability to detect , control , and contain coronavirus outbreaks .
What ’ s the goal ?
Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , California , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Michigan , Montana , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Mexico , New York , North Dakota , Oklahoma , Oregon , South Carolina , Tennessee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Wyoming — for a total of 23 states .
Why is this important ?
The positive or positivity rate , which tracks how many tests come back positive for Covid-19 , is another way to measure testing capacity .
Generally , a higher positive rate suggests there ’ s not enough testing happening .
An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people , many of whom don ’ t have the disease .
The positive testing rate in South Korea , for example , is below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested , so there ’ s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak .
Previously , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) recommended a maximum positive rate of 10 percent .
But the WHO more recently recommended 5 percent , which is in line with the rate for countries that have better managed to better control their outbreaks , like Germany , New Zealand , and South Korea .
“ Even lower is better , ” Shahpar said .
The positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limitations as the overall testing data from the Covid Tracking Project .
So if a state includes antibody tests in its test count , it could skew the positive rate to look better than it is .
States only risk hurting themselves if they do this .
What ’ s the goal ?
Below 60 percent occupancy of ICU beds in hospitals .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California , Connecticut , Delaware , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , South Dakota , Utah , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , Wisconsin , and Wyoming — for a total of 30 states .
Why is this important ?
If a pandemic hits , the health care system needs to be ready to treat the most severe cases and potentially save lives .
That ’ s the key goal of “ flattening the curve ” and “ raising the line , ” in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease so the health care system can maintain and grow its capacity to treat an influx of Covid-19 patients .
“ There ’ s this idea that in six weeks we can open more things , ” Amesh Adalja , a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
“ But the virus is still there .
It ’ s all about making sure that the case count isn ’ t too immense for our hospital system to deal with.
” The aim is to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it had more Covid-19 cases than its health care system could handle , leading to hospitals turning away even dangerously ill patients .
To gauge this , experts recommended looking at ICU capacity , with states aiming to have less than 60 percent occupancy in their ICUs .
A big limitation in the metric : It ’ s based on data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of only some hospitals in each state .
So it might not be fully representative of hospital capacity throughout an entire state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current data available , and it suggests that the majority of states meet that standard .
That ’ s extremely good news .
It shows that America really has flattened the curve , at least for now .
But it ’ s done that so far through extreme social distancing .
If the next step is to keep the curve flattened while easing restrictions , that will require meeting the other metrics on this list .
Hitting the benchmarks is the beginning , not the end Vox ’ s map is just one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Other groups have come up with their own measures , including Covid Act Now , Covid Exit Strategy , and Test and Trace .
Vox ’ s model uses more up-to-date data than some of these other examples , while focusing not just on the state of the pandemic but states ’ readiness to contain Covid-19 outbreaks in the future .
Very few states hit all the marks recommended by experts .
But even those that do shouldn ’ t consider the pandemic over .
They should continue to improve — for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even 1 percent , as in New Zealand — and look at even more granular metrics , such as at the city or county level .
Meeting the benchmarks , however , indicates a state is better equipped to contain future coronavirus outbreaks as it eases previous restrictions .
Experts emphasized that states have to keep hitting all these goals week after week and day after day — Covid-19 cases must remain low , testing ability needs to stay high , and hospital capacity should be good enough for an influx of patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whether thanks to a vaccine or other means .
Otherwise , a future wave of coronavirus cases , as seen in past pandemics , could kill many more people .
“ You need to have all the metrics met , ” Popescu said .
“ This needs to be a very incremental , slow process to ensure success.
” And if the numbers do start trending in the wrong direction , states should be ready to shut down at least some parts of the economy again .
Maybe not as much as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are truly at risk of increasing spread .
But experts caution that future shutdowns will likely be necessary to some extent .
“ I do worry we ’ re going to see surges of cases and hot spots , ” Watson said .
“ We do need to keep pushing on building those capacities .
… Otherwise , we ’ re just rolling the dice on the spread of the virus .
It ’ s better if we have more control of the spread.
” That ’ s another reason these metrics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so important : They not only help show how far along states are in dealing with their current Covid-19 outbreaks , but will help track progress to stop and prevent future crises as well .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

All 50 states have moved to reopen their economies, at least partially, after shutting down businesses and gatherings in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
But a Vox analysis suggests that most states haven’t made the preparations needed to contain outbreaks — putting themselves at risk for a rise in Covid-19 cases and deaths should they continue to reopen. Some states have already had to backtrack on reopening measures.
Experts told me states need three things to be safe to open. State leaders, from the governor to the legislature to health departments, need to ensure the SARS-CoV-2 virus is no longer spreading unabated. They need the testing capacity to track and isolate the sick and their contacts. And they need the hospital capacity to handle a potential surge in Covid-19 cases.
More specifically, states should meet at least five basic criteria. They should see a two-week drop in coronavirus cases, indicating that the virus is actually abating. They should have fewer than four daily new cases per 100,000 people per day — to show that cases aren’t just dropping but are also below dangerous levels. They need at least 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day, letting them quickly track and contain outbreaks. They need an overall positive rate for tests below 5 percent — another critical indicator for testing capacity. And states should have at least 40 percent of their ICU beds free to actually treat an influx of people stricken with Covid-19 should it be necessary.
These metrics line up with a range of expert recommendations, as well as the various policy plans put out by both independent groups and government officials to deal with the coronavirus.
Meeting these metrics doesn’t mean that a state is ready to safely reopen its economy — a process that describes a wide range of local and state actions. And failing them doesn’t mean a state is in immediate danger of a coronavirus outbreak if it starts to reopen; with Covid-19, there’s always an element of luck and other factors.
But with these metrics, states can gauge if they have repressed the coronavirus while building the capacity to contain future outbreaks should they come. In other words, the benchmarks show how ready states are for the next phase of the fight.
So far, most states are not there. Just four states — Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York — met four or five of the goals, which demonstrates strong progress. Twenty-five states and Washington, DC, hit two or three of the benchmarks. The remaining 19 achieved zero or one. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Even the states that have made the most progress aren’t safe to fully reopen. Without a vaccine or similar treatment, the threat of the coronavirus is still out there. Especially in states that suffered big outbreaks, such as Arizona and New York, even a lot of progress or some progress doesn’t mean all the underlying problems that led to an epidemic are gone.
Nor do the metrics cover everything that states should do before they can safely reopen. They don’t show, for example, if states have the capacity to do contact tracing, in which people who came into contact with someone who’s sick with Covid-19 are tracked down by “disease detectives” and quarantined. Contact tracing is key to containing an epidemic, but states don’t track how many contact tracers they’ve hired in a standardized, readily available way.
States also don’t have ready data for health care workers’ access to personal protective equipment, such as masks and gloves — a critical measure of the health care system’s readiness that’s difficult to track.
But the map gives an idea of how much progress states have made toward containing the coronavirus and keeping it contained.
States will have to follow these kinds of metrics as they reopen. If the numbers — especially coronavirus cases — go in the wrong direction again, experts said governments should be ready to bring back restrictions. If states move too quickly to reopen or respond too slowly to a turn for the worse, they could see a renewed surge in Covid-19 cases.
“Planning for reclosing is part of planning for reopening,” Mark McClellan, a health policy expert at Duke, told me. “There will be outbreaks, and there will be needs for pauses and going back — hopefully not too much if we do this carefully.”
So this will be a work in progress, at least until we get a Covid-19 vaccine or the pandemic otherwise ends, whether by natural or human means. But the metrics can at least help give states an idea of how far along they are in the fight against the coronavirus.
Goal 1: A sustained two-week drop in coronavirus cases
What’s the goal? A 10 percent drop in daily new coronavirus cases compared to two weeks ago and a 5 percent drop in cases compared to one week ago, based on data from the New York Times.
Which states meet the goal? Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, and Wyoming — a total of nine states.
Why is this important? Guidance from the White House and several independent groups emphasize that states need to see coronavirus cases drop consistently over two weeks before they can say they’re ready to begin reopening. After all, nothing shows you’re out of an outbreak like a sustained reduction in infections.
“The first and foremost [metric] is you want to have a continued decrease in cases,” Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, told me. “It’s a huge piece.”
A simple reduction in cases compared to two weeks prior isn’t enough; it has to be a significant drop, and it has to be sustained over the two weeks. So for Vox’s map, states need at least a 10 percent drop in daily new cases compared to two weeks prior and at least a 5 percent drop compared to one week prior.
Reported cases can be a reflection of testing capacity: More testing will pick up more cases, and less testing will pick up fewer. So it’s important that the decrease occur while testing is either growing or already sufficient. And since states have recently boosted their testing abilities, increases in Covid-19 cases can also reflect improvements in testing.
Even after meeting this benchmark, continued caution is warranted. If a state meets the goal of a reduction in cases compared to one and two weeks ago but cases seemed to go up in recent days, then perhaps it’s not time to reopen just yet. And if cases have dropped but only from a very high baseline of cases, then that’s less comforting than a drop from a lower baseline.
“You have to use common sense,” Cyrus Shahpar, a director at the public health policy group Resolve to Save Lives, told me.
Goal 2: A low number of daily new Covid-19 cases
What’s the goal? Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont — just six states.
Why is this important? One of the best ways to know you’re getting away from a disease outbreak is to no longer see a high number of daily new infections. While there’s no universally accepted number, experts said that four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people is a reasonable ceiling.
“If I go from one to two to three [coronavirus cases a day], it’s different than going from 1,000 to 2,000 to 3,000, even though the percent difference is the same,” Shahpar said. “That’s why you have to take into account the overall level, too.”
To put it another way, it’s not enough for daily new Covid-19 cases to drop, even for weeks. Cases also should fall below a certain level before a state can be deemed truly safe.
For example, Arizona has seen its daily new cases drop over the past two weeks. But its daily new cases are still, after controlling for population, the third-highest in the country. That indicates an epidemic that remains out of control.
At the same time, if your state is now below four daily new cases per 100,000 but it’s seen a recent uptick in cases, that’s a reason for caution. Even the worst-hit states, after all, began with a handful of cases before they saw an exponential surge.
But if your state is below the threshold, it’s in a pretty solid place relative to most states.
Goal 3: High coronavirus testing capacity
What’s the goal? At least 150 tests per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia — 37 states. Washington, DC, did as well. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Why is this important? Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, experts have argued that the US needs the capacity for at least 500,000 Covid-19 tests a day. Controlling for population, that adds up to about 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day.
Testing is crucial to getting the coronavirus outbreak under control. When paired with contact tracing, testing lets officials track the scale of the outbreak, isolate the sick, quarantine those the sick came into contact with, and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary. Testing and tracing are how other countries, like South Korea and Germany, have managed to control their outbreaks and started to reopen their economies.
The idea, experts said, is to have enough surveillance to detect embers before they turn into full wildfires.
“States should be shoring up their testing capacity not just for what it looks like right now while everyone’s in their homes, but as people start to move more,” Jen Kates, the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “As people start doing more movement, you’ll have to test more, because people are going to come into contact with each other more.”
The 500,000-a-day goal is the minimum. Some experts have recommended as many as millions of tests nationwide each day. But 500,000 is the most often-cited goal, and it’s, at the very least, a good start.
It’s preferable if states report this number by how many people they’ve tested, not just the total number of tests. For containing an outbreak, it’s generally more useful to test 500,000 people one time than to test one person 500,000 times. But some states report the figures for total tests, not the number of tested individuals — counting tests for a single person multiple times. That could skew the numbers.
This goal is also supposed to be for diagnostic tests, not antibody tests. Diagnostic tests gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is, therefore, sick right at the moment of the test. Antibody tests check if someone ever developed antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been sick in the past. Since diagnostic tests give a more recent gauge of the level of infection, they’re seen as much more reliable for evaluating the current state of the Covid-19 outbreak in a state.
But some states have mixed up numbers for diagnostic and antibody tests, which could skew the data collected by the Covid Tracking Project.
“The virus isn’t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable; it’s going to continue to spread,” Crystal Watson, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “It’s better to really understand what’s going on and report that accurately.”
For states honestly reporting these numbers, though, they’re a critical measure of their ability to detect, control, and contain coronavirus outbreaks.
Goal 4: A low test positive rate
What’s the goal? Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming — 23 states. Washington, DC, did as well. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Why is this important? The positive or positivity rate, which tracks how many tests come back positive for Covid-19, is another way to measure testing capacity.
Generally, a higher positive rate suggests there’s not enough testing happening. An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people, many of whom don’t have the disease or don’t show severe symptoms. The positive testing rate in South Korea, for example, is below 1 percent. High positive rates indicate only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested, so there’s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak.
Previously, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended a maximum positive rate of 10 percent. But the WHO more recently recommended 5 percent, which is in line with the rate for countries that have managed to better control their outbreaks, like Germany, New Zealand, and South Korea. “Even lower is better,” Shahpar said.
The positive rate data is subject to the same limitations as the overall testing data from the Covid Tracking Project. So if a state includes antibody tests in its test count, it could skew the positive rate to look better than it is. States only risk hurting themselves if they do this.
Goal 5: Availability of ICU beds
What’s the goal? Below 60 percent occupancy of ICU beds in hospitals, based on data from the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — 17 states.
Why is this important? If a pandemic hits, the health care system needs to be ready to treat the most severe cases and potentially save lives. That’s the key goal of “flattening the curve” and “raising the line,” in which social distancing helps reduce the spread of the disease so the health care system can maintain and grow its capacity to treat an influx of Covid-19 patients.
“There’s this idea that in six weeks we can open more things,” Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “But the virus is still there. It’s all about making sure that the case count isn’t too immense for our hospital system to deal with.”
The aim is to avoid the nightmare scenario that Italy went through when it had more Covid-19 cases than its health care system could handle, leading to hospitals turning away even dangerously ill patients.
To gauge this, experts recommended looking at ICU capacity, with states aiming to have at most 60 percent occupancy in their ICUs.
Hitting the benchmarks is the beginning, not the end
Vox’s map is just one way of tracking success against the coronavirus. Other groups have come up with their own measures, including Covid Act Now, Covid Exit Strategy, and Test and Trace. Vox’s model uses more up-to-date data than some of these other examples, while focusing not just on the state of the pandemic but also on states’ readiness to contain Covid-19 outbreaks in the future.
Very few states hit all the marks recommended by experts. But even those that do shouldn’t consider the pandemic over. They should continue to improve — for example, getting the positive rate below 1 percent, as in New Zealand — and look at even more granular metrics, such as at the city or county level.
Meeting the benchmarks, however, indicates a state is better equipped to contain future coronavirus outbreaks as it eases previous restrictions.
Experts emphasized that states have to keep hitting all these goals week after week and day after day — Covid-19 cases must remain low, testing ability needs to stay high, and hospital capacity should be good enough for an influx of patients — until the pandemic is truly over, whether thanks to a vaccine or other means. Otherwise, a future wave of coronavirus cases, as seen in past pandemics, could kill many more people.
“You need to have all the metrics met,” Popescu said. “This needs to be a very incremental, slow process to ensure success.”
And if the numbers do start trending in the wrong direction, states should be ready to shut down at least some parts of the economy again. Maybe not as much as before, as we learn which places are truly at risk of increasing spread. But experts caution that future shutdowns will likely be necessary to some extent.
“I do worry we’re going to see surges of cases and hot spots,” Watson said. “We do need to keep pushing on building those capacities. … Otherwise, we’re just rolling the dice on the spread of the virus. It’s better if we have more control of the spread.”
That’s another reason these metrics, along with broader coronavirus surveillance, are so important: They not only help show how far along states are in dealing with their current Covid-19 outbreaks, but will help track progress to stop and prevent future crises as well.
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--2020-05-28--What is the point of dating now?

What is the point of dating now?

“ I ’ d love to be able to wear crop tops and go out dancing and make out with strangers , ” Genevieve , a 27-year-old public relations specialist , tells me .
It ’ s her first summer as a single woman in London , after all , and the crop top-wearing and kissing is the best part .
But in London , as in major cities across the globe , there will be no sweaty dance parties this summer .
This , unfortunately , is only one of a great many complicating factors for people who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Standard questions like , “ Are you free this week ?
” or , “ When was your last STD test ?
” now feel quaint compared to the myriad cosmic obstacles to two people meeting and hooking up .
“ Is it ethical to hold hands ?
” and , “ Do I really like this person or am I just stuck with them for the foreseeable future ?
” are now real concerns , often ones people are forced to make without even meeting each other face to face .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t trying .
On Tinder , users have been messaging each other 20 percent more frequently , and average conversation lengths are around 25 percent longer , according to the company .
Now that nobody ’ s traveling , ironically , location matters less than ever : Tinder briefly allowed users to access a paid feature where you could set your location anywhere in the world , “ and it went crazy , ” Tinder CEO Elie Seidman says .
The company will soon launch Global Mode , where users are served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regardless of where they live .
It ’ s very possible that the way we date now — more virtually and more carefully — could become part of the “ new normal ” that society has been clumsily crawling toward since quarantine began .
While some of the side effects of the pandemic on potential relationships have been positive ( as Sable Yong argues in GQ , now is the time to shoot your shot ! )
, dating has always been hard , and for the most part , the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to tell me what kinds of new questions they were grappling with while dating in quarantine .
They ranged from the immediate ( is there a way to make Zoom dates less horrifically awkward ? )
to the existential ( should I even be dating right now ? )
.
During our interviews , the most common sentiment shared by all of them was this : What ’ s the point ?
How am I supposed to have a sexy single summer ?
I ’ m newly single for the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m so frustrated to not be able to go out to bars and meet people .
It ’ s so annoying .
In any other circumstance , I would be killing it .
“ In any other circumstance , I would be killing it ” Some people [ on the dating apps ] are clearly searching for their partner .
That ’ s totally fair and totally normal , but that is not the position that I ’ m in .
I wan na be on my own for a while and just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I supposed to keep up these conversations with people , and to what end and for what purpose ?
What is the point of this conversation with these random guys on dating apps ?
A lot of guys will just ghost after a few days — maybe they just all hate me — but what I think is they just don ’ t have the energy to keep up this conversation and they don ’ t see the point in it .
—Amanda* , 23 How do I make a Zoom date less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I ’ ve refused to go on any more .
I just feel a friend vibe , and I can ’ t tell if it ’ s the guy or the medium .
I really felt like I couldn ’ t be myself — like , my sense of humor is a little sarcastic and teasing-based , and over videoconference that just comes off as cold or mean .
The fun part of dating is having one cocktail too many and touching someone ’ s arm .
If you can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point ?
—Julia , 34 I live with a teacher who has to go back and teach little kids , so there ’ s just no possibility for me of taking a risk physically .
So how do you balance that with the feeling of , “ I ’ d really like to talk to some people and I ’ d really like to get back out there , ” without just entering into a month-long emotional affair with a stranger you ’ ll never see ?
That ’ s where I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of dating is having one cocktail too many and touching someone ’ s arm .
If you can ’ t do that , what ’ s the point ?
” For me , I ’ m going back and thinking , “ Do I go back to people I ’ ve dated in the past who were not ever really possibilities because they were far away and we couldn ’ t see each other ?
I moved [ to London ] from New York years ago , so I ’ m like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the random guys I used to hook up with in New York and message them on Instagram and just be like , “ Hey , let ’ s send some steamy messages ?
” I don ’ t know .
—Genevieve , 27 How do I set boundaries with strangers on dating apps ?
I ’ ve only really connected and had FaceTime dates with two people , and those people have been people that are not working [ jobs ] at all .
While I have liked those people a lot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really going on , and so it ’ s been a lot of texting and then my energy is completely gone .
The reason why a lot of people are dating right now is because they ’ re lonely and scared that the normal ways that you meet someone are not gon na come back for a very long time .
So now people are texting , “ What are you doing right now ?
What ’ s your weird quarantine hobby ?
” Maybe on a weekend day , I can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to deal with my own mental health and checking all my friends and people I already know , so during the day , it ’ s really hard for me to want to become invested in someone that I don ’ t know .
For me , the big question is , “ Because everyone ’ s lifestyles are so varied right now , how do you set a communication boundary with someone you don ’ t even know ?
” How do you say , “ Hey , I would love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m depressed and exhausted and staring at a screen for a date doesn ’ t feel fun to me .
So can we maybe keep our communication to these hours and this day ?
” We haven ’ t met each other in person or anything , so I just let those completely fizzle .
What ’ s the point ?
—Rosemary , 32 Is it love or is it quarantine ?
Before quarantine started , I had gone on three dates with this guy but was planning to keep meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the guy and he lived up the street , so it was pretty easy to hang out .
We ended up hanging out every day , and it was probably two or three weeks of nonstop sleepovers and marathon hangouts .
“ I ’ m happy that quarantine — not coronavirus — happened because I don ’ t think this relationship would otherwise ” Then a friend of mine asked us to come to her roof and socially distance .
And so the “ What are we doing here ?
” conversation started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both in flux points of our lives , so it was like , “ When this is over , what are we gon na do with our lives ?
” It would have taken me six months , probably , to spend this much time with someone if I was going to work every day .
I think I ’ m actually grateful for quarantine in that respect : It ’ s a good pressure cooker .
I ’ m happy that quarantine — not coronavirus — happened because I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have dated other people .
I was very much in a cycle of dating where I wasn ’ t really giving anyone a shot .
When you ’ re on dating apps in a big city , there ’ s a million options and it ’ s hard to really get to know someone .
It ’ s much easier to have in-depth conversations when you ’ re forced to hang out for hours at a time in a room with minimal distractions .
You jump into what life is like together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 27 How can I tell if my crush likes me ?
There ’ s someone who has been a part of my friend group — this also may be a queer gay yearning thing — who I ’ ve had an on-and-off crush on for a while .
I ’ ve been able to gauge whether people are interested once we ’ re face to face , but it ’ s so much more difficult [ remotely ] .
I ’ m at this point where I ’ m like , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in me , but also maybe they ’ re just lonely or don ’ t have anyone to talk to.
” They did send me a playlist .
But because parties aren ’ t happening anymore , we have to be a lot more intentional .
You have to text the individual person , like , “ Hey , I wan na hang out , ” or , “ Let ’ s Zoom or let ’ s watch a movie.
” So , ironically , that crush has moved forward a lot more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weird or distant Zoom hangout where I confess my feelings is too apocalyptic for me ” I feel like [ the “ I think you ’ re cute ” conversation ] needs to happen in person , though .
I feel really weird over Zoom or over FaceTime just being like , “ Hey , by the way , here ’ s this thing you need to know.
” A weird or distant Zoom hangout where I confess my feelings is too apocalyptic for me .
—Hannah , 23 How am I supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have no intention of actually meeting somebody right now , but since I ’ m going through a breakup , I want to get that out of my system .
But it ’ s an itch that you can ’ t scratch .
I had a video date though Bumble and it was just odd .
We talked for two hours because neither of us had to go anywhere .
It ’ s like , “ I ’ m gon na do this puzzle while we talk for a while and never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re on a dating app , you ’ re probably lonely in some regard as it is , but now nobody ’ s faking it ” I ’ ve been swiping through Bumble a lot , but honestly , I ’ m mostly pissed that this pandemic is robbing me of a rebound experience .
It ’ s really frustrating because none of my friends can be like , “ Get back out there.
” They ’ re like , “ Don ’ t get back out there.
” I could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all night , or I could swipe through Bumble .
Or both .
It ’ s not even a good distraction because everybody ’ s in the same boat .
We ’ re single , we ’ re sad .
The conversations are just like , “ How have you been handling all this ?
” “ It ’ s pretty bad.
” If you ’ re on a dating app , you ’ re probably lonely in some regard as it is , but now nobody ’ s faking it .
—Sam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to hold hands ?
I ’ ve gone on several in-person walks , which I ’ ve been okay with as long as they ’ re keeping their distance .
After restrictions started to lift around town , I went to this one guy ’ s house and he was like , “ Well , should you come in ?
Would that be weird ?
” I come to find out that this man is an incredible clean freak .
I ’ ve never seen a cleaner house in my goddamn life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very far apart because he knew that I was very anxious about it so he stayed on the very end of the couch — but eventually I was like , “ Listen , can I hold your hand ?
” He was like , “ I was going to ask you the same thing , but I thought you were afraid so you didn ’ t want to !
” It was very cute , holding someone ’ s hand after months of no human contact .
It ’ s just really nice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if we don ’ t end up dating in the foreseeable future .
When I left , I kissed my hand and put it to his face .
I was like , “ That ’ s what you get !
” It ’ s funny how holding hands felt scandalous .
It ’ s so dirty !
—Julianna , 33 How do I say no to quarantine sex ?
I started talking to this guy on Hinge and we had this crazy chemistry .
We started exchanging voice notes over text @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days straight , and it was really hot .
We started bonding over our interests and how we ’ re staying cozy in quarantine .
It all escalated really quickly to the point where , three days in , he was wanting to meet up .
It was a fun fantasy to play with , but I was like , “ I don ’ t know you.
” The fact that he ’ s not even offering to meet me in public first ?
I was like , “ You just wan na @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cute and sexy and smart as you are , I know what you ’ re thinking , and we ’ ve never even met .
I set a boundary ; I was like , “ Listen , as fun as this is , I ’ m not putting myself out there for casual sex .
I haven ’ t even seen my family , I ’ m not gon na freaking go rogue just because I want affection.
” I was trying to be smart about it , but it was so tempting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was such a nice quarantine crush to play with for a little bit .
—Lauren , 31 Should we feel guilty for hooking up ?
It was definitely a situation where we were both horny and hadn ’ t done anything sexual with another person for a couple of months .
There was a whole discussion : We were texting trying to rationalize it , like , “ I think it ’ s safe .
I live alone.
” He has roommates , but they ’ re adhering to social distancing , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an okay risk.
” “ It was definitely a situation where we were both horny ” I was like , “ Come over .
I ’ m totally game.
” But he was going back and forth .
At some point he was like , “ Actually , I ’ d feel like a hypocrite , ” because he ’ s been critical of his friends who weren ’ t adhering to it .
I was like , “ Hey , that ’ s fair.
” Then he texted me three days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more thought about it , I think it would totally be safe.
” So I was like , “ Sounds great !
” I haven ’ t really talked to him to see if he felt bad doing it or if he actually felt like a hypocrite .
I ’ ve just been window shopping on Grindr , seeing what ’ s out there .
There are definitely people who are immediately like , “ Come over , ” or , “ Let me come over.
” Like , I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t seem safe .
—CJ , 28 Should I even be on Tinder right now ?
Really the main dating question that I ’ ve been asking is , “ Is this actually just a good way of spending my time ?
” And I increasingly find the answer is no .
Dating apps used to be a fun thing that led to something concrete and now they ’ re just not , for me at least .
It ’ s been nicer to spend more time with my friends and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tinder that was nice and fun was that there was always something that can happen , and it really doesn ’ t feel like there ’ s something that can happen right now .
That makes it a sad place for me .
—Daniel , 24 Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

“I’d love to be able to wear crop tops and go out dancing and make out with strangers,” Genevieve, a 27-year-old public relations specialist, tells me. It’s her first summer as a single woman in London, after all, and the crop top-wearing and kissing is the best part.
But in London, as in major cities across the globe, there will be no sweaty dance parties this summer. This, unfortunately, is only one of a great many complicating factors for people who are attempting to date during the coronavirus quarantine. Standard questions like, “Are you free this week?” or, “When was your last STD test?” now feel quaint compared to the myriad cosmic obstacles to two people meeting and hooking up. “Is it ethical to hold hands?” and, “Do I really like this person or am I just stuck with them for the foreseeable future?” are now real concerns, often ones people are forced to make without even meeting each other face to face.
That doesn’t mean folks aren’t trying. On Tinder, users have been messaging each other 20 percent more frequently, and average conversation lengths are around 25 percent longer, according to the company. Now that nobody’s traveling, ironically, location matters less than ever: Tinder briefly allowed users to access a paid feature where you could set your location anywhere in the world, “and it went crazy,” Tinder CEO Elie Seidman says. The company will soon launch Global Mode, where users are served potential partners from all over the world, regardless of where they live.
It’s very possible that the way we date now — more virtually and more carefully — could become part of the “new normal” that society has been clumsily crawling toward since quarantine began. While some of the side effects of the pandemic on potential relationships have been positive (as Sable Yong argues in GQ, now is the time to shoot your shot!), dating has always been hard, and for the most part, the coronavirus has only complicated coupling.
I asked people to tell me what kinds of new questions they were grappling with while dating in quarantine. They ranged from the immediate (is there a way to make Zoom dates less horrifically awkward?) to the existential (should I even be dating right now?). During our interviews, the most common sentiment shared by all of them was this: What’s the point?
(I’ve included only people’s first names and ages due to the highly personal nature of our interviews. Names with asterisks have been changed for further privacy.)
How am I supposed to have a sexy single summer?
I’m newly single for the first time in two years, and I’m so frustrated to not be able to go out to bars and meet people. It’s so annoying. In any other circumstance, I would be killing it.
“In any other circumstance, I would be killing it”
Some people [on the dating apps] are clearly searching for their partner. That’s totally fair and totally normal, but that is not the position that I’m in. I wanna be on my own for a while and just enjoy being single. But how am I supposed to keep up these conversations with people, and to what end and for what purpose? What is the point of this conversation with these random guys on dating apps?
A lot of guys will just ghost after a few days — maybe they just all hate me — but what I think is they just don’t have the energy to keep up this conversation and they don’t see the point in it. —Amanda*, 23
How do I make a Zoom date less awkward?
I tried two Zoom dates and I’ve refused to go on any more. I just feel a friend vibe, and I can’t tell if it’s the guy or the medium. I really felt like I couldn’t be myself — like, my sense of humor is a little sarcastic and teasing-based, and over videoconference that just comes off as cold or mean. The fun part of dating is having one cocktail too many and touching someone’s arm. If you can’t do that, what’s the point? —Julia, 34
Does distance matter anymore?
I live with a teacher who has to go back and teach little kids, so there’s just no possibility for me of taking a risk physically. So how do you balance that with the feeling of, “I’d really like to talk to some people and I’d really like to get back out there,” without just entering into a month-long emotional affair with a stranger you’ll never see? That’s where I’m at present.
“The fun part of dating is having one cocktail too many and touching someone’s arm. If you can’t do that, what’s the point?”
For me, I’m going back and thinking, “Do I go back to people I’ve dated in the past who were not ever really possibilities because they were far away and we couldn’t see each other? I moved [to London] from New York years ago, so I’m like, “Do I go back to the random guys I used to hook up with in New York and message them on Instagram and just be like, “Hey, let’s send some steamy messages?” I don’t know. —Genevieve, 27
How do I set boundaries with strangers on dating apps?
I’ve only really connected and had FaceTime dates with two people, and those people have been people that are not working [jobs] at all. While I have liked those people a lot, they don’t have anything else really going on, and so it’s been a lot of texting and then my energy is completely gone.
The reason why a lot of people are dating right now is because they’re lonely and scared that the normal ways that you meet someone are not gonna come back for a very long time. So now people are texting, “What are you doing right now? What’s your weird quarantine hobby?” Maybe on a weekend day, I can do that, but I’m just trying to deal with my own mental health and checking all my friends and people I already know, so during the day, it’s really hard for me to want to become invested in someone that I don’t know.
For me, the big question is, “Because everyone’s lifestyles are so varied right now, how do you set a communication boundary with someone you don’t even know?” How do you say, “Hey, I would love to get to know you, but I’m depressed and exhausted and staring at a screen for a date doesn’t feel fun to me. So can we maybe keep our communication to these hours and this day?”
We haven’t met each other in person or anything, so I just let those completely fizzle. What’s the point? —Rosemary, 32
Is it love or is it quarantine?
Before quarantine started, I had gone on three dates with this guy but was planning to keep meeting other guys on Bumble. I liked the guy and he lived up the street, so it was pretty easy to hang out. We ended up hanging out every day, and it was probably two or three weeks of nonstop sleepovers and marathon hangouts.
“I’m happy that quarantine — not coronavirus — happened because I don’t think this relationship would otherwise”
Then a friend of mine asked us to come to her roof and socially distance. And so the “What are we doing here?” conversation started to come up. We’re both in flux points of our lives, so it was like, “When this is over, what are we gonna do with our lives?” It would have taken me six months, probably, to spend this much time with someone if I was going to work every day. I think I’m actually grateful for quarantine in that respect: It’s a good pressure cooker.
I’m happy that quarantine — not coronavirus — happened because I don’t think this relationship would otherwise. I would have dated other people. I was very much in a cycle of dating where I wasn’t really giving anyone a shot. When you’re on dating apps in a big city, there’s a million options and it’s hard to really get to know someone. It’s much easier to have in-depth conversations when you’re forced to hang out for hours at a time in a room with minimal distractions. You jump into what life is like together 10 years down the road. —Lydia*, 27
How can I tell if my crush likes me?
There’s someone who has been a part of my friend group — this also may be a queer gay yearning thing — who I’ve had an on-and-off crush on for a while. I’ve been able to gauge whether people are interested once we’re face to face, but it’s so much more difficult [remotely]. I’m at this point where I’m like, “I think this person’s interested in me, but also maybe they’re just lonely or don’t have anyone to talk to.” They did send me a playlist.
But because parties aren’t happening anymore, we have to be a lot more intentional. You have to text the individual person, like, “Hey, I wanna hang out,” or, “Let’s Zoom or let’s watch a movie.” So, ironically, that crush has moved forward a lot more since we started quarantine.
“A weird or distant Zoom hangout where I confess my feelings is too apocalyptic for me”
I feel like [the “I think you’re cute” conversation] needs to happen in person, though. I feel really weird over Zoom or over FaceTime just being like, “Hey, by the way, here’s this thing you need to know.” A weird or distant Zoom hangout where I confess my feelings is too apocalyptic for me. —Hannah, 23
How am I supposed to get over my ex now?
I have no intention of actually meeting somebody right now, but since I’m going through a breakup, I want to get that out of my system. But it’s an itch that you can’t scratch. I had a video date though Bumble and it was just odd. We talked for two hours because neither of us had to go anywhere. It’s like, “I’m gonna do this puzzle while we talk for a while and never talk to you again.”
“If you’re on a dating app, you’re probably lonely in some regard as it is, but now nobody’s faking it”
I’ve been swiping through Bumble a lot, but honestly, I’m mostly pissed that this pandemic is robbing me of a rebound experience. It’s really frustrating because none of my friends can be like, “Get back out there.” They’re like, “Don’t get back out there.” I could sit here and think about my ex all night, or I could swipe through Bumble. Or both. It’s not even a good distraction because everybody’s in the same boat. We’re single, we’re sad. The conversations are just like, “How have you been handling all this?” “It’s pretty bad.” If you’re on a dating app, you’re probably lonely in some regard as it is, but now nobody’s faking it. —Sam, 23
When’s the right time to hold hands?
I’ve gone on several in-person walks, which I’ve been okay with as long as they’re keeping their distance. After restrictions started to lift around town, I went to this one guy’s house and he was like, “Well, should you come in? Would that be weird?” I come to find out that this man is an incredible clean freak. I’ve never seen a cleaner house in my goddamn life.
We were watching a movie — very far apart because he knew that I was very anxious about it so he stayed on the very end of the couch — but eventually I was like, “Listen, can I hold your hand?” He was like, “I was going to ask you the same thing, but I thought you were afraid so you didn’t want to!”
“It’s funny how holding hands felt scandalous. It’s so dirty!”
It was very cute, holding someone’s hand after months of no human contact. It’s just really nice just to have another human near you, even if we don’t end up dating in the foreseeable future. When I left, I kissed my hand and put it to his face. I was like, “That’s what you get!” It’s funny how holding hands felt scandalous. It’s so dirty! —Julianna, 33
How do I say no to quarantine sex?
I started talking to this guy on Hinge and we had this crazy chemistry. We started exchanging voice notes over text super heavily for, like, three days straight, and it was really hot. We started bonding over our interests and how we’re staying cozy in quarantine. It all escalated really quickly to the point where, three days in, he was wanting to meet up.
It was a fun fantasy to play with, but I was like, “I don’t know you.” The fact that he’s not even offering to meet me in public first? I was like, “You just wanna stick your dick in something.” As cute and sexy and smart as you are, I know what you’re thinking, and we’ve never even met.
I set a boundary; I was like, “Listen, as fun as this is, I’m not putting myself out there for casual sex. I haven’t even seen my family, I’m not gonna freaking go rogue just because I want affection.” I was trying to be smart about it, but it was so tempting. It was really sad because it was such a nice quarantine crush to play with for a little bit. —Lauren, 31
Should we feel guilty for hooking up?
It was definitely a situation where we were both horny and hadn’t done anything sexual with another person for a couple of months. There was a whole discussion: We were texting trying to rationalize it, like, “I think it’s safe. I live alone.” He has roommates, but they’re adhering to social distancing, so we were like, “Maybe this is an okay risk.”
“It was definitely a situation where we were both horny”
I was like, “Come over. I’m totally game.” But he was going back and forth. At some point he was like, “Actually, I’d feel like a hypocrite,” because he’s been critical of his friends who weren’t adhering to it. I was like, “Hey, that’s fair.” Then he texted me three days later and was like, “Actually the more thought about it, I think it would totally be safe.” So I was like, “Sounds great!”
I haven’t really talked to him to see if he felt bad doing it or if he actually felt like a hypocrite. I’ve just been window shopping on Grindr, seeing what’s out there. There are definitely people who are immediately like, “Come over,” or, “Let me come over.” Like, I don’t even know you. This doesn’t seem safe. —CJ, 28
Should I even be on Tinder right now?
Really the main dating question that I’ve been asking is, “Is this actually just a good way of spending my time?” And I increasingly find the answer is no. Dating apps used to be a fun thing that led to something concrete and now they’re just not, for me at least. It’s been nicer to spend more time with my friends and people I actually know.
The thing about Tinder that was nice and fun was that there was always something that can happen, and it really doesn’t feel like there’s something that can happen right now. That makes it a sad place for me. —Daniel, 24


vox--2020-05-28--Trump’s executive order on social media is legally unenforceable, experts say

Despite President Donald Trump ’ s threats that Republicans might shut down social media companies in retaliation for fact-checking his tweets , the executive order he signed on Thursday unsurprisingly doesn ’ t come anywhere close .
Even in the order ’ s more limited scope , legal experts say it will be difficult to enforce .
Trump ’ s new order aims to limit social media companies ’ legal protections if they don ’ t adhere to unspecified standards of neutrality .
It comes just two days after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets that made misleading claims about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH , and I , as President , will not allow it to happen !
” Trump tweeted on Tuesday .
On Wednesday , Trump followed up by threatening to “ strongly regulate social media companies ” or close them down altogether , and cautioned that a “ big action ” is coming .
The order calls for limiting protections that a law called Section 230 offers tech companies like Twitter , Facebook , and Google by not holding them responsible for what users post on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sara Morrison explains everything you need to know about Section 230 here . )
To do this , the order tasks regulators at the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to create new rules that could pull back some of those protections , potentially opening them up to a litany of lawsuits for libel , defamation , and other complaints .
“ Currently , social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform , which they are not , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday .
“ We are fed up with it .
It is unfair , and it ’ s been very unfair.
” The order specifically mentions Twitter six times — more often than its bigger and arguably more influential competitors Facebook and YouTube .
It argues that companies like Twitter , Facebook , and YouTube “ are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse ” that allegedly favors certain political viewpoints over others .
Some conservatives have long argued — without real evidence — that social media platforms are biased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly , some of Trump ’ s most conservative advisors — have warned the order could set a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent that the President can use executive powers to effectively censor companies for political reasons .
Many legal experts say the order is largely toothless and will be challenged in court .
“ The most obvious thing I would say about this order is that it ’ s not enforceable — it ’ s kind of a piece of political theater , ” Kate Klonick , a professor of internet law at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Klonick was speaking about a draft of the order which was similar to what ended up being signed on Thursday ) .
Still , the order is being viewed as a symbolic threat to social media companies , particularly as they continue to grapple with moderating contentious speech .
Conservatives accusing the social media companies of liberal bias point to times when these platforms have banned conservative figures , such as far-right commentator Alex Jones and right-wing activist Laura Loome , after they repeatedly violated the sites ’ harassment policies .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these platforms aren ’ t doing nearly enough to moderate the conspiracy theories , hoaxes , and politically misleading content shared on their sites — such as President Trump ’ s Facebook ads that purported to be links to the US census but instead directed people to a survey for his reelection campaign .
After Recode and others reported on the misleading ads , Facebook eventually took them down .
Another unintended side-effect of Trump ’ s executive order could impact his own tweets : Tech companies might become “ more aggressive about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as The New York Times reported , to protect themselves from being sued without the protection of Section 230 .
“ This is a hopeless quagmire to enter , ” Former FTC chairman Bill Kovacic , who was appointed by President George W. Bush , told Recode .
Kovavic said the order presents immediate legal challenges , and that the bipartisan FTC and FCC will likely be hesitant to enforce this .
“ There should be conservatives objecting too , because what happens if a future President who ’ s a Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or can ’ t stand the National Review anymore ?
” The FCC and the FTC did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
As I previously explained , aside from getting the FTC and FCC onboard , Trump also has serious challenges ahead in trying to enforce this order , primarily because it arguably violates the First Amendment .
[ T ] he First Amendment does not limit Twitter , Facebook , Google , or any social media platform .
It limits the government , not private companies , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say what they please .
That means you can ’ t go to jail for , say , blogging unfounded conspiracy theories about the Illuminati , but you can get kicked off a social network — just like you could get fired from your job for lying or for saying something racist to a colleague .
Ironically , it ’ s actually Trump — not Twitter — who is wading into unconstitutional territory here .
If Trump were to try to shut down social media companies in retaliation for Twitter ’ s fact-check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clear violation of the First Amendment .
It would be sure to invite a fierce legal challenge and would signal an alarming attempt by the president of the United States to wield his executive power against one of the most fundamental rights in this country .
Trump can , however , try to get legislation passed that would selectively cull tech companies ’ legal protections unless they follow certain standards of neutrality , and his executive order tasks the Attorney General to draft a proposal for such a law .
But Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing for reform to Section 230 , though not in the way Trump is suggesting — would need to also get on board in order to tally enough votes to pass the legislation through the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives .
In the meantime , the big question is what happens next for social media companies .
Will they start to roll back the new policies they ’ ve incrementally put in place around policing hate speech , harmful posts , and misleading information ?
“ I don ’ t think [ social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies overnight .
It really depends how the public reaction to executive order is , ” said Klonick .
Twitter and other companies could “ play a little bit of chicken , ” to see if people pursue legal action against them — or they could try to seek a court injunction to stop enforcement of the order .
Twitter declined to comment and Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment .

Despite President Donald Trump’s threats that Republicans might shut down social media companies in retaliation for fact-checking his tweets, the executive order he signed on Thursday unsurprisingly doesn’t come anywhere close. Even in the order’s more limited scope, legal experts say it will be difficult to enforce.
Trump’s new order aims to limit social media companies’ legal protections if they don’t adhere to unspecified standards of neutrality. It comes just two days after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets that made misleading claims about voting-by-mail in the 2020 elections.
“Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!” Trump tweeted on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Trump followed up by threatening to “strongly regulate social media companies” or close them down altogether, and cautioned that a “big action” is coming.
The order calls for limiting protections that a law called Section 230 offers tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google by not holding them responsible for what users post on their platforms. (Recode’s Sara Morrison explains everything you need to know about Section 230 here.) To do this, the order tasks regulators at the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to create new rules that could pull back some of those protections, potentially opening them up to a litany of lawsuits for libel, defamation, and other complaints.
“Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which they are not,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday. “We are fed up with it. It is unfair, and it’s been very unfair.”
The order specifically mentions Twitter six times — more often than its bigger and arguably more influential competitors, Facebook and YouTube.
It argues that companies like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube “are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse” that allegedly favors certain political viewpoints over others. Some conservatives have long argued — without real evidence — that social media platforms are biased against their politics.
Critics — including, reportedly, some of Trump’s most conservative advisers — have warned the order could set a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent that the president can use executive powers to effectively censor companies for political reasons. Many legal experts say the order is largely toothless and will be challenged in court.
“The most obvious thing I would say about this order is that it’s not enforceable — it’s kind of a piece of political theater,” Kate Klonick, a professor of internet law at St. John’s University told Recode (Klonick was speaking about a draft of the order which was similar to what ended up being signed on Thursday).
Still, the order is being viewed as a symbolic threat to social media companies, particularly as they continue to grapple with moderating contentious speech.
Conservatives accusing the social media companies of liberal bias point to times when these platforms have banned conservative figures, such as far-right commentator Alex Jones and right-wing activist Laura Loome, after they repeatedly violated the sites’ harassment policies.
Many liberals, meanwhile, have argued that these platforms aren’t doing nearly enough to moderate the conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and politically misleading content shared on their sites — such as President Trump’s Facebook ads that purported to be links to the US census but instead directed people to a survey for his reelection campaign. After Recode and others reported on the misleading ads, Facebook eventually took them down.
Another unintended side-effect of Trump’s executive order could impact his own tweets: Tech companies might become “more aggressive about policing messages that press the boundaries,” as the New York Times reported, to protect themselves from being sued without the protection of Section 230.
“This is a hopeless quagmire to enter,” former FTC chairman Bill Kovacic, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, told Recode. Kovavic said the order presents immediate legal challenges and that the bipartisan FTC and FCC will likely be hesitant to enforce this. “There should be conservatives objecting, too, because what happens if a future president who’s a Democrat gets tired of listening to Fox — or can’t stand the National Review anymore?”
The FCC and the FTC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
As I previously explained, aside from getting the FTC and FCC on board, Trump also has serious challenges ahead in trying to enforce this order, primarily because it arguably violates the First Amendment.
[T]he First Amendment does not limit Twitter, Facebook, Google, or any social media platform. It limits the government, not private companies, from infringing on people’s freedom to say what they please. That means you can’t go to jail for, say, blogging unfounded conspiracy theories about the Illuminati, but you can get kicked off a social network — just like you could get fired from your job for lying or for saying something racist to a colleague. Ironically, it’s actually Trump — not Twitter — who is wading into unconstitutional territory here. If Trump were to try to shut down social media companies in retaliation for Twitter’s fact-check of his tweets, that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. It would be sure to invite a fierce legal challenge and would signal an alarming attempt by the president of the United States to wield his executive power against one of the most fundamental rights in this country.
Trump can, however, try to get legislation passed that would selectively cull tech companies’ legal protections unless they follow certain standards of neutrality, and his executive order tasks the attorney general to draft a proposal for such a law. But Democrats — some of whom have also been pushing for reform to Section 230, though not in the way Trump is suggesting — would need to also get on board in order to tally enough votes to pass the legislation through the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
In the meantime, the big question is what happens next for social media companies. Will they start to roll back the new policies they’ve incrementally put in place around policing hate speech, harmful posts, and misleading information?
“I don’t think [social media companies] will change their content moderation policies overnight. It really depends how the public reaction to the executive order is,” said Klonick. Twitter and other companies could “play a little bit of chicken,” to see if people pursue legal action against them — or they could try to seek a court injunction to stop enforcement of the order.
Twitter declined to comment and Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.