vox--2020-04-22--A disturbing new study suggests Sean Hannity helped spread the coronavirus

Throughout the coronavirus pandemic , media critics have warned that the decision from leading Fox News hosts to downplay the outbreak could cost lives .
A new study provides statistical evidence that , in the case of Sean Hannity , that ’ s exactly what happened .
The paper — from economists Leonardo Bursztyn , Aakaash Rao , Christopher Roth , and David Yanagizawa-Drott — focused on Fox news programming in February and early March .
At the time , Hannity ’ s show was downplaying or ignoring the virus , while fellow Fox host Tucker Carlson was warning viewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Using both a poll of Fox News viewers over age 55 and publicly available data on television-watching patterns , they calculate that Fox viewers who watched Hannity rather than Carlson were less likely to adhere to social distancing rules , and that areas where more people watched Hannity relative to Carlson had higher local rates of infection and death .
“ Greater exposure to Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight leads to a greater number of COVID-19 cases and deaths , ” they write .
“ A one-standard deviation increase in relative viewership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with approximately 30 percent more COVID-19 cases on March 14 , and 21 percent more COVID-19 deaths on March 28.
” This is a working paper ; it hasn ’ t been peer reviewed or accepted for publication at a journal .
However , it ’ s consistent with a wide body of research finding that media consumption in general , and Fox News viewership in particular , can have a pretty powerful effect on individual behavior .
Some of this research has found , for example , that TV consumption can affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have children .
It makes sense that an older American ’ s favorite TV host telling them they don ’ t need to worry about the coronavirus would cause them to ignore stay-at-home orders and care less about thoroughly washing their hands .
What ’ s more , the research design on this particular study seems quite rigorous , according to those scholars who have taken early looks .
“ It ’ s a good paper ; they took pains to control for many alternative explanations , ” writes Zeynep Tufecki , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina who studies technology and research methods .
“ This really looks like a causal effect of misinformation [ leading ] to deaths.
” The paper is technically quite complex , but it ( more or less ) breaks down into three parts .
First , the authors provide evidence that there was a difference in how Hannity and Carlson covered the coronavirus outbreak in February and early March .
Second , they present data from their poll showing that Hannity viewers were less likely to follow social distancing rules than Carlson viewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ television viewership and the coronavirus to show that higher rates of Hannity viewership relative to Carlson viewership were correlated with higher rates of local infection and death .
It ’ s pretty clear , from the first section , that Carlson took this way more seriously than Hannity .
On February 25 , Carlson warned that the virus could kill as many as a million Americans .
On February 27 , Hannity said it was less dangerous than car crashes or the common flu .
These are not cherry-picked examples .
The authors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcripts and a review of these transcripts by five paid staff , find systematic differences in how much the shows covered the coronavirus and how seriously they told their audiences to take it .
“ Both anchors first discussed the coronavirus in late January when the first US case was reported , but Carlson continued to discuss the subject extensively throughout February while Hannity did not again mention it on his show until the end of the month , ” they write .
“ While Hannity discussed the coronavirus as frequently as Carlson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriousness and accused Democrats of using it as a partisan tool to undermine the administration.
” These differences persist until mid-March , when Trump banned travel from Europe and declared a state of emergency .
Around that time , Hannity started to sound a lot more like Carlson ( though Hannity didn ’ t stay responsible all that long , while Carlson inveighed against social distancing in April and praised anti-distancing protestors ) .
Next , the researchers investigated if this difference in tone actually affected the way viewers of the two programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they conducted a nationally representative survey of 1,045 Republicans aged 55 and up who reported watching Fox News at least once a week .
They chose to study this demographic specifically because older Republicans were more likely to watch Fox and because older people in general are more vulnerable to the coronavirus .
In the survey , they ask viewers which shows they watched and how much they watched them .
They also asked when , if it all , they started changing their behavior in response to the outbreak — things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing , and washing their hands with increased frequency .
They then ran a regression analysis to see if behavior changes correlated with any viewership patterns .
It turned out that , when compared to viewers of other Fox News shows , both Hannity and Carlson fans were distinct and statistically significant outliers .
“ Viewers of Hannity changed their behavior five days later than viewers of other shows , ” they write .
“ Viewers of Tucker Carlson Tonight changed their behavior three days earlier than viewers of other shows.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two different regression models to show that , in fact , there is good reason to believe that Hannity viewership did increase coronavirus deaths relative to Carlson viewership .
In the first model , they compare data on the two shows ’ ratings in different areas to county-level data on coronavirus infections and deaths .
Specifically , they compare Hannity viewership to coronavirus rates two weeks later — the time it would take for the virus to start presenting in virtually all infected , symptomatic individuals .
After controlling for a number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewership rates to demographic factors like race , they find a clear relationship : Areas with greater Hannity viewership had more cases and more deaths .
This relationship weakened after Hannity changes his show ’ s tune in mid-March , suggesting that it is in fact the programming driving the changes .
“ A one standard deviation greater viewership difference is associated with approximately 2 percent more cases on March 7 , 5 percent more cases on March 14 , and 11 percent more cases on March 21 , ” they write .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a two-week lag.
” To be clear , this doesn ’ t show that Hannity viewers are necessarily the ones getting sick and dying .
It could be that they ’ re asymptomatic carriers , simply spreading the disease to others without suffering themselves .
All this regression shows is that higher Hannity viewership in a particular area is correlated with higher coronavirus infection rates and deaths in that area .
It ’ s possible that there ’ s some hidden variable they couldn ’ t control for driving this effect , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s something about people who choose to watch Hannity rather than Carlson that makes them less likely to take social distancing seriously .
That ’ s where the second regression model comes in .
It exploits a pattern the authors identified in television viewership : It tends to be highest 2.5 hours after the sun sets , regardless of what ’ s on the air .
This makes sense : People like to be outside or doing other stuff during daylight hours , settle in at home to watch TV for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then tend to go to bed within a couple of hours .
Around the country , Carlson ’ s show is broadcast in the hour before Hannity ’ s .
This sets up a random experiment : In counties where the sun sets earlier , Carlson viewership will be higher ( and vice-versa when the sun sets later ) .
This isn ’ t because people prefer Carlson to Hannity for any particular reason , but simply because they want to watch something on Fox and Carlson ’ s show happens to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to remove the possibility that it ’ s something about the kind of people who watch the shows , rather than the programing itself , that ’ s driving the results .
In a second regression incorporating the sunset data , focusing on media markets where Fox is popular while once again controlling for confounders , the relationship holds : Places where Hannity viewership is randomly higher than Carlson viewership tend to have higher rates of infection and deaths .
“ Greater exposure to Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight increased the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the initial stages of the coronavirus pandemic , ” the authors conclude .
“ Our findings indicate that provision of misinformation in the early stages of a pandemic can have important consequences for health outcomes.
” Why the finding that Sean Hannity killed people is disturbingly plausible It ’ s important to be cautious about drawing sweeping conclusions from this paper , for two broad reasons .
First , the authors caution that their findings are limited to the comparison between Hannity and Carlson .
All they claim to show is that watching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get sick and die than watching the latter , not any kind of more generalizable statement .
They haven ’ t proved that watching Hannity rather than ( say ) MSNBC or a scripted drama would make a random person more likely to get sick , nor that watching Carlson instead of those sources would make them more likely to stay healthy .
Because the study only looked at Fox viewers , it ’ s difficult to draw conclusions about the network ’ s effect more broadly .
In theory , mainstream media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should mean that switching between it and Carlson would have little effect on a news consumer ’ s behavior and health — but choosing to watch Hannity rather than a mainstream source would have a large one .
That ’ s really just a guess , though ; there ’ s no direct evidence for this in the paper itself .
Second , drawing sweeping conclusions from one paper is always a bad idea .
The social sciences in particular are notoriously difficult , dealing with complex phenomenon using imperfect data .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been formally peer reviewed means that , despite its impressive design and positive reviews from scholars who have read it so far , you should be especially cautious .
These caveats aside , there are several reasons to think that the conclusion in this paper is at least close to the truth .
First , we know that the response to the coronavirus has been deeply affected by partisan attitudes .
Polls and regression analyses consistently find that Republicans are considerably less likely than Democrats to embrace social distancing measures , seemingly as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the issues .
Given Fox News ’ overwhelming popularity among Republicans , it ’ s at least plausible that some of this effect comes from Hannity and other coronavirus skeptics on the network ( Carlson ’ s early programming was an outlier ) .
Second , we know that Fox News in general has powerful effects on American political behavior .
A 2007 study on Fox News ’ initial rollout found that areas where the channel was available showed much better results for Republicans in both the 2000 presidential and Senate elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have swung the entire presidential election given the razor-thin margin separating Bush and Gore .
A 2017 study used data on the 2000 , 2004 , and 2008 presidential elections to show that the expansion of Fox News ’ availability and viewership had significantly increased the advantage the network offered Republicans .
Fox shifted the the 2000 results in their direction by about 0.46 percentage points nationally in 2000 , 3.59 in 2004 , and 6.34 in 2008 .
If Fox News can affect the way Americans vote , it ’ s at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect the way they approach a novel and confusing pandemic .
Third , television in general appears to affect the way people make decisions about their health .
One particularly interesting study looked at the popularity of Brazilian soap operas ( novelas ) on fertility .
These shows tended to feature women with one child or none at all ; the study ’ s authors found that , as these shows became more popular , the fertility rate of Brazilian women tended to fall .
This does not appear to be an accident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in years immediately following novelas that portrayed messages of upward social mobility , ” the authors write .
“ The effect ... in any given year was stronger for women whose age was closer to that of the main female characters portrayed that year.
” It seems that people really do see media as a guide to some of their most intimate life choices .
Given how much a certain segment of older , white , conservative Americans trust Fox , it seems very plausible that they took cues from their favorite anchors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For some Americans , that choice may well have been a fatal one .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, media critics have warned that the decision from leading Fox News hosts to downplay the outbreak could cost lives. A new study provides statistical evidence that, in the case of Sean Hannity, that’s exactly what happened.
The paper — from economists Leonardo Bursztyn, Aakaash Rao, Christopher Roth, and David Yanagizawa-Drott — focused on Fox news programming in February and early March.
At the time, Hannity’s show was downplaying or ignoring the virus, while fellow Fox host Tucker Carlson was warning viewers about the disease’s risks.
Using both a poll of Fox News viewers over age 55 and publicly available data on television-watching patterns, they calculate that Fox viewers who watched Hannity rather than Carlson were less likely to adhere to social distancing rules, and that areas where more people watched Hannity relative to Carlson had higher local rates of infection and death.
“Greater exposure to Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight leads to a greater number of COVID-19 cases and deaths,” they write. “A one-standard deviation increase in relative viewership of Hannity relative to Carlson is associated with approximately 30 percent more COVID-19 cases on March 14, and 21 percent more COVID-19 deaths on March 28.”
This is a working paper; it hasn’t been peer reviewed or accepted for publication at a journal. However, it’s consistent with a wide body of research finding that media consumption in general, and Fox News viewership in particular, can have a pretty powerful effect on individual behavior.
Some of this research has found, for example, that TV consumption can affect decisions as intimate as whether or not to have children. It makes sense that an older American’s favorite TV host telling them they don’t need to worry about the coronavirus would cause them to ignore stay-at-home orders and care less about thoroughly washing their hands.
What’s more, the research design on this particular study seems quite rigorous, according to those scholars who have taken early looks.
“It’s a good paper; they took pains to control for many alternative explanations,” writes Zeynep Tufecki, a professor at the University of North Carolina who studies technology and research methods.
“This really looks like a causal effect of misinformation [leading] to deaths.”
How the study worked
The paper is technically quite complex, but it (more or less) breaks down into three parts.
First, the authors provide evidence that there was a difference in how Hannity and Carlson covered the coronavirus outbreak in February and early March. Second, they present data from their poll showing that Hannity viewers were less likely to follow social distancing rules than Carlson viewers. Third, they used data on television viewership and the coronavirus to show that higher rates of Hannity viewership relative to Carlson viewership were correlated with higher rates of local infection and death.
It seems pretty clear, from the first section, that Carlson took this way more seriously than Hannity. On February 25, Carlson warned that the virus could kill as many as a million Americans. On February 27, Hannity said it was less dangerous than car crashes or the common flu.
In a statement, a Fox spokesperson disputed that these examples fairly conveyed the tone of their programming.
“The selective cherry-picked clips of Sean Hannity’s coverage used in this study are not only reckless and irresponsible, but down right factually wrong,” the spokesperson said. “As this timeline proves, Hannity has covered Covid-19 since the early days of the story. The ‘study’ almost completely ignores his coverage and repeated, specific warnings and concerns from January 27-February 26 including an early interview with Dr. Fauci in January. This is a reckless disregard for the truth.”
But the authors did more than highlight a few specific examples. They also used both a data analysis of transcripts and a systematic coding of show transcripts by five paid reviewers — methods that together exposed uncovered systematic differences in how much the shows covered the coronavirus and how seriously they told their audiences to take it.
“Both anchors first discussed the coronavirus in late January when the first US case was reported, but Carlson continued to discuss the subject extensively throughout February while Hannity did not again mention it on his show until the end of the month,” they write. “While Hannity discussed the coronavirus as frequently as Carlson during early March, he downplayed its seriousness and accused Democrats of using it as a partisan tool to undermine the administration.”
These differences persist until mid-March, when Trump banned travel from Europe and declared a state of emergency. Around that time, Hannity started to sound a lot more like Carlson (though Hannity didn’t stay responsible all that long, while Carlson inveighed against social distancing in April and praised anti-distancing protestors).
Next, the researchers investigated if this difference in tone actually affected the way viewers of the two programs thought about coronavirus. To do so, they conducted a nationally representative survey of 1,045 Republicans aged 55 and up who reported watching Fox News at least once a week. They chose to study this demographic specifically because older Republicans were more likely to watch Fox and because older people in general are more vulnerable to the coronavirus.
In the survey, they ask viewers which shows they watched and how much they watched them. They also asked when, if it all, they started changing their behavior in response to the outbreak — things like canceling their vacation plans, doing social distancing, and washing their hands with increased frequency.
They then ran a regression analysis to see if behavior changes correlated with any viewership patterns. It turned out that, when compared to viewers of other Fox News shows, both Hannity and Carlson fans were distinct and statistically significant outliers.
“Viewers of Hannity changed their behavior five days later than viewers of other shows,” they write. “Viewers of Tucker Carlson Tonight changed their behavior three days earlier than viewers of other shows.”
The final part of the paper uses two different regression models to show that, in fact, there is good reason to believe that Hannity viewership did increase coronavirus deaths relative to Carlson viewership.
In the first model, they compare data on the two shows’ ratings in different areas to county-level data on coronavirus infections and deaths. Specifically, they compare Hannity viewership to coronavirus rates two weeks later — the time it would take for the virus to start presenting in virtually all infected, symptomatic individuals.
After controlling for a number of confounding variables, ranging from overall television viewership rates to demographic factors like race, they find a clear relationship: Areas with greater Hannity viewership had more cases and more deaths. This relationship weakened after Hannity changes his show’s tune in mid-March, suggesting that it is in fact the programming driving the changes.
“A one standard deviation greater viewership difference is associated with approximately 2 percent more cases on March 7, 5 percent more cases on March 14, and 11 percent more cases on March 21,” they write. “Deaths follow a similar trajectory on a two-week lag.”
To be clear, this doesn’t show that Hannity viewers are necessarily the ones getting sick and dying. It could be that they’re asymptomatic carriers, simply spreading the disease to others without suffering themselves. All this regression shows is that higher Hannity viewership in a particular area is correlated with higher coronavirus infection rates and deaths in that area.
It’s possible that there’s some hidden variable they couldn’t control for driving this effect, rather than the programming itself. Maybe there’s something about people who choose to watch Hannity rather than Carlson that makes them less likely to take social distancing seriously.
That’s where the second regression model comes in. It exploits a pattern the authors identified in television viewership: It tends to be highest 2.5 hours after the sun sets, regardless of what’s on the air. This makes sense: People like to be outside or doing other stuff during daylight hours, settle in at home to watch TV for a bit after the sun sets, and then tend to go to bed within a couple of hours.
Around the country, Carlson’s show is broadcast in the hour before Hannity’s. This sets up a random experiment: In counties where the sun sets earlier, Carlson viewership will be higher (and vice-versa when the sun sets later). This isn’t because people prefer Carlson to Hannity for any particular reason, but simply because they want to watch something on Fox and Carlson’s show happens to be on.
Studying this random pattern allows them to remove the possibility that it’s something about the kind of people who watch the shows, rather than the programing itself, that’s driving the results.
In a second regression incorporating the sunset data, focusing on media markets where Fox is popular while once again controlling for confounders, the relationship holds: Places where Hannity viewership is randomly higher than Carlson viewership tend to have higher rates of infection and deaths.
“Greater exposure to Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight increased the number of total cases and deaths in the initial stages of the coronavirus pandemic,” the authors conclude. “Our findings indicate that provision of misinformation in the early stages of a pandemic can have important consequences for health outcomes.”
Why the finding that Sean Hannity killed people is disturbingly plausible
It’s important to be cautious about drawing sweeping conclusions from this paper, for two broad reasons.
First, the authors caution that their findings are limited to the comparison between Hannity and Carlson. All they claim to show is that watching the former made people more likely to get sick and die than watching the latter, not any kind of more generalizable statement. They haven’t proved that watching Hannity rather than (say) MSNBC or a scripted drama would make a random person more likely to get sick, nor that watching Carlson instead of those sources would make them more likely to stay healthy.
Because the study only looked at Fox viewers, it’s difficult to draw conclusions about the network’s effect more broadly. In theory, mainstream media’s more serious tone in February should mean that switching between it and Carlson would have little effect on a news consumer’s behavior and health — but choosing to watch Hannity rather than a mainstream source would have a large one. That’s really just a guess, though; there’s no direct evidence for this in the paper itself.
Second, drawing sweeping conclusions from one paper is always a bad idea. The social sciences in particular are notoriously difficult, dealing with complex phenomenon using imperfect data. The fact that this study hasn’t been formally peer reviewed means that, despite its impressive design and positive reviews from scholars who have read it so far, you should be especially cautious.
These caveats aside, there are several reasons to think that the conclusion in this paper is at least close to the truth.
First, we know that the response to the coronavirus has been deeply affected by partisan attitudes. Polls and regression analyses consistently find that Republicans are considerably less likely than Democrats to embrace social distancing measures, seemingly as a result of the overall partisan debate over the issues.
Given Fox News’ overwhelming popularity among Republicans, it’s at least plausible that some of this effect comes from Hannity and other coronavirus skeptics on the network (Carlson’s early programming was an outlier).
Second, we know that Fox News in general has powerful effects on American political behavior.
A 2007 study on Fox News’ initial rollout found that areas where the channel was available showed much better results for Republicans in both the 2000 presidential and Senate elections. The effect was significant enough to have swung the entire presidential election given the razor-thin margin separating Bush and Gore.
A 2017 study used data on the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections to show that the expansion of Fox News’ availability and viewership had significantly increased the advantage the network offered Republicans. Fox shifted the the 2000 results in their direction by about 0.46 percentage points nationally in 2000, 3.59 in 2004, and 6.34 in 2008.
If Fox News can affect the way Americans vote, it’s at least plausible to say that it might affect the way they approach a novel and confusing pandemic.
Third, television in general appears to affect the way people make decisions about their health. One particularly interesting study looked at the popularity of Brazilian soap operas (novelas) on fertility. These shows tended to feature women with one child or none at all; the study’s authors found that, as these shows became more popular, the fertility rate of Brazilian women tended to fall. This does not appear to be an accident.
“Decreases in fertility were stronger in years immediately following novelas that portrayed messages of upward social mobility,” the authors write. “The effect ... in any given year was stronger for women whose age was closer to that of the main female characters portrayed that year.”
It seems that people really do see media as a guide to some of their most intimate life choices. Given how much a certain segment of older, white, conservative Americans trust Fox, it seems very plausible that they took cues from their favorite anchors on how to handle the coronavirus outbreak.
For some Americans, that choice may well have been a fatal one.


vox--2020-04-22--Why Iran is still attacking American troops during the pandemic

Iran has been decimated by the spread of the novel coronavirus , with more than 83,000 diagnosed cases and 5,200 deaths as of April 20 — at least according to official figures , which are likely much lower than the real numbers .
One official from the country ’ s medical council estimates that the total number of positive cases could be as high as half a million .
The country ’ s economy is in shambles , to the point that the Iranian government has chosen to resume what President Hassan Rouhani calls “ low-risk business activities , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country warn of the consequences and urge Iranians to continue to stay at home .
And the drastic drop in the price of crude oil will only serve to further weaken Iran ’ s already weakened economy .
But if you thought a deadly pandemic and staggering economic crisis would be enough to convince Iran to at least pause its efforts to confront the United States in the Middle East , you ’ d be wrong .
Despite the crippling toll of the pandemic , which has infected several high-ranking members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps ( IRGC ) , Tehran has continued to work tirelessly to eject the last remaining US forces from Iraq and consolidate its influence over the Iraqi political establishment .
It ’ s largely doing so through the proxy militia groups it supports in Iraq , which in recent weeks have launched attacks targeting US forces and assets in that country , including one that killed two Americans on March 11 .
Last week , the IRGC resumed provocative actions in the Persian Gulf , harassing the US Navy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midst of grappling with an out-of-control pandemic and an economy in free fall , would Tehran devote time and money to fighting the US ?
The answer , at least in part , is that the Iranian government believes the United States is particularly weak right now , too .
With Washington ’ s ineptitude on full display in its domestic response to the coronavirus , few people outside of a select group of Iran hawks — which includes Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — have much of an appetite for continued clashes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the IRGC in the Persian Gulf right now .
The United States is also a convenient scapegoat and distraction that the Iranian regime regularly uses to deflect attention from its own failures .
Facing growing criticism at home and abroad for their abysmal response to the Covid-19 outbreak , Iranian leaders have tried to shift the blame to the US — particularly the stringent economic sanctions Washington has placed on the country , which Iranian leaders say ( not entirely unfairly ) are hampering the country ’ s ability to respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a well-resourced propaganda effort have also spread the conspiracy theory that the US and Israel — typical Iranian foils — were responsible for starting the coronavirus pandemic .
State media and social media accounts have also been creating and amplifying content in an effort to highlight the poor response to the disease and partisan infighting in the United States .
So while some observers may have expected Iran ’ s leaders to suspend some of their aggressive activities in order to devote their full attention to dealing with the coronavirus outbreak at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Iran is actually ramping up its fight against the US .
The coronavirus pandemic has presented Iran with a unique opportunity to challenge the US The US assassination of Qassem Soleimani on January 3 , 2020 , was intended to not only take Iran ’ s most capable military figure off the battlefield but also to “ reestablish deterrence ” — that is , to raise the stakes so that Iranian-backed militias in Iraq would think twice about attacking US forces in the country going forward .
However , a series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cowed , these militias appear to have been emboldened .
In all likelihood , Iran is only in the nascent stages of responding to the death of Soleimani .
In part , Iran and its proxies are carrying out the strategy they announced back in January .
After an initial aggressive response in the form of missile attacks against two bases in Iraq housing US troops , Iran vowed to continue the fight until America was pushed out of Iraq .
And it was clear that this mission would not be carried out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in classic Iranian form , via its proxies .
But Tehran could not have anticipated then that a global pandemic would provide the backdrop for these continued tensions with its adversary .
And the public health crisis is increasing the sense of urgency surrounding Iran ’ s efforts in Iraq and accelerating its timelines .
The coronavirus pandemic sweeping throughout the world has led the United States to draw down its forces , repositioning soldiers within Iraq and consolidating troops to fewer bases .
US special forces soldiers have been withdrawn from some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active conflict zones , leaving local host-nation forces to contend with an array of well-equipped and battle-hardened terrorists , insurgents , and militias .
This has presented Iran with a unique opportunity to expand and consolidate its control in Iraq and push the US entirely out .
And the country ’ s leaders aren ’ t going to squander their chance .
From Tehran , the United States looks at its weakest in years .
The country is struggling to formulate a coherent and effective response to Covid-19 .
The divisions between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glaring .
In terms of US-Iran tensions , US allies in Europe place much of the blame on America , not the Islamic Republic .
In the region , the US is being pressured , and at home , there ’ s a deep discontent with the status quo on both sides of the aisle .
So , Tehran is resuming the actions that nearly brought the two countries to the brink of war throughout 2019 , including proxy attacks in Iraq and on-again , off-again harassment in the Persian Gulf .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s winning in Syria , Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif visited Damascus on Monday to meet with Assad .
Zarif ’ s visit is both practical and symbolic , a means of face-to-face planning for what both countries see as the final phase of the Syrian conflict and as a photo opportunity to remind the world that the United States ’ role in Syria has reached a nadir .
Washington will have little , if any , role in shaping the future of Syria while Tehran and Moscow divvy up the spoils , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran may pull back from other less important regional battlefields during the pandemic .
But not Iraq .
Another consequence of the pandemic could very well be that Iran scales back its regional ambitions , at least for the immediate future , and channels its resources to focus on its immediate neighbors — Iraq and Afghanistan .
Prior to the Covid-19 outbreak , Iran would have viewed this as a downgrading of its regional standing , but now that America is drawing down in the region too , this may actually be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , Iran has already effectively achieved its objectives in Syria and Yemen and no longer needs to maintain a robust presence in those countries .
In Syria , President Bashar al-Assad — a close Iranian ally — is now firmly in control of the country and no longer at risk of falling to pro-democracy rebels or Sunni Islamist militants ( both outcomes Iran desperately wanted to avoid ) .
In Yemen , Iran ’ s regional rival Saudi Arabia and its allies have been bogged down by a group of rebels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its reputation , as civilian casualties continue to mount in Yemen , putting Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudi leadership at odds with influential members of the US Congress .
A more targeted foreign policy could yield results for Iran , especially if the regime is able to stack a series of victories in quick succession .
The crown jewels of this strategy include consolidating control over Shia foreign fighter militias in Syria and pushing the United States out of Iraq once and for all .
The visit of Soleimani ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gen. Esmail Qaani , to Baghdad in late March was met with a statement from US President Donald Trump warning Iran not to move forward with what he labeled a planned “ sneak attack ” on US forces , suggesting “ Iran will pay a very heavy price ” if it chooses to do so .
But the United States would be wise to show constraint in its approach toward Iran .
The Soleimani assassination backfired in the sense that it empowered anti-American elements within Iraq and helped elevate Iraqi politicians that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wishes and hasten the withdrawal of American troops .
Of course , the United States shouldn ’ t just sit on its hands if Iranian attacks claim US lives , but any US response should be properly calibrated and proportional .
Moving forward , the Trump administration should work to introduce potential off-ramps that allow the two countries to pause their conflict as they ( and the rest of the international community ) focus on addressing the global pandemic .
And once the US finally gets a handle on its own coronavirus outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to demonstrate goodwill toward Iran .
Choosing this path is both the right thing to do and is in the US ’ s interest .
This extends to rather simple steps like making it easier for Iran to acquire medical devices and medicine , including tests and masks .
This would go a long way toward debunking Iran ’ s propaganda , which claims the United States has sanctioned humanitarian goods , such as medical equipment and medicine ( it hasn ’ t ) .
In the end , it could end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is able to .
Colin P. Clarke is a senior research fellow at The Soufan Center and an assistant teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University ’ s Institute for Politics & Strategy ( IPS ) .
Follow him on Twitter @ ColinPClarke .
Ariane Tabatabai is the Middle East Fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund and adjunct senior research scholar at the Columbia University School of Public and International Affairs ( SIPA ) .
Follow her on Twitter @ ArianeTabatabai .
Every day at Vox , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Iran has been decimated by the spread of the novel coronavirus, with more than 83,000 diagnosed cases and 5,200 deaths as of April 20 — at least according to official figures, which are likely much lower than the real numbers. One official from the country’s medical council estimates that the total number of positive cases could be as high as half a million.
The country’s economy is in shambles, to the point that the Iranian government has chosen to resume what President Hassan Rouhani calls “low-risk business activities,” even as public health experts in the country warn of the consequences and urge Iranians to continue to stay at home. And the drastic drop in the price of crude oil will only serve to further weaken Iran’s already weakened economy.
But if you thought a deadly pandemic and staggering economic crisis would be enough to convince Iran to at least pause its efforts to confront the United States in the Middle East, you’d be wrong.
Despite the crippling toll of the pandemic, which has infected several high-ranking members of the regime as well as untold numbers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Tehran has continued to work tirelessly to eject the last remaining US forces from Iraq and consolidate its influence over the Iraqi political establishment.
It’s largely doing so through the proxy militia groups it supports in Iraq, which in recent weeks have launched attacks targeting US forces and assets in that country, including one that killed two Americans on March 11. Last week, the IRGC resumed provocative actions in the Persian Gulf, harassing the US Navy there.
The @CJTFOIR confirms at least (25) 107mm rockets impacted Iraq's Camp Taji base hosting Coalition troops, March 14 at 10:51 a.m. (Iraq Time). 3-Coalition WIA, 2-Iraqi WIA. Assessment and investigation ongoing, follow @OIRSpox & @SecMedCell for updates. https://t.co/q3ybQYJU40 pic.twitter.com/3JqyMnqQYq — OIR Spokesman Col. Myles B. Caggins III (@OIRSpox) March 14, 2020
So why, in the midst of grappling with an out-of-control pandemic and an economy in free fall, would Tehran devote time and money to fighting the US? The answer, at least in part, is that the Iranian government believes the United States is particularly weak right now, too.
With Washington’s ineptitude on full display in its domestic response to the coronavirus, few people outside of a select group of Iran hawks — which includes Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — have much of an appetite for continued clashes with Iranian proxies in Iraq or incidents with the IRGC in the Persian Gulf right now.
The United States is also a convenient scapegoat and distraction that the Iranian regime regularly uses to deflect attention from its own failures.
Facing growing criticism at home and abroad for their abysmal response to the Covid-19 outbreak, Iranian leaders have tried to shift the blame to the US — particularly the stringent economic sanctions Washington has placed on the country, which Iranian leaders say (not entirely unfairly) are hampering the country’s ability to respond to the pandemic.
An Iranian disinformation campaign and a well-resourced propaganda effort have also spread the conspiracy theory that the US and Israel — typical Iranian foils — were responsible for starting the coronavirus pandemic. State media and social media accounts have also been creating and amplifying content in an effort to highlight the poor response to the disease and partisan infighting in the United States.
So while some observers may have expected Iran’s leaders to suspend some of their aggressive activities in order to devote their full attention to dealing with the coronavirus outbreak at home, the reality is the opposite: Iran is actually ramping up its fight against the US.
The coronavirus pandemic has presented Iran with a unique opportunity to challenge the US
The US assassination of Qassem Soleimani on January 3, 2020, was intended to not only take Iran’s most capable military figure off the battlefield but also to “reestablish deterrence” — that is, to raise the stakes so that Iranian-backed militias in Iraq would think twice about attacking US forces in the country going forward.
However, a series of recent attacks shows that far from being cowed, these militias appear to have been emboldened. In all likelihood, Iran is only in the nascent stages of responding to the death of Soleimani.
In part, Iran and its proxies are carrying out the strategy they announced back in January. After an initial aggressive response in the form of missile attacks against two bases in Iraq housing US troops, Iran vowed to continue the fight until America was pushed out of Iraq. And it was clear that this mission would not be carried out directly and overtly by Tehran but, in classic Iranian form, via its proxies.
But Tehran could not have anticipated then that a global pandemic would provide the backdrop for these continued tensions with its adversary. And the public health crisis is increasing the sense of urgency surrounding Iran’s efforts in Iraq and accelerating its timelines.
The coronavirus pandemic sweeping throughout the world has led the United States to draw down its forces, repositioning soldiers within Iraq and consolidating troops to fewer bases. US special forces soldiers have been withdrawn from some of the world’s most dangerous active conflict zones, leaving local host-nation forces to contend with an array of well-equipped and battle-hardened terrorists, insurgents, and militias.
This has presented Iran with a unique opportunity to expand and consolidate its control in Iraq and push the US entirely out. And the country’s leaders aren’t going to squander their chance.
From Tehran, the United States looks at its weakest in years. The country is struggling to formulate a coherent and effective response to Covid-19. The divisions between the United States and its traditional allies are glaring. In terms of US-Iran tensions, US allies in Europe place much of the blame on America, not the Islamic Republic.
In the region, the US is being pressured, and at home, there’s a deep discontent with the status quo on both sides of the aisle. So, Tehran is resuming the actions that nearly brought the two countries to the brink of war throughout 2019, including proxy attacks in Iraq and on-again, off-again harassment in the Persian Gulf.
To remind America and its allies who’s winning in Syria, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif visited Damascus on Monday to meet with Assad. Zarif’s visit is both practical and symbolic, a means of face-to-face planning for what both countries see as the final phase of the Syrian conflict and as a photo opportunity to remind the world that the United States’ role in Syria has reached a nadir.
Washington will have little, if any, role in shaping the future of Syria while Tehran and Moscow divvy up the spoils, including access to strategically important bases.
Iran may pull back from other less important regional battlefields during the pandemic. But not Iraq.
Another consequence of the pandemic could very well be that Iran scales back its regional ambitions, at least for the immediate future, and channels its resources to focus on its immediate neighbors — Iraq and Afghanistan.
Prior to the Covid-19 outbreak, Iran would have viewed this as a downgrading of its regional standing, but now that America is drawing down in the region too, this may actually be a net positive for the Islamic Republic. After all, Iran has already effectively achieved its objectives in Syria and Yemen and no longer needs to maintain a robust presence in those countries.
In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad — a close Iranian ally — is now firmly in control of the country and no longer at risk of falling to pro-democracy rebels or Sunni Islamist militants (both outcomes Iran desperately wanted to avoid).
In Yemen, Iran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia and its allies have been bogged down by a group of rebels. Riyadh has suffered a blow to its reputation, as civilian casualties continue to mount in Yemen, putting Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudi leadership at odds with influential members of the US Congress.
A more targeted foreign policy could yield results for Iran, especially if the regime is able to stack a series of victories in quick succession. The crown jewels of this strategy include consolidating control over Shia foreign fighter militias in Syria and pushing the United States out of Iraq once and for all.
The visit of Soleimani’s successor, IRGC-Quds Force Commander Maj. Gen. Esmail Qaani, to Baghdad in late March was met with a statement from US President Donald Trump warning Iran not to move forward with what he labeled a planned “sneak attack” on US forces, suggesting “Iran will pay a very heavy price” if it chooses to do so.
But the United States would be wise to show constraint in its approach toward Iran. The Soleimani assassination backfired in the sense that it empowered anti-American elements within Iraq and helped elevate Iraqi politicians that are determined to concede to Iran’s wishes and hasten the withdrawal of American troops.
Of course, the United States shouldn’t just sit on its hands if Iranian attacks claim US lives, but any US response should be properly calibrated and proportional. Moving forward, the Trump administration should work to introduce potential off-ramps that allow the two countries to pause their conflict as they (and the rest of the international community) focus on addressing the global pandemic.
And once the US finally gets a handle on its own coronavirus outbreak, it should make a concerted effort to demonstrate goodwill toward Iran. Choosing this path is both the right thing to do and is in the US’s interest. This extends to rather simple steps like making it easier for Iran to acquire medical devices and medicine, including tests and masks.
This would go a long way toward debunking Iran’s propaganda, which claims the United States has sanctioned humanitarian goods, such as medical equipment and medicine (it hasn’t).
In the end, it could end up achieving much more than any drone strike is able to.
Colin P. Clarke is a senior research fellow at The Soufan Center and an assistant teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Institute for Politics & Strategy (IPS). Follow him on Twitter @ColinPClarke.
Ariane Tabatabai is the Middle East Fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund and adjunct senior research scholar at the Columbia University School of Public and International Affairs (SIPA). Follow her on Twitter @ArianeTabatabai.


What day is it today?

Today is Wednesday , April 22 , 2020 , at least in the continental United States .
It is already Thursday , April 23 , in some parts of the world .
To some degree , time is an illusion .
We are bound by its forward passage , being the third-dimensional creatures we are , but the perceptions we have placed upon time have been invented .
Humans invented the year .
Humans invented the month .
Humans invented the day , the hour , the minute , the second .
These distinctions are not arbitrary — it really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth to orbit the sun — but their creation was not inevitable .
Our numerical system is likely base-10 because we have 10 fingers ; the way we understand time is almost entirely dependent on the fact that we evolved on this planet , circling this sun .
Time , at least as we understand it , is also a byproduct of capitalism .
In his seminal 1967 economic paper “ Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism , ” E. P. Thompson notes that in early human cultures , delineations of time were broad understandings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went down , when the seasons changed .
But as industrialization became the norm , time became a mechanized system that no longer served those who ’ d invented it .
We increasingly served at the beck and call of time , for that is how those who possessed capital could best regulate those who performed the labor .
For we are now at a point where sociologists are discussing the “ problem ” of leisure .
And a part of the problem is : how did it come to be a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convenience with industrial capitalism , was the agent which converted men to new valuations of time ; which taught children even in their infancy to improve each shining hour ; and which saturated men ’ s minds with the equation , time is money .
One recurrent form of revolt within Western industrial capitalism , whether bohemian or beatnik , has often taken the form of flouting the urgency of respectable timevalues .
And the interesting question arises : if Puritanism was a necessary part of the work-ethos which enabled the industrialized world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the past , will the Puritan valuation of time begin to decompose as the pressures of poverty relax ?
Is it decomposing already ?
Will men begin to lose that restless urgency , that desire to consume time purposively , which most people carry just as they carry a watch on their wrists ?
But it remains that on some base level , we will always understand time .
The sun comes up , the sun goes down .
Though we might be inside , where that process is more difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not obscure the day and night cycle .
What is lost , as each day blends into the next , in vaguely similar ways , is the mechanistic definition of time , the capitalist definition of time , the industrial definition of time .
We do not know what day it is , but we do know when there is a new day .
To live inside is to lose distinction .
There is a numbing effect that occurs when each day is the same , when our schedules are subsumed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undifferentiated time .
And yet isn ’ t this how so many of the less privileged around the world , forced to work jobs involving menial labor , day after day after day , already live ?
Isn ’ t this why we invented the weekend ?
Has this quarantine simply shown to those of us with more economic privilege that our “ free time ” was always a mirage , which could disappear before our eyes , by giving us so much “ free ” time ?
I have a wall calendar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I need to orient myself in time , I look at it .
But even the usefulness of my calendar has started to fray around the edges .
I began writing this story because I couldn ’ t quite believe it was a Thursday , even as I knew it had to be a Thursday .
But it might as well not be .
A cycle that bears the sun across our sky until it sets in the west is a reality ; “ Thursday ” is an invention .
Is it still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I will update this article daily until we don ’ t need it anymore .
I hope there is a time when we know it is Thursday or Tuesday or June 17 without having to look at a calendar or ask each other or Google .
I hope there is a time when going outside to see the sun doesn ’ t feel like exposing yourself to toxic levels of radiation .
( I know I should be taking walks ; every time , I feel like I ’ m risking everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in which all this “ free ” time no longer feels like a period we must exploit for maximum value .
I hope there is a time when I remember what it ’ s like to grab lunch with a friend , to watch dogs play in the surf , to breathe in the air and just be .
Until then , find a way to make time have meaning for you .
Read a long book .
Cook an elaborate meal .
Take up knitting .
Write an epic poem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ always meant to get to .
Sleep .
Remember that time doesn ’ t own you , and that you own time .
This will be over someday , a part of the past .
It will someday be a memory .
Hang on to that .
I ’ ll see you outside again .
For now , it is Wednesday , April 22 , 2020 .
In some parts of the world , it is Thursday , April 23 , 2020 .
Are you a “ What day is it today ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ theme song .
It ’ s written by composer Laura Stratford , and it is wonderful .

Today is Wednesday, July 1, 2020, at least in the continental United States. It is already Thursday, July 2, 2020, in some parts of the world. Life isn’t resuming gracefully, but the herky jerky train wreck of America’s reopening certainly speaks to some desire to exit this quarantine period. And so “What Day Is It Today” will exit the stage, too. For now, at least.
To some degree, time is an illusion. We are bound by its forward passage, being the third-dimensional creatures we are, but the perceptions we have placed upon time have been invented. Humans invented the year. Humans invented the month. Humans invented the day, the hour, the minute, the second.
These distinctions are not arbitrary — it really does take about 365 days for the Earth to orbit the sun — but their creation was not inevitable. Our numerical system is likely base-10 because we have 10 fingers; the way we understand time is almost entirely dependent on the fact that we evolved on this planet, circling this sun.
Time, at least as we understand it, is also a byproduct of capitalism. In his seminal 1967 economic paper “Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism,” E. P. Thompson notes that in early human cultures, delineations of time were broad understandings of when the sun came up and went down, when the seasons changed. But as industrialization became the norm, time became a mechanized system that no longer served those who’d invented it. We increasingly served at the beck and call of time, for that is how those who possessed capital could best regulate those who performed the labor.
Thompson writes:
For we are now at a point where sociologists are discussing the “problem” of leisure. And a part of the problem is: how did it come to be a problem ? Puritanism, in its marriage of convenience with industrial capitalism, was the agent which converted men to new valuations of time; which taught children even in their infancy to improve each shining hour; and which saturated men’s minds with the equation, time is money. One recurrent form of revolt within Western industrial capitalism, whether bohemian or beatnik, has often taken the form of flouting the urgency of respectable timevalues. And the interesting question arises: if Puritanism was a necessary part of the work-ethos which enabled the industrialized world to break out of the poverty-stricken economies of the past, will the Puritan valuation of time begin to decompose as the pressures of poverty relax? Is it decomposing already? Will men begin to lose that restless urgency, that desire to consume time purposively, which most people carry just as they carry a watch on their wrists?
But it remains that on some base level, we will always understand time. The sun comes up, the sun goes down. Though we might be inside, where that process is more difficult to witness, the fact of our insideness does not obscure the day and night cycle. What is lost, as each day blends into the next, in vaguely similar ways, is the mechanistic definition of time, the capitalist definition of time, the industrial definition of time. We do not know what day it is, but we do know when there is a new day.
To live inside is to lose distinction. There is a numbing effect that occurs when each day is the same, when our schedules are subsumed by what feels like an endless gulf of undifferentiated time. And yet isn’t this how so many of the less privileged around the world, forced to work jobs involving menial labor, day after day after day, already live? Isn’t this why we invented the weekend? Has this quarantine simply shown to those of us with more economic privilege that our “free time” was always a mirage, which could disappear before our eyes, by giving us so much “free” time?
I have a wall calendar hanging above my desk, and when I need to orient myself in time, I look at it. But even the usefulness of my calendar has started to fray around the edges. I began writing this story because I couldn’t quite believe it was a Thursday, even as I knew it had to be a Thursday. But it might as well not be. A cycle that bears the sun across our sky until it sets in the west is a reality; “Thursday” is an invention. Is it still necessary? I don’t know.
What’s important to remember is that time doesn’t own you. You own time. This will be over someday, a part of the past. It will someday be a memory. Hang on to that. I’ll see you outside again.
This story was originally published Friday, March 27, 2020.
Are you a “What day is it today?” superfan? Check out our official theme song. It’s written by composer Laura Stratford, and it is wonderful.


vox--2020-04-22--How to make a city livable during lockdown

The Covid-19 pandemic is presenting difficulties to everyone in the US right now , but some of the biggest challenges are being faced by cities .
Normally hives of social and economic activity , cities have been forced to shut down almost completely .
Even in shutdown , though , people still need to remain active .
Cities still need usable spaces that can accommodate physical distancing .
Meeting those needs presents an incredibly urgent and disconcertingly novel set of problems for city officials .
Some US cities , including New York and Oakland , are closing certain streets to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pedestrians and cyclists .
“ Because of the reduction in car traffic , we will be closing off a number of streets so that bicyclists and pedestrians can spread out and exercise and take in fresh air safely on Oakland streets , free of cars , ” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said during a virtual town hall on April 9 .
To talk through the variety of ways that cities might rise to meet these challenges , and what things cities ought to be doing that they aren ’ t doing yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , previously the chief planner for Vancouver , British Columbia , now a consultant and speaker .
In 2017 , he and I had a long , five-part conversation about urbanism in the 21st century .
Lately , he has been thinking through ways that cities might weather the virus and come out on the other side stronger , so I thought I would check back in with him .
We spoke on April 10 ; our conversation has been edited for length and clarity .
What kinds of challenges is physical distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a communications challenge , for starters .
We keep hearing “ stay at home , ” and even more powerfully , “ lock down.
” Both are important messages , and everyone should follow the specific directives of their public health officials , but often , even in places that are in official lockdown , there ’ s an allowance for people to get out of their homes , carefully , infrequently , and close by , for short distances and short time frames , to get some exercise , fresh air , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative implications to complete lockdown — physical health implications , mental health implications , issues of domestic violence , issues of depression and suicide .
Public health officials are considering the risks associated with the virus , but also the broader public health issues and risks of extended isolation , especially in very urban settings where folks don ’ t have back yards and such .
The problem is , when people do leave the house , they are frequently confronted with too-tight situations .
There ’ s often not a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two meters [ six feet ] apart .
There ’ s too little space for people on streets , in parks , almost everywhere .
The pandemic has revealed for everyone what some of us have been struggling with for a long time : Cars have taken up so much space .
There ’ s not a lot of room left over for people .
Cities have come up with rules to address crowding — not density , mind you , but crowding — by banning assemblies above certain sizes and such .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ address .
But it ’ s tougher to address the general reality that we ’ ve designed streets to be too tight for daily use by people by making them too generously sized for cars .
So what are cities doing , other than just locking down and freezing up ?
The biggest thing happening in city after city is the closing of streets to cars and vehicles while opening them up to people , to create safe space for those staying at home to occasionally get some sun , fresh air , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a minimum of two meters apart .
The whole street might be transformed , or it might just be parking lanes or some drive lanes , in order to widen sidewalks or add bike lanes .
Cities that were already routinely doing this kind of thing , converting space for cars into space for people , had a head start , a culture and a skill set for it .
Hopefully as new cities try creative things during the pandemic , they can develop that skill set .
Bogota might have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced four weeks ago that their Ciclovía [ a 120-kilometer network of streets turned over to bicycles one day a week ] would be extended to all week .
Then they opened up 117 kilometers more of temporary space for bikes and pedestrians by taking away car lanes .
The speed and size of their action was inspiring .
Other cities have started to follow suit : Minneapolis , Berlin , Paris , Denver , Vancouver , Montreal , Winnipeg , Portland .
Most recently , Oakland got everyone ’ s attention by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their streets .
That ’ s 10 percent of their total — remarkable leadership .
A lot of it comes down to whether your city is creative or risk averse .
The best illustration of that distinction involves cities that are closing parks because they ’ re too crowded , instead of realizing that they are too crowded because there is too little space and you should open more .
They are taking a bad situation and making it worse .
What are some things cities ought to be doing that they aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and trains more frequently , with fewer people on each and mandated space or seats between people .
Waiving public transit fees .
Most of all , lowering local speed limits , to support the use of streets for people .
Traffic speeds are not getting enough discussion in all this .
We know there are fewer cars on the road , but they are speeding more .
That ’ s one reason pedestrians going off the sidewalk in order to physically distance isn ’ t safe .
The best solution would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the meantime , cities should be temporarily instituting lower local-street speed limits , with enforcement to go along with it .
We can ’ t afford to have the usual number of injuries and deaths from car crashes affecting our hospital capacity right now .
What kinds of systems should cities put in place to be more resilient next time ?
We know there ’ s going to be a next virus , to say nothing of climate shocks .
I talk about “ density done well , ” the things that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better design , more amenities , and transportation choices that move more people using less space .
There are at least five or six ways cities will need to change to do density better and be more prepared next time .
First , I think this will heighten the conversation about complete communities , what Paris has started calling “ 15-minute neighborhoods , ” where you can do and get what you need locally , on foot or by bike .
Melbourne has used similar language , as has Vancouver .
Neighborhoods like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Second , density done well builds in more breathing space .
You can have dense neighborhoods and still have space , nature , and respite .
We have models of how to do it successfully , we just need to ramp it up .
We need to rethink details like sidewalk widths on key streets , more useable balconies , and better multi-purpose delivery space for buildings .
Third , we have to rethink mass transit in terms of funding , operation , and design .
We have to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are less full and more frequent .
Jarrett Walker has said for years that “ frequency is freedom.
” Frequency is the key to transit being the alternative to the car .
And it ’ s key for safety during a pandemic — no need to cram a train when another is coming soon .
Having spare transit capacity that you can bring online when you need it is expensive .
Public transit is not nearly as expensive as we think it is when you compare it to how much money we put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you compare it to the costs and consequences of not investing in transit .
We ’ ve been building excess capacity for cars for over 50 years and it ’ s been shockingly expensive .
Fourth , we need to remember how to design higher-density housing better .
I say “ remember ” because we have historic buildings done in the context of previous pandemics that illustrate a lot about how we should be designing new buildings .
The good news is that many of the building design improvements that will help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buildings safer from viruses .
It can include things like more space in hallways , which are essentially the sidewalks of buildings ; better and wider staircases ; more space and opportunities for natural elements inside and even on the skin of buildings ; natural ventilation for better airflow ; more usable amenities like personal balconies and shared courtyards .
Buildings with well-designed courtyards have been a real benefit for people during this pandemic , but we have allowed them to become rare .
And here ’ s a big one : space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from home .
I anticipate that ’ s going to be one of the lasting legacies of this pandemic , and the spaces we ’ ve been designing for working from home are almost as bad as our balconies .
Fifth , there are a lot of small details in cities around how much we touch things , from “ beg buttons ” for pedestrians at intersections to automatic doors and touchpads for financial transactions .
We ’ re likely to have a whole conversation coming out of this about touch-free cities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ response in city design are substantially similar to best practices for public space in general .
Yes and no .
What we have done in terms of best practices for public spaces in recent decades has tended to be about creating destinations that draw crowds .
And once we attract the people , we worry about how to make those places “ sticky , ” meaning that , once they ’ re there , people want to stay longer .
That ’ s the opposite of what we want to be doing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , we need lots of simple , “ unsexy ” local spaces that people can get to easily — but not too many people , and we don ’ t want them to stay too long .
It ’ s turned our usual definition of success on its head .
You ’ re right in the sense , though , that what we should have as our normal definition of success , if we really believe in complete communities and local resilience , is the creation of hyperlocal public spaces that serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have destination public spaces ; every city can have special places .
But they ’ re not an alternative to the hyperlocal opportunities , they are in addition .
The most local and ubiquitous public spaces we have in cities are streets .
We ’ ve just given too much of that street space to cars .
I want to return to sidewalk width .
Obviously I see the problem : most times , they are literally not wide enough to permit six feet between people .
But widening even a fraction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ ve got thousands of miles of urban or suburban residential sidewalks that are 1.5-meter width [ just shy of 5 feet ] , which don ’ t come close to allowing physical distancing when approaching another pedestrian , without one having to walk out onto the street .
And many suburbs don ’ t have any sidewalks at all , or only have them on one side of the street .
But not all sidewalks are the same .
There are important differences in context .
Sidewalks on main streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rare to have anything less than a crowd of pedestrians , are particularly in need .
They are usually wider , but often not wide enough .
I ’ m doubtful that we ’ ll change every mile of sidewalk in the city , and especially in the suburbs .
The standard might increase by a half a meter or so as a result of this .
But we specifically need to think about breathing space on sidewalks in our most urban places .
Will it cost more ?
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to give up more of their land in setbacks during development .
But streets that are more successful generate more taxes , jobs , etc.
, so the costs of such things need to be put in that context .
We have to remember that the crises we faced before this pandemic we ’ ll still face after this pandemic : the crisis of affordability and homelessness ; the crisis of infrastructure costs tied to low-density sprawl ; the public health crisis of preventable diseases tied to car-dependent cities and suburbs ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
We will still badly need solutions for better density and better public transit , while applying the lens of physical distancing .
All these things people are doing differently in their cities , right now and throughout the pandemic — how much of it is going to stick ?
My answer to that is : I ’ m a city planner .
My goal is that we plan and decide what sticks and what doesn ’ t .
Otherwise we ’ re just reacting , and if that ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that stick will be quite bad for our future , and some of the things that don ’ t stick will be missed opportunities .
The point is to determine the answer , not just try to guess what it ’ s going to be .
We need to make sure that the short-term damage to public transit doesn ’ t stick .
We need to make sure that the learning around wider sidewalks , more bike riding , and better usable space in homes , does stick .
Therein lies the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
Your political narrative often seems to be that planning and governance stand in the way of individual freedoms or unfettered market choices .
But the truth is , the cities that have responded to this pandemic better are the cities that didn ’ t just let things happen .
That ’ s indicative of how cities will succeed or fail in the context of almost all changes .
Are you just going to let it happen , and at best react ?
Or are you going to choose your own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final messages to city officials and city residents during this grim affair ?
We can not afford to be passive .
Sprawl advocates are already using this pandemic to champion more single-use , low-density , spread-out suburban development .
Car companies will use this pandemic to convince us that cars are safe and transit isn ’ t .
If what we get out of Covid-19 is more sprawl and more car dependency , our future will get much darker .
We have to be loud and persuasive about real consequences and better solutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around cities will get worse because of this pandemic , not better .
One of the things climate change is expected to produce is more and worse pandemics , so we simply can ’ t afford that .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Covid-19 pandemic is presenting difficulties to everyone in the US right now, but some of the biggest challenges are being faced by cities. Normally hives of social and economic activity, cities have been forced to shut down almost completely.
Even in shutdown, though, people still need to remain active. Cities still need usable spaces that can accommodate physical distancing. Meeting those needs presents an incredibly urgent and disconcertingly novel set of problems for city officials.
Some US cities, including New York and Oakland, are closing certain streets to cars, to create more space for pedestrians and cyclists. “Because of the reduction in car traffic, we will be closing off a number of streets so that bicyclists and pedestrians can spread out and exercise and take in fresh air safely on Oakland streets, free of cars,” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said during a virtual town hall on April 9.
To talk through the variety of ways that cities might rise to meet these challenges, and what things cities ought to be doing that they aren’t doing yet, I turned to long-time urbanist Brent Toderian, previously the chief planner for Vancouver, British Columbia, now a consultant and speaker.
Related How the US stacks up to other countries in confirmed coronavirus cases
In 2017, he and I had a long, five-part conversation about urbanism in the 21st century. Lately, he has been thinking through ways that cities might weather the virus and come out on the other side stronger, so I thought I would check back in with him.
We spoke on April 10; our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
David Roberts
What kinds of challenges is physical distancing posing to cities?
Brent Toderian
There’s a communications challenge, for starters. We keep hearing “stay at home,” and even more powerfully, “lock down.” Both are important messages, and everyone should follow the specific directives of their public health officials, but often, even in places that are in official lockdown, there’s an allowance for people to get out of their homes, carefully, infrequently, and close by, for short distances and short time frames, to get some exercise, fresh air, and mental respite.
There are significant negative implications to complete lockdown — physical health implications, mental health implications, issues of domestic violence, issues of depression and suicide. Public health officials are considering the risks associated with the virus, but also the broader public health issues and risks of extended isolation, especially in very urban settings where folks don’t have back yards and such.
The problem is, when people do leave the house, they are frequently confronted with too-tight situations. There’s often not a lot of space for walking and biking while staying two meters [six feet] apart. There’s too little space for people on streets, in parks, almost everywhere. The pandemic has revealed for everyone what some of us have been struggling with for a long time: Cars have taken up so much space. There’s not a lot of room left over for people.
Cities have come up with rules to address crowding — not density, mind you, but crowding — by banning assemblies above certain sizes and such. Those are the relatively easy things to address. But it’s tougher to address the general reality that we’ve designed streets to be too tight for daily use by people by making them too generously sized for cars.
David Roberts
So what are cities doing, other than just locking down and freezing up?
Brent Toderian
The biggest thing happening in city after city is the closing of streets to cars and vehicles while opening them up to people, to create safe space for those staying at home to occasionally get some sun, fresh air, exercise, and social connection, albeit at a minimum of two meters apart. The whole street might be transformed, or it might just be parking lanes or some drive lanes, in order to widen sidewalks or add bike lanes.
Cities that were already routinely doing this kind of thing, converting space for cars into space for people, had a head start, a culture and a skill set for it. Hopefully as new cities try creative things during the pandemic, they can develop that skill set.
Bogota might have been first out of the gate. They announced four weeks ago that their Ciclovía [a 120-kilometer network of streets turned over to bicycles one day a week] would be extended to all week. Then they opened up 117 kilometers more of temporary space for bikes and pedestrians by taking away car lanes. The speed and size of their action was inspiring.
Other cities have started to follow suit: Minneapolis, Berlin, Paris, Denver, Vancouver, Montreal, Winnipeg, Portland. Most recently, Oakland got everyone’s attention by announcing the transformation of 72 miles of their streets. That’s 10 percent of their total — remarkable leadership.
A lot of it comes down to whether your city is creative or risk averse. The best illustration of that distinction involves cities that are closing parks because they’re too crowded, instead of realizing that they are too crowded because there is too little space and you should open more. They are taking a bad situation and making it worse.
David Roberts
What are some things cities ought to be doing that they aren’t doing yet?
Brent Toderian
Running buses and trains more frequently, with fewer people on each and mandated space or seats between people. Waiving public transit fees. Most of all, lowering local speed limits, to support the use of streets for people.
Traffic speeds are not getting enough discussion in all this. We know there are fewer cars on the road, but they are speeding more. That’s one reason pedestrians going off the sidewalk in order to physically distance isn’t safe.
The best solution would be designing streets for low speeds. But in the meantime, cities should be temporarily instituting lower local-street speed limits, with enforcement to go along with it. We can’t afford to have the usual number of injuries and deaths from car crashes affecting our hospital capacity right now.
David Roberts
What kinds of systems should cities put in place to be more resilient next time? We know there’s going to be a next virus, to say nothing of climate shocks.
Brent Toderian
I talk about “density done well,” the things that can make density livable and lovable — better design, more amenities, and transportation choices that move more people using less space. There are at least five or six ways cities will need to change to do density better and be more prepared next time.
First, I think this will heighten the conversation about complete communities, what Paris has started calling “15-minute neighborhoods,” where you can do and get what you need locally, on foot or by bike. Melbourne has used similar language, as has Vancouver. Neighborhoods like that have proven to be more resilient.
Second, density done well builds in more breathing space. You can have dense neighborhoods and still have space, nature, and respite. We have models of how to do it successfully, we just need to ramp it up. We need to rethink details like sidewalk widths on key streets, more useable balconies, and better multi-purpose delivery space for buildings.
Third, we have to rethink mass transit in terms of funding, operation, and design. We have to be able to accommodate more trains and more buses that are less full and more frequent. Jarrett Walker has said for years that “frequency is freedom.” Frequency is the key to transit being the alternative to the car. And it’s key for safety during a pandemic — no need to cram a train when another is coming soon.
David Roberts
Having spare transit capacity that you can bring online when you need it is expensive.
Brent Toderian
Public transit is not nearly as expensive as we think it is when you compare it to how much money we put into excess capacity for cars, or when you compare it to the costs and consequences of not investing in transit. We’ve been building excess capacity for cars for over 50 years and it’s been shockingly expensive.
Fourth, we need to remember how to design higher-density housing better. I say “remember” because we have historic buildings done in the context of previous pandemics that illustrate a lot about how we should be designing new buildings.
The good news is that many of the building design improvements that will help with greener performance will also help make buildings safer from viruses. It can include things like more space in hallways, which are essentially the sidewalks of buildings; better and wider staircases; more space and opportunities for natural elements inside and even on the skin of buildings; natural ventilation for better airflow; more usable amenities like personal balconies and shared courtyards. Buildings with well-designed courtyards have been a real benefit for people during this pandemic, but we have allowed them to become rare.
And here’s a big one: space that’s actually useful for working from home. I anticipate that’s going to be one of the lasting legacies of this pandemic, and the spaces we’ve been designing for working from home are almost as bad as our balconies.
Fifth, there are a lot of small details in cities around how much we touch things, from “beg buttons” for pedestrians at intersections to automatic doors and touchpads for financial transactions. We’re likely to have a whole conversation coming out of this about touch-free cities.
David Roberts
It sounds like best practices for virus response in city design are substantially similar to best practices for public space in general.
Brent Toderian
Yes and no. What we have done in terms of best practices for public spaces in recent decades has tended to be about creating destinations that draw crowds. And once we attract the people, we worry about how to make those places “sticky,” meaning that, once they’re there, people want to stay longer.
That’s the opposite of what we want to be doing with public space in a pandemic. Right now, we need lots of simple, “unsexy” local spaces that people can get to easily — but not too many people, and we don’t want them to stay too long. It’s turned our usual definition of success on its head.
You’re right in the sense, though, that what we should have as our normal definition of success, if we really believe in complete communities and local resilience, is the creation of hyperlocal public spaces that serve local communities. Yes, you can have destination public spaces; every city can have special places. But they’re not an alternative to the hyperlocal opportunities, they are in addition.
The most local and ubiquitous public spaces we have in cities are streets. We’ve just given too much of that street space to cars.
NEW: My TOP 10 WAYS cities can create NEW space on streets for people walking & biking close to home while #PhysicalDistancing during the #COVIDー19 pandemic, where health directives allow it. Cities SHOULD be doing this — here’s how to do it successfully. #QuestionsForToderian pic.twitter.com/BwUmXljpdn — Brent Toderian (@BrentToderian) April 9, 2020
David Roberts
I want to return to sidewalk width. Obviously I see the problem: most times, they are literally not wide enough to permit six feet between people. But widening even a fraction of sidewalks across cities would be so expensive.
Brent Toderian
We’ve got thousands of miles of urban or suburban residential sidewalks that are 1.5-meter width [just shy of 5 feet], which don’t come close to allowing physical distancing when approaching another pedestrian, without one having to walk out onto the street. And many suburbs don’t have any sidewalks at all, or only have them on one side of the street.
But not all sidewalks are the same. There are important differences in context. Sidewalks on main streets or in urban places, where it’s rare to have anything less than a crowd of pedestrians, are particularly in need. They are usually wider, but often not wide enough.
I’m doubtful that we’ll change every mile of sidewalk in the city, and especially in the suburbs. The standard might increase by a half a meter or so as a result of this. But we specifically need to think about breathing space on sidewalks in our most urban places.
Will it cost more? Yes, for cities and for developers who will have to give up more of their land in setbacks during development. But streets that are more successful generate more taxes, jobs, etc., so the costs of such things need to be put in that context.
We have to remember that the crises we faced before this pandemic we’ll still face after this pandemic: the crisis of affordability and homelessness; the crisis of infrastructure costs tied to low-density sprawl; the public health crisis of preventable diseases tied to car-dependent cities and suburbs; and in particular the crisis of climate change. We will still badly need solutions for better density and better public transit, while applying the lens of physical distancing.
David Roberts
All these things people are doing differently in their cities, right now and throughout the pandemic — how much of it is going to stick?
Brent Toderian
My answer to that is: I’m a city planner. My goal is that we plan and decide what sticks and what doesn’t. Otherwise we’re just reacting, and if that’s the case, then some of the things that stick will be quite bad for our future, and some of the things that don’t stick will be missed opportunities. The point is to determine the answer, not just try to guess what it’s going to be.
We need to make sure that the short-term damage to public transit doesn’t stick. We need to make sure that the learning around wider sidewalks, more bike riding, and better usable space in homes, does stick.
Therein lies the problem, particularly for you folks in the United States. Your political narrative often seems to be that planning and governance stand in the way of individual freedoms or unfettered market choices. But the truth is, the cities that have responded to this pandemic better are the cities that didn’t just let things happen.
That’s indicative of how cities will succeed or fail in the context of almost all changes. Are you just going to let it happen, and at best react? Or are you going to choose your own adventure, your own future?
David Roberts
Any final messages to city officials and city residents during this grim affair?
Brent Toderian
We cannot afford to be passive. Sprawl advocates are already using this pandemic to champion more single-use, low-density, spread-out suburban development. Car companies will use this pandemic to convince us that cars are safe and transit isn’t.
If what we get out of Covid-19 is more sprawl and more car dependency, our future will get much darker. We have to be loud and persuasive about real consequences and better solutions, or else our already shaky decision-making around cities will get worse because of this pandemic, not better.
One of the things climate change is expected to produce is more and worse pandemics, so we simply can’t afford that.