vox--2020-03-02--What “crisis pregnancy centers” really do

When Aya got a positive pregnancy test , she wanted to confirm the results at a clinic .
But the first six places she called either required her to pay out of pocket , or had no appointments for a week .
So Aya went to a pregnancy resource center .
Sometimes called crisis pregnancy centers , the facilities ’ “ primary mission is to dissuade women from choosing abortion , ” Katrina Kimport , an associate professor at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health ( ANSIRH ) , a group at the University of California San Francisco , writes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the centers , published on Friday in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health .
The centers , most of which are religiously affiliated , typically offer services like pregnancy tests and sometimes resources like diapers or baby clothes , alongside counseling with an anti-abortion message .
The inner workings of pregnancy resource centers don ’ t always get a lot of coverage in the media , and unless they ’ ve visited one , many people may not know much about the facilities .
But they have been a subject of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , because such centers have been found to give misinformation about the risks of abortion .
Some advocates feared that the centers “ inappropriately interfered ” in patients ’ decisions around their pregnancies , “ preventing people from being able to choose or obtain an abortion , ” Kimport told Vox .
But that ’ s not what Kimport found in interviews with 21 patients , including Aya , who later went to a prenatal care clinic .
Most of those patients had already decided to continue their pregnancies when they went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the facilities for basic necessities — like ultrasounds and diapers — that were expensive or difficult to get elsewhere .
In many cases , the patients did get help at the centers .
But some resources came with strings attached — free baby clothes and other supplies , for example , were only available if patients took workshops or classes , some of which had a religious component .
Some women found the required instruction troubling , with one saying of a parenting video , “ it hurt me.
” Meanwhile , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom were low-income , also had major needs that could not be met by pregnancy resource centers , from food insecurity to homelessness to high-risk pregnancies that required specialized care .
It ’ s not necessarily surprising that the centers couldn ’ t help women with these problems , Kimport told Vox — that ’ s not really what they were designed to do .
But in recent years , states and the federal government have been increasingly positioning the centers as social safety-net providers , shifting money toward them and away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of services , like family planning clinics .
The Trump administration , for example , last year barred groups that provide or refer abortions from getting federal family planning funds , but awarded a grant to a network of pregnancy resource centers in California .
Kimport ’ s research suggests that as family planning clinics and other service providers lose funding , pregnancy resource centers , at least as they ’ re currently designed , won ’ t be able to fill in the gaps .
For the patients Kimport talked to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t meet all of their needs , ” she said .
“ It didn ’ t even meet most of their needs.
” The women in the study mostly went to pregnancy resource centers for things like pregnancy tests or baby clothes Pregnancy resource centers as they exist today first began appearing in the 1960s , after states began liberalizing their abortion laws , according to Heartbeat International , which identifies itself as the country ’ s first network of such centers .
Their spread increased after 1973 , when the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion in Roe v. Wade .
Today , there are around 2,500 such centers across the country .
In general , the centers ’ goal is to encourage people to carry their pregnancies to term rather than having abortions .
For example , Heartbeat International aims “ to make abortion unwanted today and unthinkable for future generations , ” according to its website .
Heartbeat ’ s affiliates around the world — the organization says it has more than 2,800 facilities on six continents — offer a range of services .
“ Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material aid ( diapers , clothing , etc . )
while other pregnancy help medical clinics offer limited ultrasounds , STI testing , and prenatal care , ” said Andrea Trudden , the group ’ s director of communications and marketing , in an email to Vox .
Some also offer financial aid courses or mentorship for couples .
Pregnancy resource centers have been criticized in the past for ads and website copy that made them look like they offer abortions .
In fact , they do not offer the procedure , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include misinformation about its risks , like the false claim that abortion is linked to breast cancer or mental health problems .
This has led to concerns that the centers will trick people into believing they offer abortion , then dissuade them from the procedure with false claims about its dangers .
For Heartbeat International , individual affiliates have a lot of autonomy when it comes to services they offer and information they provide , Trudden said .
But in general , “ our clients have the right to choose an abortion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know more fully what may be at stake in their decision.
” Because of concerns about misinformation , however , Kimport wanted to learn more about why patients go to pregnancy resource centers , and what happens when they get there .
Other researchers have studied the centers in recent years , often looking at the information presented on their websites .
But , Kimport writes , “ the voices of pregnant people who have visited the centers ” are largely missing from the existing scholarship .
So she and her team asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in southern Louisiana and Baltimore , Maryland if they ’ d ever been to such a center , and if they were willing to talk about their experiences .
The first surprise for Kimport was that relatively few patients had actually been to the centers .
Over a two-year period from 2015 to 2017 , she found just 21 people who had been to one and were comfortable talking about the experience ( a few said they had visited a center but preferred not to talk about , but about 80 percent agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 21 patients were black , one was Latina , and one was white ; most worked low-wage jobs or were unemployed .
The second surprise was that despite the centers ’ mission to dissuade people from having abortions , most people were not even considering that option when they went to the centers .
Just four of the 21 women were thinking about terminating the pregnancy when they went to the center , and all four were also thinking about continuing it .
Most of them went to the centers not for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get resources or services they needed for their pregnancies or eventual children .
One woman , identified in the study as Samantha ( all names are pseudonyms ) , needed proof of pregnancy to qualify for Medicaid insurance .
Aya wanted proof of her pregnancy from an “ official ” entity because she believed it would help with her husband ’ s green card application .
In contrast to the other facilities she called , the pregnancy resource center could see her for a same-day appointment at no charge , so she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study were “ deeply concerned about their ability to materially provide for a new baby , ” Kimport writes , and some went to the centers at least in part to get baby products like clothes .
“ They had clothes , they had baby chairs and bouncers , ” one woman told the researchers .
“ They offered a lot.
” These items didn ’ t cost money , but they typically came with strings attached : namely , that pregnant people would keep coming to the center and participating in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parenting class , ” one said .
“ When you go , you watch , like , two movies , and you earn five [ center ] ‘ dollars , ’ and they give you a list of things that they have that you can shop for.
” A points system is common at pregnancy resource centers , Trudden of Heartbeat International said .
“ It encourages continued learning while providing practical items for the family , ” she added .
“ Many parents find this to be a great benefit and love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their family while learning life skills.
” But in Kimport ’ s study , some of the women described the classes as unpleasant or upsetting .
While respondents did report that the counseling they received was “ religiously inflected , ” Kimport said , that wasn ’ t necessarily the problem — in some cases the women were religious themselves .
In one case , however , a woman was shown a video with an explicitly anti-abortion message and was angry that the center presumed she was seeking an abortion .
Another woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminded her of past trauma in her life .
In some cases , the need to show up to appointments in order to get resources caused problems for women .
One respondent , Katelyn , told researchers that the pregnancy resource center scheduled her appointment for a time when she was supposed to be working .
“ Desperate for the resources they offered and believing that attending all of the center ’ s appointments was important for the health of her pregnancy , Katelyn missed work to go to the appointment , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and she and her boyfriend ended up losing their apartment because they couldn ’ t pay rent .
The findings underscore what other researchers have found about pregnancy resource centers and their offerings .
“ While their services may not cost money , they ’ re not necessarily free , ” said Andrea Swartzendruber , an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia who studies the centers .
“ They cost people ’ s time and energy.
” Once they had attended classes , the women were not always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One woman , Danielle , said she was considering saving up her points to get something larger , but her counselor at the center “ was like , ‘ Oh , I ’ m just so excited .
I want you to get something.
’ So , she picked out a bottle , a blanket , a little set of lotions and some onesies.
” Danielle was grateful for the items , but , Kimport writes , “ they were not her own choice.
” In general , the products the women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prenatal vitamins , a water bottle , or baby clothes .
All of the women in the study — including Katelyn — said their visit to a center was a positive experience .
Many were grateful for the baby items they got , even if they weren ’ t necessarily what they would have chosen .
One thing the centers did provide for respondents , Kimport writes , was a place where “ their desire to have a child was supported and encouraged.
” That ’ s significant because , as she notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color , are sometimes actively discouraged from having children , including by their health care providers .
However , the centers are not truly “ safe spaces for emotional support ” for many people of color , Nourbese Flint , policy director at the reproductive justice organization Black Women for Wellness , told Vox .
Black people who have visited pregnancy resource centers have told her they faced racist assumptions about things like their income or whether their fathers are in their lives , Flint said .
They also , she said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that abortion is a conspiracy against black people .
That message implies that “ black women are not able to make decisions about whether or not they want to keep a pregnancy by themselves , ” she added — “ that it ’ s just outside forces and we ’ re not smart enough to understand what ’ s best for our lives.
” And overall , Kimport said , while pregnancy resource centers did supply some of what the study participants needed , “ there were still , for many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs that were not met through going to these centers.
” Pregnancy resource centers are being touted as a replacement for the social safety net .
The study suggests they aren ’ t one .
Pregnancy resource centers weren ’ t necessarily set up to meet all those needs — as Kimport noted , they are privately run and often staffed largely by volunteers .
But increasingly , they ’ re being asked to take the place of social services agencies .
In 1996 , Missouri and Pennsylvania began to allocate state funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began to make similar moves , including Louisiana , which began devoting some of its budget for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families — meant to help low-income people with their basic needs — to programs offering “ abortion alternatives , ” including pregnancy resource centers .
Today , 16 states directly fund the centers , Swartzendruber told Vox .
Meanwhile , the Trump administration last year awarded a grant to Obria , a network of pregnancy resource centers in California , under Title X , a program designed to provide family planning support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the administration issued a rule barring providers that receive Title X funds from providing or referring for abortions .
That forced Planned Parenthood and many other providers that offer a full range of reproductive health services — including , in some cases , prenatal care — to stop taking Title X money , and some have closed as a result .
Nationwide , research has shown that “ decreases in the social safety net have been accompanied by a growth of privately run pregnancy resource centers , ” Kimport said .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t offering the same services as the social safety net providers they ’ re supposed to replace — and that the help they do offer comes at a cost to pregnant people , even if that cost isn ’ t financial .
Kimport acknowledged some limitations in her study .
Since the people she interviewed had visited a prenatal care clinic after going to a pregnancy resource center , the study might not have captured the full range of experiences of people who went to the centers — for example , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she interviewed people who went to the center but then ended up getting abortions .
And while most of the people in Kimport ’ s study were already decided about their pregnancies when they went to centers , Swartzendruber said her research suggests people go to such facilities for a variety of reasons , including help with decision-making .
Still , the study can help flesh out Americans ’ understanding of pregnancy resource centers — especially since research and media coverage delving into people ’ s experiences there has been relatively rare — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the social safety net that cause some people to go to the centers in the first place .
For example , Kimport said , “ if you need proof of pregnancy in order to get on Medicaid , but it costs money to get an official proof of pregnancy , that does seem to be a contradiction.
” And for Flint , the centers are “ unfortunately capitalizing on a gap that we have in our system in terms of responding to the actual real needs of pregnant folks and the actual real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study is a reminder that for too many pregnant people in America , getting basic care and resources is difficult or impossible — and at least as of now , pregnancy resource centers don ’ t change that reality .

When Aya got a positive pregnancy test, she wanted to confirm the results at a clinic.
But the first six places she called either required her to pay out of pocket, or had no appointments for a week. So Aya went to a pregnancy resource center.
Sometimes called crisis pregnancy centers, the facilities’ “primary mission is to dissuade women from choosing abortion,” Katrina Kimport, an associate professor at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), a group at the University of California San Francisco, writes in a new study of patients at the centers, published on Friday in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. The centers, most of which are religiously affiliated, typically offer services like pregnancy tests and sometimes resources like diapers or baby clothes, alongside counseling with an anti-abortion message.
The inner workings of pregnancy resource centers don’t always get a lot of coverage in the media, and unless they’ve visited one, many people may not know much about the facilities. But they have been a subject of major concern among abortion-rights advocates in recent years, because such centers have been found to give misinformation about the risks of abortion. Some advocates feared that the centers “inappropriately interfered” in patients’ decisions around their pregnancies, “preventing people from being able to choose or obtain an abortion,” Kimport told Vox.
But that’s not what Kimport found in interviews with 21 patients, including Aya, who later went to a prenatal care clinic. Most of those patients had already decided to continue their pregnancies when they went to the resource centers. They visited the facilities for basic necessities — like ultrasounds and diapers — that were expensive or difficult to get elsewhere.
In many cases, the patients did get help at the centers. But some resources came with strings attached — free baby clothes and other supplies, for example, were only available if patients took workshops or classes, some of which had a religious component. Some women found the required instruction troubling, with one saying of a parenting video, “it hurt me.”
Meanwhile, the patients Kimport talked to, most of whom were low-income, also had major needs that could not be met by pregnancy resource centers, from food insecurity to homelessness to high-risk pregnancies that required specialized care.
It’s not necessarily surprising that the centers couldn’t help women with these problems, Kimport told Vox — that’s not really what they were designed to do.
But in recent years, states and the federal government have been increasingly positioning the centers as social safety-net providers, shifting money toward them and away from other facilities that provide a wider range of services, like family planning clinics. The Trump administration, for example, last year barred groups that provide or refer abortions from getting federal family planning funds, but awarded a grant to a network of pregnancy resource centers in California.
Kimport’s research suggests that as family planning clinics and other service providers lose funding, pregnancy resource centers, at least as they’re currently designed, won’t be able to fill in the gaps.
For the patients Kimport talked to, going to such a center “didn’t meet all of their needs,” she said. “It didn’t even meet most of their needs.”
The women in the study mostly went to pregnancy resource centers for things like pregnancy tests or baby clothes
Pregnancy resource centers as they exist today first began appearing in the 1960s, after states began liberalizing their abortion laws, according to Heartbeat International, which identifies itself as the country’s first network of such centers. Their spread increased after 1973, when the Supreme Court established Americans’ right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade. Today, there are around 2,500 such centers across the country.
In general, the centers’ goal is to encourage people to carry their pregnancies to term rather than having abortions. For example, Heartbeat International aims “to make abortion unwanted today and unthinkable for future generations,” according to its website.
Heartbeat’s affiliates around the world — the organization says it has more than 2,800 facilities on six continents — offer a range of services. “Some pregnancy resource centers provide pregnancy tests and material aid (diapers, clothing, etc.) while other pregnancy help medical clinics offer limited ultrasounds, STI testing, and prenatal care,” said Andrea Trudden, the group’s director of communications and marketing, in an email to Vox. Some also offer financial aid courses or mentorship for couples.
Pregnancy resource centers have been criticized in the past for ads and website copy that made them look like they offer abortions. In fact, they do not offer the procedure, and research has shown that their websites often include misinformation about its risks, like the false claim that abortion is linked to breast cancer or mental health problems. This has led to concerns that the centers will trick people into believing they offer abortion, then dissuade them from the procedure with false claims about its dangers.
For Heartbeat International, individual affiliates have a lot of autonomy when it comes to services they offer and information they provide, Trudden said. But in general, “our clients have the right to choose an abortion, and they also have the right to know more fully what may be at stake in their decision.”
Because of concerns about misinformation, however, Kimport wanted to learn more about why patients go to pregnancy resource centers, and what happens when they get there. Other researchers have studied the centers in recent years, often looking at the information presented on their websites.
But, Kimport writes, “the voices of pregnant people who have visited the centers” are largely missing from the existing scholarship. So she and her team asked patients who came to prenatal care clinics in southern Louisiana and Baltimore, Maryland if they’d ever been to such a center, and if they were willing to talk about their experiences.
The first surprise for Kimport was that relatively few patients had actually been to the centers. Over a two-year period from 2015 to 2017, she found just 21 people who had been to one and were comfortable talking about the experience (a few said they had visited a center but preferred not to talk about, but about 80 percent agreed to be interviewed). Nineteen of the 21 patients were black, one was Latina, and one was white; most worked low-wage jobs or were unemployed.
The second surprise was that despite the centers’ mission to dissuade people from having abortions, most people were not even considering that option when they went to the centers. Just four of the 21 women were thinking about terminating the pregnancy when they went to the center, and all four were also thinking about continuing it.
Most of them went to the centers not for help deciding what to do, but to get resources or services they needed for their pregnancies or eventual children.
One woman, identified in the study as Samantha (all names are pseudonyms), needed proof of pregnancy to qualify for Medicaid insurance. Aya wanted proof of her pregnancy from an “official” entity because she believed it would help with her husband’s green card application. In contrast to the other facilities she called, the pregnancy resource center could see her for a same-day appointment at no charge, so she went there.
All the women in the study were “deeply concerned about their ability to materially provide for a new baby,” Kimport writes, and some went to the centers at least in part to get baby products like clothes. “They had clothes, they had baby chairs and bouncers,” one woman told the researchers. “They offered a lot.”
The services and baby products weren’t necessarily “free”
These items didn’t cost money, but they typically came with strings attached: namely, that pregnant people would keep coming to the center and participating in programs. “I went to a parenting class,” one said. “When you go, you watch, like, two movies, and you earn five [center] ‘dollars,’ and they give you a list of things that they have that you can shop for.”
A points system is common at pregnancy resource centers, Trudden of Heartbeat International said. “It encourages continued learning while providing practical items for the family,” she added. “Many parents find this to be a great benefit and love the fact that they can provide for their family while learning life skills.”
But in Kimport’s study, some of the women described the classes as unpleasant or upsetting. While respondents did report that the counseling they received was “religiously inflected,” Kimport said, that wasn’t necessarily the problem — in some cases the women were religious themselves. In one case, however, a woman was shown a video with an explicitly anti-abortion message and was angry that the center presumed she was seeking an abortion. Another woman felt hurt by a video because it reminded her of past trauma in her life.
In some cases, the need to show up to appointments in order to get resources caused problems for women. One respondent, Katelyn, told researchers that the pregnancy resource center scheduled her appointment for a time when she was supposed to be working. “Desperate for the resources they offered and believing that attending all of the center’s appointments was important for the health of her pregnancy, Katelyn missed work to go to the appointment,” Kimport writes. Katelyn was fired, and she and her boyfriend ended up losing their apartment because they couldn’t pay rent.
The findings underscore what other researchers have found about pregnancy resource centers and their offerings. “While their services may not cost money, they’re not necessarily free,” said Andrea Swartzendruber, an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia who studies the centers. “They cost people’s time and energy.”
Once they had attended classes, the women were not always able to choose what items they received. One woman, Danielle, said she was considering saving up her points to get something larger, but her counselor at the center “was like, ‘Oh, I’m just so excited. I want you to get something.’ So, she picked out a bottle, a blanket, a little set of lotions and some onesies.” Danielle was grateful for the items, but, Kimport writes, “they were not her own choice.”
In general, the products the women reported getting were relatively minor, like prenatal vitamins, a water bottle, or baby clothes.
All of the women in the study — including Katelyn — said their visit to a center was a positive experience. Many were grateful for the baby items they got, even if they weren’t necessarily what they would have chosen.
One thing the centers did provide for respondents, Kimport writes, was a place where “their desire to have a child was supported and encouraged.” That’s significant because, as she notes, low-income women, especially women of color, are sometimes actively discouraged from having children, including by their health care providers.
However, the centers are not truly “safe spaces for emotional support” for many people of color, Nourbese Flint, policy director at the reproductive justice organization Black Women for Wellness, told Vox.
Black people who have visited pregnancy resource centers have told her they faced racist assumptions about things like their income or whether their fathers are in their lives, Flint said. They also, she said, sometimes heard the increasingly common anti-abortion message that abortion is a conspiracy against black people. That message implies that “black women are not able to make decisions about whether or not they want to keep a pregnancy by themselves,” she added — “that it’s just outside forces and we’re not smart enough to understand what’s best for our lives.”
And overall, Kimport said, while pregnancy resource centers did supply some of what the study participants needed, “there were still, for many of the respondents, very acute social and material needs that were not met through going to these centers.”
Pregnancy resource centers are being touted as a replacement for the social safety net. The study suggests they aren’t one.
Pregnancy resource centers weren’t necessarily set up to meet all those needs — as Kimport noted, they are privately run and often staffed largely by volunteers.
But increasingly, they’re being asked to take the place of social services agencies.
In 1996, Missouri and Pennsylvania began to allocate state funding to pregnancy resource centers. Other states began to make similar moves, including Louisiana, which began devoting some of its budget for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families — meant to help low-income people with their basic needs — to programs offering “abortion alternatives,” including pregnancy resource centers. Today, 16 states directly fund the centers, Swartzendruber told Vox.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration last year awarded a grant to Obria, a network of pregnancy resource centers in California, under Title X, a program designed to provide family planning support to low-income Americans. The same year, the administration issued a rule barring providers that receive Title X funds from providing or referring for abortions. That forced Planned Parenthood and many other providers that offer a full range of reproductive health services — including, in some cases, prenatal care — to stop taking Title X money, and some have closed as a result.
Nationwide, research has shown that “decreases in the social safety net have been accompanied by a growth of privately run pregnancy resource centers,” Kimport said.
But her research suggests that those centers aren’t offering the same services as the social safety net providers they’re supposed to replace — and that the help they do offer comes at a cost to pregnant people, even if that cost isn’t financial.
Kimport acknowledged some limitations in her study. Since the people she interviewed had visited a prenatal care clinic after going to a pregnancy resource center, the study might not have captured the full range of experiences of people who went to the centers — for example, she might have gotten a different picture if she interviewed people who went to the center but then ended up getting abortions. And while most of the people in Kimport’s study were already decided about their pregnancies when they went to centers, Swartzendruber said her research suggests people go to such facilities for a variety of reasons, including help with decision-making.
Still, the study can help flesh out Americans’ understanding of pregnancy resource centers — especially since research and media coverage delving into people’s experiences there has been relatively rare — as well as pointing out holes in the social safety net that cause some people to go to the centers in the first place. For example, Kimport said, “if you need proof of pregnancy in order to get on Medicaid, but it costs money to get an official proof of pregnancy, that does seem to be a contradiction.”
And for Flint, the centers are “unfortunately capitalizing on a gap that we have in our system in terms of responding to the actual real needs of pregnant folks and the actual real needs of families.”
Overall, the study is a reminder that for too many pregnant people in America, getting basic care and resources is difficult or impossible — and at least as of now, pregnancy resource centers don’t change that reality.


vox--2020-03-02--Most Americans are not prepared for a disaster. Now survival kits are all over Instagram.

“ I ’ ve always wanted to put together a box that has everything you need in case of an emergency , ” Kim Kardashian confessed to me from her Instagram Stories in late January , her disembodied voice narrating the opening of a massive orange crate .
The praise was echoed by her mom , Kris , and sister , Kourtney , both posting their own unboxing videos showing off kits designed to support self-sufficiency after disaster .
It was a bit odd to see the Kardashians pivot from pushing detox tea to preaching the preparedness gospel , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lining up behind the idea .
Popular accounts , including those of Olivia Culpo , Nyle DiMarco , Comments by Celebs , Haylie Duff , WeWoreWhat , Makeup by Mario , and not one but two Real Housewives of New Jersey , posted Stories or photos featuring their own orange gear , part of a new line of preparedness kits called Judy .
In 2017 , the global market for “ incident and emergency management ” was valued at $ 75.5 billion .
By 2025 , Allied Research Marketing projects it will jump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of such kits being relegated to “ survivalist ” subcultures or extreme religious sects , you can now purchase versions created for weathering all sorts of storms at Costco or even Pottery Barn .
It ’ s understandable why the market for disaster preparedness is growing .
We ’ ve seen some of the worst natural disasters in US history in a recent , alarmingly short window .
Concerns over the climate continue to rise .
The “ Doomsday Clock , ” created to warn of existential threats , has inched closer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 100 metaphorical seconds left until midnight .
That shift into the mainstream comes with a quite literal price and brings an uneasy recognition of what it will mean for those who can ’ t afford it .
For many , the idea of stocking up on supplies and planning to survive on your own after a disaster might seem still like something out of an apocalyptic TV show .
Your thoughts might go straight to bunkers and canned food , cults and reality TV .
In actual reality , the Federal Emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepared to be “ self-sufficient ” for at least three days after any given disaster .
It ’ s a suggestion they ’ ve pushed regularly over the past two decades , after evaluating their ability ( and lack thereof ) to reach people following large-scale emergencies , like the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005 .
Around 60 % of Americans have no emergency plan in place Repeated surveys show that the message hasn ’ t quite stuck .
Although according to a 2015 FEMA release , 80 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been struck by disasters , surveys regularly show around 60 percent of Americans have no emergency plan in place .
“ It ’ s really hard to move the needle on that .
People still don ’ t understand risk very well , ” says Anita Chandra , senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation .
She ’ s also the vice president and director of the organization ’ s Social and Economic Well-Being arm , which analyzes the factors needed to build healthy and economically stable communities .
Chandra does think the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shift in awareness but believes it ’ s still not enough .
“ We are seeing forward progress .
Is it fast enough against our risk ?
No.
” Dr. Irwin Redlener , director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University , thinks part of the problem lies in the lack of clarity around what it means to be prepared .
“ The actual nature of the disaster makes a great deal of difference , ” Redlener elaborates .
“ Are we talking about being prepared to stay in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation for some period of time ?
Are we talking about a kit that you have to take with you ?
” Clearly , people need supplies like food and water in the wake of any disaster , but as Redlener sees it , typical advice tends to flatten these events into a one-size-fits-all mold , particularly when you look at prepackaged kits .
Take the first kit that appears on an Amazon search .
Available for $ 114.99 , it promises a “ 100 % satisfaction guarantee ” for surviving for three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floods + other disasters.
” It ’ s a bold claim , considering the myriad variables not only in the disasters described but also when you take into account who might be purchasing the item and the specific needs they have .
“ In some ways , they just somehow misrepresent themselves as being ‘ disaster preparedness.
’ So people think , ‘ I ’ ll buy a kit for my car and another for my house , and I won ’ t have to think about it again.
’ Really a false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps surprisingly , Simon Huck , the creator of Judy , agrees .
If you follow the Kardashians , Huck ’ s name might be familiar .
The owner of Command Entertainment Group is a friend of the family ’ s , even starring in a short-lived reality show about public relations produced by Kim K. His pivot into disaster preparedness , while a significant departure from his other career , allowed him to take his PR prowess and connections ( see : the posts from all the celebs mentioned above ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard around climate change .
“ A year and a half ago , I sat down and I started speaking to some of these people who had been in emergency situations , whether it was my friends in California , who had had their homes damaged , or in some cases lost their homes , or my friends in New Jersey , in New York who had experienced trauma and anxiety around Hurricane Sandy , ” Huck explains .
“ The common denominator in all of these stories was a fundamental lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He found the stats from FEMA about how few Americans had a disaster plan .
He enlisted the help of experts from the emergency preparedness field .
He scoured the market for other kits , and , while there are plenty , he felt there was a lack of brands truly building a name for themselves .
So he decided to create his own .
While traditional disaster kits come optimized for use — as a whole , unstylish and fitting squarely in the necessity-not-accessory bucket — Judy presents preparedness in a millennial-friendly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colors , and punchy memes posted on its Instagram to a following of more than 17,000 .
Each of the three existing kits , costing $ 60 to $ 250 , are customized for the unique risks you might face based on where you live .
For example , just like the Kardashians ( give or take a few million ) , I ’ m a Californian , so my recommendations are for earthquakes , floods , fires , pandemics , and terrorism .
Even without purchasing a kit , you can punch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning PDFs , which offer basic advice for before , during , and after your prescribed emergencies strike .
You can also opt in for text alerts to receive regular preparedness reminders , like to change your smoke detector ’ s batteries , and respond to that number with any questions you might have .
It ’ s this additional layer of tailored information that Huck believes truly sets Judy apart .
“ We learned really early on in our research phase that the act of buying an emergency kit isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huck says .
“ It ’ s the first step , but it ’ s arguably not the most important .
The most important thing you need to do is to have self-knowledge and awareness and education around what to do in an emergency.
” Or , as one Judy Instagram caption puts it : “ There ’ s so much in life we can control : our Spotify playlist , our Sweet Green order , our next Netflix binge .
One thing we can ’ t control ?
Natural disasters .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a preparedness brand here to help you deal with the unexpected : emergencies big and small.
” It ’ s a nice idea — disaster preparedness as a concept as digestible and accessible as Netflix and chill .
“ People don ’ t want to talk about preparedness , and they certainly don ’ t want to talk about worst-case scenario situations , ” Huck says .
“ So unless you do in a way that doesn ’ t scare them , that empowers them with the tool kit to be prepared , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altogether.
” It ’ s that ease that makes these kits overall so appealing in the first place , despite being regarded with skepticism by experts like Redlener and even by product review outfits like WireCutter .
In the site ’ s list of recommendations for emergency preparedness items , it noted that these kits might be the “ easiest way to feel prepared , ” but that “ none of them are worth your money.
” “ Certainly , having a premade bag is a lot better than having nothing , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the review .
“ But for the money , it won ’ t be half as good as a kit that you assemble yourself with careful consideration of your own family ’ s needs in mind.
” Redlener also believes a homemade kit is king ; his concern is the personal items that companies can ’ t account for in mass-marketed kits but that can prove truly critical .
“ Each individual in a family unit is going to have certain kinds of needs as you ’ re putting together your plan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examples .
“ Like having medications for your chronic illness or making sure that you have supplies for your babies and children , which means formula and diapers.
” Recommendations for building your own kit are easy to find across government websites and from the American Red Cross .
Still , as Judy winks at in its caption referencing “ things we can control , ” people like to have things done for them .
Can you pick your order at Sweetgreen ?
Sure .
Are you paying a high markup to eat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home ?
Absolutely .
Americans are keener to follow in Kim Kardashian ’ s footsteps than FEMA ’ s Another impetus in ordering a Sweetgreen salad is , of course , its branding , and Judy is clearly trying to similarly cash in on being “ cool.
” Instead of being introduced to potential customers through the lens of government officials or disaster experts , who , Huck says , have consulted in its creation , Judy is largely being marketed as a trendy new tool your favorite influencers are excited about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the fact that Americans are keener to follow in Kim Kardashian ’ s footsteps than FEMA ’ s .
This , despite the fact that she exists in an income bracket that is less likely to be deeply affected by climate change .
There was a point in 2018 when it felt like all of California was veiled in a layer of smoke .
Multiple wildfires were tearing through the drought-dried land , including the Camp Fire in Northern California and the Woolsey Fire on the outskirts of Los Angeles .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the nightly news , but also on TMZ for its proximity to celebrity homes , including that of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West .
The entertainment site noted that the couple ’ s mansion survived the blaze thanks to private a team of firefighters .
It ’ s a tactic that ’ s become increasingly common , a perk some insurance companies provide to customers with high property values .
That same year , a study compiled by government and private sector experts warned of the disproportionate impacts of climate change lower-income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally , ” warns the report summary .
“ People who are already vulnerable , including lower-income and other marginalized communities , have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts.
” “ If you ’ re living hand to mouth and paycheck to paycheck , then setting aside these kinds of resources is really tough to do , ” Chandra summarizes .
In the US , lower-income communities are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pollution in the air and in their water sources , which makes them more vulnerable to any additional issues brought on by climate change .
Globally , a similar situation is playing out between higher- and lower-income nations .
If the emergency items market continues to grow as projected , it ’ s hard to imagine the costs won ’ t continue to increase , as well , responding to a more competitive and eager market — potentially pricing out the consumers that need them most .
That stark contrast in who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evade disaster but also to recover from them is already clear in the postmortems of recent disasters .
Those who can afford insurance , those who can ’ t .
Those who can afford to relocate from areas with toxic water or air , those who can ’ t .
Those who can afford a kit for each family member , those who can ’ t .
Recognizing these inequalities , Chandra believes the key to more equitable preparation isn ’ t just to equip individuals with supplies and information but to focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t afford certain items , maybe another can .
If one neighbor doesn ’ t have a certain skill , maybe another does .
“ It ’ s taking a moment to take stock , which is what the preparedness kits can do , but also taking a moment to to to know who ’ s in your community , and how you can help and how they can help you , ” she says .
“ Not only be prepared for really , really bad things , but to also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so you ’ re investing when you ’ re doing this and not just , ‘ Oh , well , when is the big , big bad thing going to happen ?
’ You ’ re actually doing something that makes you and your community healthier.
” It ’ s something Huck has considered as well .
Despite the potentially prohibitive prices of his products , he repeatedly says he wants Judy to reach people from “ all walks of life , ” whether it ’ s through buying the kits or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we spoke , he was in Los Angeles , having hosted a preparedness course at an office the evening before .
It ’ s something he says he hopes becomes a larger part of Judy ’ s brand in the future .
It was a private event , but snippets and photos from the evening did make it onto social media .
You can see Huck , front and center , addressing a well-dressed crowd .
In the front row was Kourtney Kardashian .
Sign up for The Goods ’ newsletter .
Twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

“I’ve always wanted to put together a box that has everything you need in case of an emergency,” Kim Kardashian confessed to me from her Instagram Stories in late January, her disembodied voice narrating the opening of a massive orange crate. The praise was echoed by her mom, Kris, and sister, Kourtney, both posting their own unboxing videos showing off kits designed to support self-sufficiency after disaster.
It was a bit odd to see the Kardashians pivot from pushing detox tea to preaching the preparedness gospel, but they weren’t the only influencers lining up behind the idea. Popular accounts, including those of Olivia Culpo, Nyle DiMarco, Comments by Celebs, Haylie Duff, WeWoreWhat, Makeup by Mario, and not one but two Real Housewives of New Jersey, posted Stories or photos featuring their own orange gear, part of a new line of preparedness kits called Judy.
In 2017, the global market for “incident and emergency management” was valued at $75.5 billion. By 2025, Allied Research Marketing projects it will jump to $423 billion. After decades of such kits being relegated to “survivalist” subcultures or extreme religious sects, you can now purchase versions created for weathering all sorts of storms at Costco or even Pottery Barn.
It’s understandable why the market for disaster preparedness is growing. We’ve seen some of the worst natural disasters in US history in a recent, alarmingly short window. Concerns over the climate continue to rise. The “Doomsday Clock,” created to warn of existential threats, has inched closer to zero hour than ever before, with only 100 metaphorical seconds left until midnight.
That shift into the mainstream comes with a quite literal price and brings an uneasy recognition of what it will mean for those who can’t afford it.
For many, the idea of stocking up on supplies and planning to survive on your own after a disaster might seem still like something out of an apocalyptic TV show. Your thoughts might go straight to bunkers and canned food, cults and reality TV.
In actual reality, the Federal Emergency Management Agency suggests all Americans should be prepared to be “self-sufficient” for at least three days after any given disaster. It’s a suggestion they’ve pushed regularly over the past two decades, after evaluating their ability (and lack thereof) to reach people following large-scale emergencies, like the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Around 60% of Americans have no emergency plan in place
Repeated surveys show that the message hasn’t quite stuck. Although according to a 2015 FEMA release, 80 percent of Americans live in counties that have been struck by disasters, surveys regularly show around 60 percent of Americans have no emergency plan in place.
“It’s really hard to move the needle on that. People still don’t understand risk very well,” says Anita Chandra, senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation. She’s also the vice president and director of the organization’s Social and Economic Well-Being arm, which analyzes the factors needed to build healthy and economically stable communities. Chandra does think the extreme nature of recent events has caused a shift in awareness but believes it’s still not enough. “We are seeing forward progress. Is it fast enough against our risk? No.”
Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, thinks part of the problem lies in the lack of clarity around what it means to be prepared.
“The actual nature of the disaster makes a great deal of difference,” Redlener elaborates. “Are we talking about being prepared to stay in your home in some sort of lockdown situation for some period of time? Are we talking about a kit that you have to take with you?”
“People still don’t understand risk very well”
Clearly, people need supplies like food and water in the wake of any disaster, but as Redlener sees it, typical advice tends to flatten these events into a one-size-fits-all mold, particularly when you look at prepackaged kits. Take the first kit that appears on an Amazon search. Available for $114.99, it promises a “100% satisfaction guarantee” for surviving for three days after “earthquake, hurricanes, floods + other disasters.” It’s a bold claim, considering the myriad variables not only in the disasters described but also when you take into account who might be purchasing the item and the specific needs they have.
“In some ways, they just somehow misrepresent themselves as being ‘disaster preparedness.’ So people think, ‘I’ll buy a kit for my car and another for my house, and I won’t have to think about it again.’ Really a false sense of security,” Redlener says.
Perhaps surprisingly, Simon Huck, the creator of Judy, agrees.
If you follow the Kardashians, Huck’s name might be familiar. The owner of Command Entertainment Group is a friend of the family’s, even starring in a short-lived reality show about public relations produced by Kim K. His pivot into disaster preparedness, while a significant departure from his other career, allowed him to take his PR prowess and connections (see: the posts from all the celebs mentioned above) and apply them to the concerns he heard around climate change.
“A year and a half ago, I sat down and I started speaking to some of these people who had been in emergency situations, whether it was my friends in California, who had had their homes damaged, or in some cases lost their homes, or my friends in New Jersey, in New York who had experienced trauma and anxiety around Hurricane Sandy,” Huck explains. “The common denominator in all of these stories was a fundamental lack of preparedness.”
He did his homework. He found the stats from FEMA about how few Americans had a disaster plan. He enlisted the help of experts from the emergency preparedness field. He scoured the market for other kits, and, while there are plenty, he felt there was a lack of brands truly building a name for themselves. So he decided to create his own.
While traditional disaster kits come optimized for use — as a whole, unstylish and fitting squarely in the necessity-not-accessory bucket — Judy presents preparedness in a millennial-friendly aesthetic, all bold fonts, bright colors, and punchy memes posted on its Instagram to a following of more than 17,000. Each of the three existing kits, costing $60 to $250, are customized for the unique risks you might face based on where you live. For example, just like the Kardashians (give or take a few million), I’m a Californian, so my recommendations are for earthquakes, floods, fires, pandemics, and terrorism.
Even without purchasing a kit, you can punch in your zip code to receive free planning PDFs, which offer basic advice for before, during, and after your prescribed emergencies strike. You can also opt in for text alerts to receive regular preparedness reminders, like to change your smoke detector’s batteries, and respond to that number with any questions you might have. It’s this additional layer of tailored information that Huck believes truly sets Judy apart.
“We learned really early on in our research phase that the act of buying an emergency kit isn’t enough to get you prepared,” Huck says. “It’s the first step, but it’s arguably not the most important. The most important thing you need to do is to have self-knowledge and awareness and education around what to do in an emergency.”
Or, as one Judy Instagram caption puts it: “There’s so much in life we can control: our Spotify playlist, our Sweet Green order, our next Netflix binge. One thing we can’t control? Natural disasters. That’s why you need JUDY, a preparedness brand here to help you deal with the unexpected: emergencies big and small.”
It’s a nice idea — disaster preparedness as a concept as digestible and accessible as Netflix and chill.
“People don’t want to talk about preparedness, and they certainly don’t want to talk about worst-case scenario situations,” Huck says. “So unless you do in a way that doesn’t scare them, that empowers them with the tool kit to be prepared, they really shut down to the category altogether.”
It’s that ease that makes these kits overall so appealing in the first place, despite being regarded with skepticism by experts like Redlener and even by product review outfits like WireCutter. In the site’s list of recommendations for emergency preparedness items, it noted that these kits might be the “easiest way to feel prepared,” but that “none of them are worth your money.”
“Certainly, having a premade bag is a lot better than having nothing,” notes WireCutter’s Kalee Thompson in the review. “But for the money, it won’t be half as good as a kit that you assemble yourself with careful consideration of your own family’s needs in mind.”
Redlener also believes a homemade kit is king; his concern is the personal items that companies can’t account for in mass-marketed kits but that can prove truly critical.
“Each individual in a family unit is going to have certain kinds of needs as you’re putting together your plan,” he says, offering a few examples. “Like having medications for your chronic illness or making sure that you have supplies for your babies and children, which means formula and diapers.”
Recommendations for building your own kit are easy to find across government websites and from the American Red Cross. Still, as Judy winks at in its caption referencing “things we can control,” people like to have things done for them. Can you pick your order at Sweetgreen? Sure. Are you paying a high markup to eat a salad you could have put together at home? Absolutely.
Americans are keener to follow in Kim Kardashian’s footsteps than FEMA’s
Another impetus in ordering a Sweetgreen salad is, of course, its branding, and Judy is clearly trying to similarly cash in on being “cool.” Instead of being introduced to potential customers through the lens of government officials or disaster experts, who, Huck says, have consulted in its creation, Judy is largely being marketed as a trendy new tool your favorite influencers are excited about. The success of that approach hinges on the fact that Americans are keener to follow in Kim Kardashian’s footsteps than FEMA’s. This, despite the fact that she exists in an income bracket that is less likely to be deeply affected by climate change.
There was a point in 2018 when it felt like all of California was veiled in a layer of smoke. Multiple wildfires were tearing through the drought-dried land, including the Camp Fire in Northern California and the Woolsey Fire on the outskirts of Los Angeles. The latter managed to make headlines not just on the nightly news, but also on TMZ for its proximity to celebrity homes, including that of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West. The entertainment site noted that the couple’s mansion survived the blaze thanks to private a team of firefighters. It’s a tactic that’s become increasingly common, a perk some insurance companies provide to customers with high property values.
That same year, a study compiled by government and private sector experts warned of the disproportionate impacts of climate change lower-income communities will experience due to climate change.
“Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally,” warns the report summary. “People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts.”
“If you’re living hand to mouth and paycheck to paycheck, then setting aside these kinds of resources is really tough to do,” Chandra summarizes. In the US, lower-income communities are also already dealing with a higher rate of pollution in the air and in their water sources, which makes them more vulnerable to any additional issues brought on by climate change. Globally, a similar situation is playing out between higher- and lower-income nations.
If the emergency items market continues to grow as projected, it’s hard to imagine the costs won’t continue to increase, as well, responding to a more competitive and eager market — potentially pricing out the consumers that need them most. That stark contrast in who is able to afford to not only evade disaster but also to recover from them is already clear in the postmortems of recent disasters.
Those who can afford insurance, those who can’t. Those who can afford to relocate from areas with toxic water or air, those who can’t. Those who can afford a kit for each family member, those who can’t.
Recognizing these inequalities, Chandra believes the key to more equitable preparation isn’t just to equip individuals with supplies and information but to focus on broader communities. If one neighbor can’t afford certain items, maybe another can. If one neighbor doesn’t have a certain skill, maybe another does.
“It’s taking a moment to take stock, which is what the preparedness kits can do, but also taking a moment to to to know who’s in your community, and how you can help and how they can help you,” she says. “Not only be prepared for really, really bad things, but to also be prepared for the day-to-day stress. And so you’re investing when you’re doing this and not just, ‘Oh, well, when is the big, big bad thing going to happen?’ You’re actually doing something that makes you and your community healthier.”
It’s something Huck has considered as well. Despite the potentially prohibitive prices of his products, he repeatedly says he wants Judy to reach people from “all walks of life,” whether it’s through buying the kits or using the free resources. The day we spoke, he was in Los Angeles, having hosted a preparedness course at an office the evening before. It’s something he says he hopes becomes a larger part of Judy’s brand in the future.
It was a private event, but snippets and photos from the evening did make it onto social media. You can see Huck, front and center, addressing a well-dressed crowd. In the front row was Kourtney Kardashian.
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-03-01--The 6 Democrats running for president and everything else you should know about 2020

The 6 Democrats running for president and everything else you should know about 2020 Share All sharing options for : The 6 Democrats running for president and everything else you should know about 2020 The 2020 presidential primary campaign field is winnowing down quickly now that the votes are being cast .
Any Democrat with dreams of occupying the Oval Office saw Donald Trump is a vulnerable president who hasn ’ t broadened his appeal beyond his base .
A lot of them decided to run for their party ’ s nomination to be its standard-bearer in the 2020 election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest : former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who rose to join the top of the field but then faded , and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg are the other two candidates in the race with the support and the infrastructure to make a splash in the race .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar , after a strong third-place finish in New Hampshire , struggled in Nevada and South Carolina .
At this point , most candidates have dropped out : The latest is former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg , who won the Iowa caucuses and finished a close second in New Hampshire .
Billionaire activist Tom Steyer also exited after the South Carolina contest .
The Democratic field once included a record number of women and nonwhite candidates , a mix of high-wattage stars and lesser-known contenders who believed they could navigate a fractured field to victory .
The debates started in June , with most candidates getting a chance to appear on stage , but the number of participants started to shrink in the third debate in September .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on March 15 .
Whoever emerges from the Democratic primary will face Trump , who along with the Republican National Committee has already raised more than $ 300 million for his reelection campaign .
Recent history tells us Americans usually give their presidents another four years , which should lend Trump an advantage .
But the president has been historically unpopular during his first term , and Biden and Sanders look competitive in a hypothetical general election match-up .
The past few months have demonstrated that really anything can happen .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this contest is going to end , and the 2016 election should have humbled all political prognosticators .
Still , the 2020 campaign is well underway .
Here is what you need to know to get oriented .
Who is running for president in the 2020 election ?
On the Republican side , there is of course President Donald Trump .
A few prominent Republican officials had hinted they might challenge the president , though that ’ s very unlikely now .
Any primary challenger would be a huge underdog against the sitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to protect Trump by having state parties change the rules for their primaries to guard against an insurgency .
The GOPer trying to supplant him is former Massachusetts Gov .
Bill Weld , a libertarian-leaning Republican .
Two others dropped out of the race : Onetime radio host and former Rep. Joe Walsh , who has apologized for saying racist things on Twitter , and former Rep. Mark Sanford , an ideological conservative who was a member of the Freedom Caucus while he was in the House .
No other Republican is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safely say .
On the Democratic side , the field is finally shrinking .
The contenders , in rough order of standing , are : Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) : The 2016 runner-up is running again .
He has the biggest grassroots base of any potential candidate and has led the push to move the party leftward .
A more competitive field has presented Sanders with a very different race this time .
The senator recently had a heart attack while on the campaign trail ; while he ’ s recovering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be able to get back to the breakneck speed of events he once had .
Still , for many on the Democratic left , Sanders is the only candidate with the credibility to pursue their top-tier issues , like Medicare-for-all .
Former Vice President Joe Biden : Biden thought hard about running in 2016 , but he decided against it , being so soon after his son Beau ’ s death and with the party establishment uniformly behind Hillary Clinton .
He ’ s still very popular with Democratic voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t sure any of the other potential candidates would beat Trump .
Though surely inflated by name recognition , Biden had a sizable early lead in the early Democratic national polls that has since dropped sharply .
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg : Bloomberg had toyed with a Democratic presidential run , even though he governed the country ’ s biggest city as an independent , for a while .
Late in the game , he finally decided to take a shot , filing for the primary in Alabama ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few policy wins that he can tout to Democratic voters , most notably on guns , but a centrist billionaire with some policy ideas that are anathema to the progressive base may struggle to unite the party behind him .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) : The Massachusetts senator is proudly progressive , though she tends to position herself as wanting to fix capitalism rather than replace it .
She wants to outflank Trump on trade , give workers seats on corporate boards , and tax extreme wealth .
Warren got on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early states and , like Sanders , is not seeking money from high-dollar donors .
( You also might have heard about her releasing a DNA test in an attempt to prove she had Native American roots — a poorly executed early attempt to rebut Trump ’ s “ Pocahontas ” taunts . )
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) : She will look to blend her folksy , Midwestern manner with some crossover appeal , given her history of working across the aisle with Republicans and winning elections handily in a purplish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her willingness to crack down on big tech firms on privacy and antitrust issues .
She struggled for much of the race with a lack of name recognition , however , and she has been the subject of several reports about her alleged harsh treatment of staff .
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ( D-HI ) : Gabbard fires up a certain strain of antiwar progressive .
She ’ s faced tough questions , though , about her apparent friendliness with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and her past comments on LGBTQ rights .
Who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Quite a few Democrats have already given up the ghost , with some of the big names withdrawing once they faltered in the primaries .
Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg : Something of a viral political star , though he leads a city of “ just ” 100,000 people , Buttigieg is a military veteran and a Rhodes scholar , and he would have been the first openly LGBTQ president in American history .
Redevelopment and infrastructure projects have been staples of his tenure as mayor , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how he handled racial issues in South Bend .
Tom Steyer : The billionaire Democratic donor decided to enter the arena .
He first rose to political prominence for his focus on combating climate change , and started a crusade to convince congressional Democrats to impeach Trump .
Steyer positioned himself as a ( well-funded ) outsider running against a host of lifelong politicians .
Sen. Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) : The former Newark , New Jersey , mayor and part-time firefighter failed to break out of the low single digits in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be a major contender in the race .
He was a fresh face with big ideas like savings accounts for newborns , but his work promoting charter schools ( not a favorite of the teachers unions ) and the perception that he ’ s close with Wall Street both posed challenges to his candidacy from the start , and his message of love and unity never quite caught on with voters .
Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) : The former California attorney general started generating White House hype almost as soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 .
As a younger black woman , she personified the Democratic Party ’ s changing nature .
She had endorsed Medicare-for-all and proposed a major middle-class tax credit , though her days as a prosecutor presented problems with the progressive grassroots .
Harris made a big splash in early polls , but she dropped after stumbles over health care and never recovered .
Andrew Yang : A humanitarian-minded entrepreneur who also served in the Obama administration , he ran on a policy platform that includes , among other things , a universal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 a month to every American over 18 .
Former Rep. Beto O ’ Rourke : The former Texas Congress member was once 2020 ’ s biggest wild card .
O ’ Rourke built a historically successful fundraising apparatus during his losing 2018 Senate run against Ted Cruz .
He ’ s young , and he gives a good speech .
Obama ’ s old hands seemed to like him .
The open question was whether his self-evidenced political talents were matched by policy substance .
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s biggest city and already the unlikely victor of a contentious Democratic primary to get there , touted his progressive achievements in the Big Apple as a model for the nation : enacting universal pre-K , ending stop-and-frisk , and creating an ambitious local health care program .
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ( D-NY ) : Gillibrand had evolved over the years from a centrist Democrat in the House to a progressive .
She endorsed Medicare-for-all and universal paid family leave ; a pillar of her Senate career has been cracking down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gillibrand was presenting herself as a young mom in tune with the Me Too era and the Democratic women who powered the party to historic wins in the 2018 midterms .
Sen. Michael Bennet ( D-CO ) : Bennet is a well-regarded but nationally little-known senator .
He tacks toward the center ideologically .
The passion that fuels his candidacy is a fervent frustration with the way Washington works now .
Bennet believes Americans are not nearly as divided as the parties in Washington and is positioning himself accordingly .
Former San Antonio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Castro got VP buzz in prior elections ; this time , he ran in his own right after serving in Obama ’ s Cabinet on an aspirational message as the grandson of immigrants .
Former Colorado Gov .
John Hickenlooper : Hickenlooper is a moderate ex-governor who pitched his ability to work across the aisle .
On the issues , he touted his record on gun violence , environmental regulations , and expanding Medicaid .
He conveyed an everyman persona , having founded a Denver brewery before he ever ran for public office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic nomination to challenge GOP Sen. Cory Gardner in 2020 instead .
Washington Gov .
Jay Inslee : Inslee centered his work on environmental issues and the threat of climate change .
He has pushed a bill to get his home state off coal energy and all other carbon-producing energy sources by 2045 .
It hasn ’ t always been smooth sailing — voters in Washington rejected an Inslee-supported carbon fee in 2015 — but the governor hoped to quickly build a profile by focusing relentlessly on the dire threat to humanity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ third term as governor .
Rep. Seth Moulton ( D-MA ) : Another Nancy Pelosi skeptic who helped lead the unsuccessful rebellion to stop her from becoming House speaker again in 2016 .
The Massachusetts representative , who is an Iraq War veteran , positioned himself as a moderate in contrast to the socialist energy animating the left and seeking to take over his party .
Rep. Tim Ryan ( D-OH ) : The Ohio Congress member pitched himself as the Democratic answer for Trump country , arguing he can connect with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Midwest .
He cited the closure of the Lordstown GM plant in his home state as part of his motivation for running .
Ryan has a history of long-shot bids : He challenged Pelosi for the House Democratic leader post in 2016 .
Former Sen. Mike Gravel : The 88-year-old former senator , famed for reading the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record , ran 2020 ’ s oddest campaign .
Two teenagers convinced Gravel to launch a protest candidacy targeting the center left and the forever wars of mainstream American foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after he exited the race .
Miramar , Florida , Mayor Wayne Messam : The mayor of a Miami suburb , Messam had perhaps the lowest name recognition of any Democrat in the race .
The son of Jamaican immigrants , he ’ s raised wages for city workers as mayor and confronted the Republican-led state government over gun control .
Former Rep. Joe Sestak : The retired three-star admiral and former Pennsylvania representative in Congress was a late entry to the race , announcing his campaign three days before the first Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his naval experience — his campaign logo prominently features the moniker “ Adm .
Joe ” — and the global leadership experience he says it provides .
Marianne Williamson : A self-proclaimed “ bitch for God ” who has been a spiritual adviser to Oprah .
Her previous political experience was a failed run for Congress as an independent in 2014 .
Former Rep. John Delaney : The most notable thing about Delaney was he ran for president for over two years , more or less living in Iowa , the first state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rarely polled above 1 percent there or anywhere else .
Former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick : Patrick had sworn off a presidential bid months ago , but he reversed course and jumped into the campaign .
He never made a mark .
When are the next 2020 Democratic presidential primary election debates ?
The Democratic National Committee announced it would hold 12 debates , starting in June 2019 and extending into 2020 .
The next Democratic debate is March 15 and will be held in Phoenix , Arizona .
To date , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Convention delegate in Iowa or hit a certain percentage in national or early-state polls to qualify , but the qualifying thresholds for the next debate have not yet been set .
When are the 2020 Democratic presidential primary election and caucus nights ?
Early momentum is always critical , especially in a big field with so many candidates trying to prove that they ’ re viable .
With that in mind , here are the next two months of the Democratic primary schedule : How do you win the 2020 Democratic presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to win a majority of the delegates .
Every state has different rules for its primary elections or caucuses in terms of allocating delegates .
Candidates win delegates proportional to where they finish in the results , though they generally have to hit a minimum threshold of 15 percent to be awarded any delegates .
In terms of numbers , there will be an estimated 3,979 delegates for the 2020 Democratic National Convention ( where the nominee will be formally selected ) up for grabs during the primary elections .
One candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be nominated .
You might hear talk of a “ brokered ” or “ contested ” convention if no candidate gets the necessary delegates to win on the first ballot .
That could definitely happen in 2020 ; the FiveThirtyEight forecast thinks it ’ s a 2-in-3 chance .
If that should happen , all bets are off .
There hasn ’ t been a brokered convention in decades .
Democrats have made one major change from the 2016 primary on “ superdelegates ” — elected officials , party leaders , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition to the regular delegates awarded by state elections .
In the past , superdelegates didn ’ t have to follow any rules and could back whichever candidate they desire and make up their minds at any point in the process .
When most of them endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 , it gave her a built-in delegate advantage over Bernie Sanders , though she still won enough votes independent of the superdelegates to secure the nomination .
In a series of reforms , the DNC has stripped superdelegates of a vote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention has to move to second or third votes because no candidate has a sufficient number of delegates — something that hasn ’ t happened since the 1950s — superdelegates won ’ t matter in 2020 .
( Arguably , they never did .
Many pointed out it was unlikely for superdelegates to use their power to overturn the outcome of the primary system , but it nevertheless created consternation within the party . )
Okay .
So who will be the next president ?
Ha !
You almost got me .

The 2 Democrats running for president and everything else you should know about 2020
Share All sharing options for: The 2 Democrats running for president and everything else you should know about 2020
The 2020 Democratic presidential primary election candidates are officially down to former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has announced she is leaving the race, after polling in low single digits for months and winning just two primary delegates. Gabbard has joined a large field of prominent former candidates: In early March, Elizabeth Warren, Mike Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar exited from the race. Sanders showed strength in the early states, and then Biden surged on South Carolina and has outperformed Sanders in most of the March contests. Biden is the clear frontrunner at this point in the primary, having received over 1,100 delegates (he needs 1,991 to win the nomination).
When the 2020 campaign started, any Democrat with dreams of occupying the Oval Office saw Donald Trump as a vulnerable president who hasn’t broadened his appeal beyond his base. A lot of them decided to run for their party’s nomination to be its standard-bearer in the 2020 election.
Two candidates were stronger than the rest: Biden and Sanders, especially after their respective delegate hauls on Super Tuesday. Warren, the Massachusetts senator who rose to join the top of the field but then faded, ended her bid on March 5 and essentially narrowed the field to those final two.
By that point, most candidates had dropped out: Recent exits include Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii; Warren, the progressive senator from Massachusetts; Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor; former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who won the most delegates in the Iowa caucuses and finished a close second in New Hampshire; and Sen. Klobuchar of Minnesota, who couldn’t parlay a strong third-place finish in New Hampshire into momentum anywhere else. Billionaire activist Tom Steyer also dropped out after the South Carolina contest.
The Democratic field once included a record number of women and nonwhite candidates, a mix of high-wattage stars and lesser-known contenders who believed they could navigate a fractured field to victory. It ends with two 70-something white men. The debates started in June, with most candidates getting a chance to appear, but the stage has repeatedly shrunk since then.
The impact of the coronavirus pandemic is a big question mark hanging over the rest of the nomination process; coronavirus has already forced five states to postpone their primaries, and caused both Biden and Sanders to largely suspend the physical aspects of their campaigns like rallies and in-person field organizing.
Whoever emerges from the Democratic primary will face Trump, who along with the Republican National Committee has already raised more than $300 million for his reelection campaign. Recent history tells us Americans usually give their presidents another four years, which should lend Trump an advantage. But the president has been historically unpopular during his first term, and Biden and Sanders look competitive in a hypothetical general election matchup.
The past few months — and days — have demonstrated that really anything can happen. It’s silly to pretend anybody knows how this contest is going to end, and the 2016 election should have humbled all political prognosticators. Still, the 2020 campaign is well underway. Here is what you need to know to get oriented.
Who is running for president in the 2020 election?
On the Republican side, there is, of course, President Donald Trump.
Republican leaders have said they want to protect Trump by having state parties change the rules for their primaries to guard against an insurgency. The GOPer who lasted longest in the race to supplant him was former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, a libertarian-leaning Republican. Weld announced on March 18 he was dropping out of the race.
On the Democratic side, the field is finally down to two.
Former Vice President Joe Biden: Biden thought hard about running in 2016, but he decided against it, being so soon after his son Beau’s death and with the party establishment uniformly behind Hillary Clinton. He’s still very popular with Democratic voters, and the former veep apparently wasn’t sure any of the other potential candidates would beat Trump. Biden had a sizable lead for much of the race in Democratic national polls and had a resurgence around Super Tuesday.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT): The 2016 runner-up is running again. He has the biggest grassroots base of any potential candidate and has led the push to move the party leftward. A more competitive field has presented Sanders with a very different race this time. The senator had a heart attack while on the campaign trail in late 2019 but has recovered. For many on the Democratic left, Sanders is the only candidate with the credibility to pursue their top-tier issues, like Medicare-for-all.
Who has dropped out of the 2020 presidential campaign?
Quite a few Democrats have already given up the ghost, with some of the big names withdrawing once they faltered in the primaries.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI): Gabbard fires up a certain strain of antiwar progressive. Throughout the primary, she faced tough questions, though, about her apparent friendliness with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and her past comments on LGBTQ rights. She gained little traction in polls or early primaries, but stuck in the race throughout the March contests — ultimately picking up two delegates.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): The Massachusetts senator is proudly progressive, though she tended to position herself as wanting to fix capitalism rather than replace it. As a candidate, she wanted to outflank Trump on trade, give workers seats on corporate boards, and tax extreme wealth.
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg: Bloomberg had toyed with a Democratic presidential run, even though he governed the country’s biggest city as an independent for a while. Late in the game, he finally decided to take a shot. He had a few policy wins that he can tout to Democratic voters, most notably on guns. But a centrist billionaire didn’t click with voters when they went to vote.
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg: Something of a viral political star, though he led a city of “just” 100,000 people, Buttigieg is a military veteran and a Rhodes scholar, and he would have been the first openly LGBTQ president in American history.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): She tried to blend her folksy, Midwestern manner with some crossover appeal, given her history of working across the aisle with Republicans and winning elections handily in a purplish state.
Tom Steyer: The billionaire Democratic donor first rose to political prominence for his focus on combating climate change, and started a crusade to convince congressional Democrats to impeach Trump.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): The former Newark, New Jersey, mayor and part-time firefighter was a fresh face with big ideas like savings accounts for newborns, but his work promoting charter schools (not a favorite of the teachers unions) and the perception that he’s close with Wall Street both posed challenges to his candidacy from the start.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA): The former California attorney general started generating White House hype almost as soon as she got to the Senate in 2017. As a younger black woman, she personified the Democratic Party’s changing nature. Harris made a big splash in early polls, but she dropped after stumbles over health care and never recovered.
Andrew Yang: A humanitarian-minded entrepreneur who also served in the Obama administration, he ran on a policy platform that includes, among other things, a universal basic income that would pay out $1,000 a month to every American over 18.
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke: The former Texas Congress member was once 2020’s biggest wild card. O’Rourke built a historically successful fundraising apparatus during his losing 2018 Senate run against Ted Cruz but couldn’t translate it into a viable presidential bid.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio: De Blasio, the mayor of America’s biggest city and already the unlikely victor of a contentious Democratic primary to get there, touted his progressive achievements in the Big Apple as a model for the nation: enacting universal pre-K, ending stop-and-frisk, and creating an ambitious local health care program.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): Gillibrand had evolved over the years from a centrist Democrat in the House to a progressive. She was presenting herself as a young mom in tune with the Me Too era and the Democratic women who powered the party to historic wins in the 2018 midterms.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO): Bennet is a well-regarded but nationally little-known senator. He tacks toward the center ideologically, and the passion that fueled his candidacy was a fervent frustration with the way Washington works now.
Former San Antonio mayor and HUD Secretary Julián Castro: Castro got VP buzz in prior elections; this time, he ran his own campaign after serving in Obama’s Cabinet on an aspirational message as the grandson of immigrants.
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper: Hickenlooper is a moderate ex-governor who pitched his ability to work across the aisle. After dropping out of the presidential race, he decided to run for the Democratic nomination to challenge GOP Sen. Cory Gardner in 2020 instead.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee: Inslee centered his work on environmental issues and the threat of climate change. He has pushed a bill to get his home state off coal energy and all other carbon-producing energy sources by 2045. He has opted instead to seek a third term as governor.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA): Another Nancy Pelosi skeptic who helped lead the unsuccessful rebellion to stop her from becoming House speaker again in 2016. The Massachusetts representative, who is an Iraq War veteran, positioned himself as a moderate in contrast to the socialist energy animating the left and seeking to take over his party.
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH): The Ohio Congress member pitched himself as the Democratic answer for Trump country, arguing he can connect with the blue-collar workers the party has lost in the Midwest.
Former Sen. Mike Gravel: The 88-year-old former senator, famed for reading the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record, ran 2020’s oddest campaign. Two teenagers convinced Gravel to launch a protest candidacy targeting the center left and the forever wars of mainstream American foreign policy. He endorsed Gabbard and Sanders after he exited the race.
Miramar, Florida, Mayor Wayne Messam: The mayor of a Miami suburb, Messam had perhaps the lowest name recognition of any Democrat in the race. The son of Jamaican immigrants, he’s raised wages for city workers as mayor and confronted the Republican-led state government over gun control.
Former Rep. Joe Sestak: The retired three-star admiral and former Pennsylvania representative in Congress was a late entry to the race, announcing his campaign three days before the first Democratic debates. Sestak pitched himself heavily on his naval experience — his campaign logo prominently features the moniker “Adm. Joe” — and the global leadership experience he says it provides.
Marianne Williamson: A self-proclaimed “bitch for God” who has been a spiritual adviser to Oprah. Her previous political experience was a failed run for Congress as an independent in 2014.
Former Rep. John Delaney: The most notable thing about Delaney was he ran for president for more than two years, more or less living in Iowa, the first state on the presidential calendar. But he rarely polled above 1 percent there or anywhere else.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick: Patrick had sworn off a presidential bid initially, but he reversed course and jumped into the campaign in November 2019. He never made a mark.
When are the next 2020 Democratic presidential primary election debates?
The Democratic National Committee announced it would hold 12 debates, starting in June 2019 and extending into 2020.
The 11th debate of the Democratic primary was held on March 15 in Washington DC; the location was switched from Arizona and held without an audience to reduce the risk of coronavirus transmission. No future debates have been announced yet.
When are the 2020 Democratic presidential primary election and caucus nights?
Early momentum is always critical, especially in a big field with so many candidates trying to prove that they’re viable. With that in mind, here are the next two months of the Democratic primary schedule. Five states have postponed the dates of their contests due to coronavirus concerns: Ohio, Georgia, Maryland, Kentucky, and Louisiana.
March 29: Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico April 4: Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming
Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming April 7 : Wisconsin
: Wisconsin April 28: Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island
How do you win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination?
The short version is you have to win a majority of the delegates.
Every state has different rules for its primary elections or caucuses in terms of allocating delegates. Candidates win delegates proportional to where they finish in the results, though they generally have to hit a minimum threshold of 15 percent to be awarded any delegates.
There will be an estimated 3,979 delegates for the 2020 Democratic National Convention (where the nominee will be formally selected) up for grabs during the primary elections. One candidate needs to win at least 1,991 delegates to be nominated.
You might hear talk of a “brokered” or “contested” convention if no candidate gets the necessary delegates to win on the first ballot. That currently seems very unlikely. The FiveThirtyEight forecast, as of March 19, projects that there’s a one-in-100 chance of no candidate getting a majority of votes (which also doesn’t necessarily mean a contested convention). There hasn’t been a brokered convention in decades.
Democrats have made one major change from the 2016 primary on “superdelegates” — elected officials, party leaders, and other prominent Democrats who have votes in addition to the regular delegates awarded by state elections. In the past, superdelegates didn’t have to follow any rules and could back whichever candidate they desire and make up their minds at any point in the process. When most of them endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016, it gave her a built-in delegate advantage over Bernie Sanders, though she still won enough votes independent of the superdelegates to secure the nomination.
In a series of reforms, the DNC has stripped superdelegates of a vote on the first ballot. So unless the convention has to move to second or third votes because no candidate has a sufficient number of delegates — something that hasn’t happened since the 1950s — superdelegates won’t matter in 2020. (Arguably, they never did. Many pointed out it was unlikely for superdelegates to use their power to overturn the outcome of the primary system, but it nevertheless created consternation within the party.)
Okay. So who will be the next president?
Ha! You almost got me.


vox--2020-03-02--Twitter told its 5,000 employees to work from home because of the coronavirus

Uncovering and explaining how our digital world is changing — and changing us .
Twitter is encouraging its more than 4,800 employees around the world to work from home in response to the spread of the coronavirus .
It ’ s one of the most drastic steps taken by any tech company so far in response to the outbreak .
Over the last few days , a number of Silicon Valley companies have been coping with the virus ’ s incursion into their workforces .
Two Amazon employees based in Italy have contracted the coronavirus , and Facebook has reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to work from home .
But Twitter went a step further on Tuesday .
“ Beginning today , we are strongly encouraging all employees globally to work from home if they ’ re able , ” the company said in a blog post .
“ Our goal is to lower the probability of the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus for us — and the world around us .
We are operating out of an abundance of caution and the utmost dedication to keeping our Tweeps healthy.
” Twitter is also requiring its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and South Korea to work from home , which it said in a blog post that it is mandating “ due in part to government restrictions.
” The company said that US offices would still be open for employees who feel the need to come in person .
“ While this is a big change for us , we have already been moving towards a more distributed workforce that ’ s increasingly remote , ” Twitter said .
Twitter had previously banned “ non-critical ” business travel , which included the cancellation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the South By Southwest conference in Austin later this month .
The virus has already led to precipitous drops in the value of tech stocks ; reduced revenue projections from giants like Apple ; new travel restrictions on tech employees ’ travel to China , where the virus began ; and cancellations of the glitzy conferences hosted by companies like Facebook .
There have been 15 confirmed cases of the virus in the United States , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , including one death in Washington state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARS-CoV-2 , or the name for the novel coronavirus .
The growing number of cases outside of China — in South Korea , the number of cases has jumped to 3,150 — has sparked some alarm as health officials around the world race to contain the coronavirus ’ s spread .

Twitter is encouraging its more than 4,800 employees around the world to work from home in response to the spread of the coronavirus. It’s one of the most drastic steps taken by any tech company so far in response to the outbreak.
Over the last few days, a number of Silicon Valley companies have been coping with the virus’s incursion into their workforces. Two Amazon employees based in Italy have contracted the coronavirus, and Facebook has reportedly advised its employees to “feel free” to work from home.
But Twitter went a step further on Tuesday.
“Beginning today, we are strongly encouraging all employees globally to work from home if they’re able,” the company said in a blog post. “Our goal is to lower the probability of the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus for us — and the world around us. We are operating out of an abundance of caution and the utmost dedication to keeping our Tweeps healthy.”
Twitter is also requiring its employees based in Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea to work from home, which it said in a blog post that it is mandating “due in part to government restrictions.”
The company said that US offices would still be open for employees who feel the need to come in person.
“While this is a big change for us, we have already been moving towards a more distributed workforce that’s increasingly remote,” Twitter said.
Twitter had previously banned “non-critical” business travel, which included the cancellation of CEO Jack Dorsey’s appearance at the South By Southwest conference in Austin later this month.
The virus has already led to precipitous drops in the value of tech stocks; reduced revenue projections from giants like Apple; new travel restrictions on tech employees’ travel to China, where the virus began; and cancellations of the glitzy conferences hosted by companies like Facebook.
There have been 15 confirmed cases of the virus in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including one death in Washington state. Covid-19 is the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, or the name for the novel coronavirus. The growing number of cases outside of China — in South Korea, the number of cases has jumped to 3,150 — has sparked some alarm as health officials around the world race to contain the coronavirus’s spread.