vox--2020-05-22--8 ways to go out and stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic

Share All sharing options for : 8 ways to go out and stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic Americans are getting tired of staying inside .
Support for social distancing requirements is falling in the polls , and survey and cellphone data shows people are starting to trickle out of their homes .
Most states , ready or not , are moving to reopen parts of their economies .
For the past two months , experts ’ guidance has been absolute : As much as possible , stay home and avoid interacting with anyone you don ’ t live with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine likely still months or years away , some experts caution a new approach is needed to get people to stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic — one based on harm reduction .
It might be better for people to stay home all the time , but given that many can ’ t or won ’ t , giving them advice on how to reduce the harm to them and others is better than insisting on the ideal .
Julia Marcus , an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard , compared the choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex during the worst days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic : Completely avoiding sex would keep someone safe from HIV , but given that most people won ’ t do that , it ’ s better to give them the tools to practice sex as safely as possible .
“ There ’ s been a polarization between two purported options of staying home indefinitely … versus going back to business as usual , ” Marcus told me .
“ The idea of harm reduction gives us a way of thinking about risk as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between those two options.
” The safest thing anyone can do in the middle of the Covid-19 outbreak is still the same as it was a few months ago : Stay home as much as possible to avoid catching or spreading the virus until we get a vaccine or effective treatment or until the pandemic otherwise ends .
That especially applies to people who are sick , who should do all they can to avoid exposing others to the coronavirus .
But lapses will happen .
Some people were never able to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states begin to reopen , many more will need to leave their homes for their jobs .
Others will do so simply because they ’ re tired of being stuck at home , even if it ’ s not advisable for their own health or for the public ’ s .
So I turned to several experts with a question : What can people do to minimize the harm to themselves and others if and when they choose to go out ?
Some of the advice reflected the message we ’ ve already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Don ’ t touch your face .
Wear a mask .
Avoid shared surfaces and crowded settings , and keep physical distance — at least 6 feet — from people you don ’ t live with .
If you ’ re 65 or older or have chronic health conditions , you should take all of this advice more seriously .
Other tips were more novel .
For example , if you want to do something outside your home , it ’ s better to take advantage of the fresh air and do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you want to meet with certain friends or family , consider a pact with them in which you ’ ll both agree to minimize or eliminate contact with anyone else , to reduce overall exposure for everyone involved .
The most important thing : Avoid indoor spaces that bring you within 6 feet of people from outside your household for long periods .
“ It is about density .
It is about duration of contact , ” Cyrus Shahpar , a director at Resolve to Save Lives , told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ harm reduction concepts to social distancing .
They acknowledged it ’ s not a perfect analogy to HIV or drug use , because a person who ’ s having risky sex or using drugs is perceived as largely harming themselves , while people who catch and spread the coronavirus put others at immediate risk too .
Still , experts took a pragmatic view toward harm reduction overall .
“ It reflects the fact this virus is going to be with us until there ’ s a vaccine , ” Amesh Adalja , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Health Security , told me .
“ People are going to come up with their own ways to live with it .
That ’ s going to be different for each person , based on their own risk tolerance.
” He added , “ It ’ s important that people be well-informed about what the risks are and how to minimize the risks.
” So here ’ s how to go out and stay as safe as possible during this coronavirus pandemic .
Experts consistently gave one piece of advice for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do something outdoors instead of indoors , you should do it outdoors .
The coronavirus appears to spread through airborne droplets and droplets that land on surfaces , which people subsequently pick up with their hands .
The outdoors mitigates these vectors of spread in several ways .
First , the open air is going to make it much harder for airborne droplets to reach other people .
Shahpar said there ’ s a commonsense element to this : “ Any odor I have from cooking in a kitchen is going to linger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s just the nature of it.
” Second , it ’ s easier to keep distance from others while outside compared to inside .
Third , there is some evidence that sunny , warm , and humid weather hurts the coronavirus a bit .
Based on the early research so far , the heat and UV light appear to kill the virus , while humidity might block airborne droplets from blowing from person to person .
The weather isn ’ t enough to stop the coronavirus — as major Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louisiana , and Singapore demonstrate — but it at least seems to help .
The research into coronavirus and the outdoors , while still very early , backs this up , Kelsey Piper explained for Vox : So if you ’ re having friends over , consider hanging out outside ( and keep it to a small group ) .
If you want to eat at a restaurant , look for outdoor seating .
If you ’ re going for a run , go to the park , beach , or streets instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policymakers could take advantage of the outdoors as well — holding trials outside , or closing off some streets to cars so pedestrians can make better use of them .
“ It ’ s a good year for outdoor dining and outdoor shopping and outdoor all kinds of activities , ” Mark McClellan , who previously headed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Food and Drug Administration under President George W. Bush , told me .
The one exception , of course , is your home .
As long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people you live with in there , it ’ s safe — likely even the safest place during this pandemic if no one inside is sick .
This isn ’ t to say that the outdoors is totally safe .
Being around people you don ’ t live with will always create some risk during a pandemic .
This is about weighing the pros and cons : Does the relatively small risk other people present outdoors outweigh the benefit of getting some time outside of your house ?
Different people may come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal , the outdoors is the safest place for activities outside of your home .
For some , that ’ s a reprieve that makes all the other requirements for social distancing a bit more bearable .
Plus , spending time outdoors can be good for you on its own .
You ’ ve probably heard it a million times already , but it ’ s worth repeating : Wash your hands frequently , and don ’ t touch your face .
If you ’ re going to frequently venture far outside your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Those are harm reduction aspects have been built in already to the messaging that we ’ ve seen , ” Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist , told me .
Studies have shown the virus can survive on different surfaces for hours or days at a time .
If you touch those surfaces , then touch your face , you could get the virus in your eyes , nose , or mouth — and soon , you might be infected .
By now , there are plenty of guides out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face and how to wash your hands .
For face-touching , the big thing is awareness .
Until you break the habit , you ’ re going to have to dedicate headspace to your face and avoiding touching it .
( I touched my face three times just typing this paragraph , so , yes , it ’ s going to take effort . )
For hand-washing , do it frequently — before , during , and after you go out .
Soap and water work great ; wash for 20 seconds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of your hands , your fingertips , your thumbs , and your wrists .
If you don ’ t have access to soap and water , hand sanitizer with at least 60 percent alcohol content works too .
Yes , good hygiene can be tedious , and we ’ re all tired of hearing about it over and over .
But it works .
If you want to minimize risk to yourself and others , you should do it .
After some mixed messaging from federal officials early on in the Covid-19 outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should wear masks when they go out — a surgical or medical mask if they have one , a cloth one if they don ’ t .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends masks “ in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain ( e.g.
, grocery stores and pharmacies ) , especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.
” But other experts — and , in some cases , government mandates — go further , saying that you should wear a mask in just about any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Covid-19 outbreak continues .
The primary reason for a mask is to stop transmission from the wearer to others , particularly from people who are infected but asymptomatic and therefore might not even know they ’ re infected .
If you wear a mask , you ’ re less likely to spray virus-containing droplets on surfaces or other people when you breathe , talk , sing , laugh , sigh , snort , cough , sneeze , and whatever else you might do with your mouth and nose .
A mask also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating a physical barrier to droplets from others in front of your mouth and nose ( at least if you ’ re wearing it properly — make sure that it ’ s covering both ) .
The research on masks isn ’ t great , but there ’ s some suggestive evidence : As long as people actually wear the masks and use them properly , studies indicate that they have some effect in reducing disease transmission overall .
Some experts hypothesize that masks have played a significant role in containing Covid-19 outbreaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is widespread , like South Korea and Japan .
It can still be difficult , depending on where you live , to find medical masks .
But there are cloth alternatives you can make at home .
The CDC has an extensive tutorial .
And here ’ s one from the US surgeon general : There are also things you can do to help others wear masks .
For example , if you ’ re hosting a large event or even throwing a party — not advisable , but it will happen — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When wearing a mask , don ’ t fidget with it — that would be touching your face — and avoid taking it off until you ’ re back home .
Throw away disposable masks once they ’ re used , and wash reusable masks after you use them .
Masks are not an excuse to ease off on other hygiene practices .
In fact , you want to wash your hands before and after taking off a mask — before to avoid getting anything on your face and mask , and after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on your mask .
And yes , it ’ s normal to have a slightly harder time breathing while wearing a mask for a long time .
But that discomfort should be weighed against the risk of getting sick or infecting others without a mask .
One of the common pieces of advice throughout this pandemic has been to keep 6 feet or more away from people you don ’ t live with , summarized by the catchy slogan “ 6 feet distance determines our existence.
” The closer you are to someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their coronavirus all over you , and vice versa .
One telling but preliminary study comes from a South Korean call center : The coronavirus spread to 43.5 percent of people working in the close-packed 11th-floor call center .
Proximity appeared to play a big role , as this graphic , in which desks marked in blue indicate infection , shows .
The risk here is close and prolonged contact .
A jogger running by you for a couple of seconds isn ’ t the end of the world .
But if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else for longer than that — especially for hours — it could be dangerous .
“ The two variables we worry about is that distance from another person who might be sick and the time spent with them , ” Crystal Watson , senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
This applies to the outdoors , too .
While the outdoors are generally safer than the indoors , it ’ s still a good idea to avoid packed parks or beaches .
People who don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be stacked together for long in any setting .
So if you ’ re going out to eat , consider skipping the packed restaurant .
If you ’ re going to a park or beach , look for an area without too many people around .
If you ’ re hosting an event , avoid inviting too many people .
If you ’ re meeting up with friends or family , try to stay at least 6 feet away and avoid handshakes , hugs , and kisses .
Part of avoiding crowded spaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who have to be there .
For example , public transportation can be pretty packed , but some people need to use it to get to work or the grocery store .
If you have other means of transportation and use that instead , you leave more room on the bus or subway for those who don ’ t have a choice .
You don ’ t have to do all of this perfectly ; in some circumstances , that ’ s unrealistic .
But the better you can do it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus spreads when people pick up virus-containing droplets from different surfaces , one way to minimize that risk is by trying to avoid shared surfaces as much as possible .
So even if you go outdoors , maybe avoid surfaces touched by different people , like swings , slides , or benches — or , at the very least , wipe them down before using them .
If you have to use public transportation or go inside a building that isn ’ t your house , try to minimize how much of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re meeting with people you don ’ t live with , try to avoid sharing things — food , drinks , toys , board game pieces , and so on .
That doesn ’ t mean you have to be paranoid about picking up food or getting various things delivered to you .
( As Jen Kates , director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me , “ I often get asked the question : ‘ Can I get takeout ?
’ I think you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little caution is warranted , either in terms of avoiding these surfaces or taking steps to clean them before you touch them .
6 ) Space out trips outside the home as much as possible Whether you ’ re leaving your home because you have to for food or work , or you ’ re going out because you can ’ t stand the sight of your apartment anymore , one way to minimize risk is to space out all your trips .
With every venture outside , you are putting yourself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world that ’ s still engulfed by a pandemic .
The risk calculus , then , is straightforward : Try to limit how often you do this .
“ It ’ s not a good idea to be going out to the store every day , ” Kates said .
“ You want to minimize the amount of times you might expose somebody [ to coronavirus ] or you might be exposed.
” One way to do this is to make the most out of necessary trips .
If you ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as much as you can afford and carry in one go , and plan ahead so you don ’ t forget something .
( Still , be reasonable and conscientious of others ; taking a year ’ s supply of toilet paper is unnecessary and could force others to make more trips when the store runs out and they have to go home empty-handed . )
This applies to social gatherings , too .
If you saw friends recently , maybe go a few days or weeks before seeing them or another group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideal , since it would match the coronavirus ’ s possible incubation period .
Similar to avoiding crowded spaces and keeping physical distance , this isn ’ t something everyone is going to be able to do perfectly .
We all sometimes forget things at the store and have to go back earlier than we ’ d like .
But the more spaced out trips outside the home are , the better .
Especially if you ’ re single and living alone , these can be pretty lonely days .
One solution that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating a “ closed circle ” with a friend or family member , in which two people or a group agree to hang out in person but avoid contact with everyone else .
If you and your closed circle avoid everyone else , you ’ ll reduce the chances of infecting each other and the rest of the world even if you hang out regularly .
And if one of you does get sick , the spread should be limited to a small circle .
As Sigal Samuel explained for Vox , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some experts are opposed to it .
There ’ s a risk that people just don ’ t stick to the pact , putting the whole circle at risk of infection — maybe even at a higher risk if it creates a false sense of security and people in the circle act recklessly toward each other .
But even if everyone follows the pact as best as possible , the concept expands your social network and , therefore , your risk of infection — from not only those in the circle , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interact with at the grocery store , pharmacy , work , or any other setting .
But that ’ s harm reduction .
The closed circle may not eliminate harm , but it does minimize it .
Consider the alternatives .
If people are going to interact with their friends and family , but they do it without a closed circle , that ’ s inherently worse than having a pact , even one that ’ s not perfectly followed .
“ Is there a way to make it that , 100 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
No , ” Kates said .
“ But it ’ s a harm reduction approach.
” The risk that a closed circle doesn ’ t work as planned also has to be weighed with the significant risk of loneliness .
As Samuel noted , “ A meta-review of 70 studies found that loneliness increases your risk of premature mortality by 26 percent .
Some experts say it ’ s as bad for your longevity as smoking .
We know that it actually hurts our white blood cells.
” We can try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or phone calls — but , for some people , that ’ s not going to be enough .
“ There are people suffering in isolation , ” Marcus said .
“ In order to sustain this for months or even years , we have to think about how we can connect with others in a way that keeps risk as low as possible , that allows people to feel like they ’ re living their lives.
” It ’ s also possible to mitigate the risk of breaches in a closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this list : Even when hanging out with your closed circle , go outside when possible , wear a mask , follow good hygiene , and keep physical distance from each other .
A closed circle doesn ’ t have to be a license for much riskier behavior ; it can just be an extra layer of protection if you want to regularly see other humans in person .
8 ) If you ’ re in an especially at-risk group , be extra careful Some people are more vulnerable to the coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ diabetes , liver disease , and obesity , appear to heighten the risk of complications and death due to Covid-19 .
Those who are older , especially 65 and up , are at higher risk too .
It ’ s not fair , but it means that those who are at greater risk should be extra careful .
One way experts described this concept : If you fall into one of these at-risk groups , follow the advice on this list but take it to an extra level .
If most people typically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , someone in an at-risk group should do it 14 times .
If others should stay 6 feet from people , those in at-risk groups should try 10 feet .
If the typical person should minimize trips to the store to once a week , people in at-risk groups should try to minimize trips to once every two weeks .
And so on .
The safest thing for older people and those with chronic conditions is , like everyone else , to stay home as much as possible .
But just like everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be feasible for some people all day every day , or at least something everyone will be willing to do for weeks or months on end .
“ People will take risks , whether we like it or not , ” Marcus argued .
“ The best thing we can do is give them strategies to reduce harm in those situations .
If we don ’ t do that , we ’ re missing an opportunity.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making a contribution to Vox today .

Share All sharing options for: 8 ways to go out and stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic
Americans have gotten tired of staying inside. As the coronavirus pandemic has continued for months and summer has kicked off, the number of people consistently practicing social distancing has steadily declined, according to Gallup’s surveys. Especially with the July Fourth weekend approaching, people are bound to go out more to celebrate.
At the beginning of the pandemic, experts’ guidance was more absolute: As much as possible, stay home and avoid interacting with anyone you don’t live with. More recently, with a vaccine likely still months or years away, many experts have advocated for a new approach to get people to stay safe during the coronavirus pandemic — one based on harm reduction.
It might be better for people to stay home all the time, but given that many can’t or won’t, giving them advice on how to reduce the harm to them and others is better than insisting on the ideal.
Related How to go out and not spread coronavirus this summer
Julia Marcus, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard, compared the choice to preaching abstinence versus advising on safe sex during the worst days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic: Completely avoiding sex would keep someone safe from HIV, but given that most people won’t do that, it’s better to give them the tools to practice sex as safely as possible.
“There’s been a polarization between two purported options of staying home indefinitely … versus going back to business as usual,” Marcus told me. “The idea of harm reduction gives us a way of thinking about risk as a continuum and thinking about the middle ground between those two options.”
The safest thing anyone can do in the middle of the Covid-19 outbreak is still the same as it was a few months ago: Stay home as much as possible to avoid catching or spreading the virus until there’s a vaccine or effective treatment, or until the pandemic otherwise ends. That especially applies to people who are sick, who should do all they can to avoid exposing others to the coronavirus.
But lapses will happen. Some people were never able to stay home in the first place; as states begin to reopen, many more will need to leave their homes for their jobs. Others will do so simply because they’re tired of being stuck at home, even if it’s not advisable for their own health or for the public’s.
So I turned to several experts with a question: What can people do to minimize the harm to themselves and others if and when they choose to go out?
Some of the advice reflected the message we’ve already heard for months: Wash your hands. Don’t touch your face. Wear a mask. Avoid shared surfaces and crowded settings, and keep physical distance — at least 6 feet — from people you don’t live with. If you’re 65 or older or have chronic health conditions, you should take all of this advice more seriously.
Other tips were more novel. For example, if you want to do something outside your home, it’s better to take advantage of the fresh air and do it outdoors rather than indoors when possible. If you want to meet with certain friends or family, consider a pact with them in which you’ll both agree to minimize or eliminate contact with anyone else, to reduce overall exposure for everyone involved.
The most important thing: Avoid indoor spaces that bring you within 6 feet of people from outside your household for long periods. “It is about density. It is about duration of contact,” Cyrus Shahpar, a director at Resolve to Save Lives, told me.
Overall, experts were receptive to applying harm reduction concepts to social distancing. They acknowledged it’s not a perfect analogy to HIV or drug use, because a person who’s having risky sex or using drugs is perceived as largely harming themselves, while people who catch and spread the coronavirus put others at immediate risk too. Still, experts took a pragmatic view toward harm reduction overall.
“It reflects the fact this virus is going to be with us until there’s a vaccine,” Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “People are going to come up with their own ways to live with it. That’s going to be different for each person, based on their own risk tolerance.” He added, “It’s important that people be well-informed about what the risks are and how to minimize the risks.”
So here’s how to go out and stay as safe as possible during this coronavirus pandemic. (Vox also has a guide on the risks of specific activities.)
1) Stick to the outdoors
Experts consistently gave one piece of advice for people leaving their homes: If you can do something outdoors instead of indoors, you should do it outdoors.
The coronavirus appears to primarily spread through airborne droplets, which the outdoors mitigates in several ways.
First, the open air is going to make it harder for airborne droplets to reach other people. Shahpar said there’s a common sense element to this: “Any odor I have from cooking in a kitchen is going to linger longer than if I had it outside. It’s just the nature of it.”
Second, it’s easier to keep distance from others while outside compared to inside.
Third, there is some evidence that sunny, warm, and humid weather hurts the coronavirus a bit. Based on the early research so far, heat and UV light appear to kill the virus, while humidity might block airborne droplets from blowing from person to person. The weather isn’t enough to stop the coronavirus — as major Covid-19 outbreaks in sunny and warm Ecuador, Louisiana, Singapore, and now Arizona, Florida, and Texas demonstrate — but it at least seems to help.
The research into coronavirus and the outdoors, while still very early, backs this up, Kelsey Piper explained for Vox:
One study from China (which has not yet been peer-reviewed) examined 318 outbreaks with three or more people across the country. Only one happened outdoors, and only two people got sick: Every outbreak with three or more cases happened indoors. A different study (also not peer-reviewed) in Japan found that “the odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment.”
So if you’re having friends over, consider hanging out outside (and keep it to a small group). If you want to eat at a restaurant, look for outdoor seating. If you’re going for a run, go to the park, beach, or streets instead of the gym. Some experts said policymakers could take advantage of the outdoors as well — holding trials outside, or closing off some streets to cars so pedestrians can make better use of them.
“It’s a good year for outdoor dining and outdoor shopping and outdoor all kinds of activities,” Mark McClellan, who previously headed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Food and Drug Administration under President George W. Bush, told me.
The one exception, of course, is your home. As long as it’s just you and the people you live with in there, it’s safe — likely even the safest place during this pandemic if no one inside is sick.
This isn’t to say that the outdoors is totally safe. Being around people you don’t live with will always create some risk during a pandemic. This is about weighing the pros and cons: Does the relatively small risk other people present outdoors outweigh the benefit of getting some time outside of your house? Different people may come to different answers.
But all else held equal, the outdoors is the safest place for activities outside of your home. For some, that’s a reprieve that makes all the other requirements for social distancing a bit more bearable.
Plus, spending time outdoors can be good for you on its own.
2) Follow good hygiene practices
You’ve probably heard it a million times already, but it’s worth repeating: Wash your hands frequently, and don’t touch your face. If you’re going to frequently venture far outside your home, that advice is especially pertinent.
“Those are harm reduction aspects have been built in already to the messaging that we’ve seen,” Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, told me.
By now, there are plenty of guides out there about how to avoid touching your face and how to wash your hands. For face-touching, the big thing is awareness. Until you break the habit, you’re going to have to dedicate headspace to your face and avoiding touching it. (I touched my face three times just typing this paragraph, so, yes, it’s going to take effort.)
For hand-washing, do it frequently — before, during, and after you go out. Soap and water work great; wash for 20 seconds, and don’t forget the back of your hands, your fingertips, your thumbs, and your wrists. If you don’t have access to soap and water, hand sanitizer with at least 60 percent alcohol content works too.
Yes, good hygiene can be tedious, and we’re all tired of hearing about it over and over. But it works. If you want to minimize risk to yourself and others, you should do it.
3) Wear a mask
After some mixed messaging from federal officials early on in the Covid-19 outbreak, there is widespread consensus that people should wear masks when they go out — a surgical or medical mask if they have one, a cloth one if they don’t.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends masks “in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.” But other experts — and, in some cases, government mandates — go further, saying you should wear a mask in just about any setting outside your home as long as the pandemic continues.
The primary reason for a mask is to stop transmission from the wearer to others, particularly from people who are infected but asymptomatic and therefore might not even know they’re infected. If you wear a mask, you’re less likely to spray virus-containing droplets on surfaces or other people when you breathe, talk, sing, laugh, sigh, snort, cough, sneeze, and whatever else you might do with your mouth and nose.
A mask also likely offers some protection to you by creating a physical barrier to droplets from others in front of your mouth and nose (at least if you’re wearing it properly — make sure that it’s covering both).
The initial research on masks wasn’t great, but it’s getting stronger. Several recent studies found masks alone reduce transmission. Some experts hypothesize — and early research suggests — that masks played a significant role in containing Covid-19 outbreaks in several Asian countries where their use is widespread, like South Korea and Japan.
It can still be difficult, depending on where you live, to find medical masks. But there are cloth alternatives you can make at home. The CDC has an extensive tutorial. And here’s one from the US surgeon general:
#DYK? @CDCgov's recommendation on wearing a cloth face covering may help protect the most vulnerable from #COVID19.
Here's how you can make one today, in just a few easy steps: pic.twitter.com/eFuE7Brw0J — U.S. Surgeon General (@Surgeon_General) April 4, 2020
There are also things you can do to help others wear masks. For example, if you’re hosting a large event or even throwing a party — not advisable, but it will happen — offer masks to the people attending.
When wearing a mask, don’t fidget with it — that would be touching your face — and avoid taking it off until you’re back home. Throw away disposable masks once they’re used, and wash reusable masks after you use them.
Masks are not an excuse to ease off on other hygiene practices. In fact, you want to wash your hands before and after taking off a mask — before, to avoid getting anything on your face and mask, and after, to get rid of anything that was on your mask.
And yes, it’s normal to have a slightly harder time breathing while wearing a mask for a long time. But that discomfort should be weighed against the risk of getting sick or infecting others without a mask.
4) Stay away from crowded settings
One of the common pieces of advice throughout this pandemic has been to keep 6 feet or more away from people you don’t live with, summarized by the catchy but grim slogan “6 feet distance determines our existence.” The closer you are to someone, the likelier they are to shed their coronavirus all over you, and vice versa.
One telling but preliminary study comes from a South Korean call center: The coronavirus spread to 43.5 percent of people working in the close-packed 11th-floor call center. Proximity appeared to play a big role, as this graphic, in which desks marked in blue indicate infection, shows.
The risk here is close and prolonged contact. A jogger running by you for a couple of seconds isn’t the end of the world. But if you’re within 6 feet of someone else for longer than that — especially for hours — it could be dangerous.
“The two variables we worry about is that distance from another person who might be sick and the time spent with them,” Crystal Watson, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me.
This applies to the outdoors, too. While the outdoors are generally safer than the indoors, it’s still a good idea to avoid packed parks or beaches. People who don’t live together just shouldn’t be stacked together for long in any setting.
So if you’re going out to eat, consider skipping the packed restaurant. If you’re going to a park or beach, look for an area without too many people around. If you’re hosting an event, avoid inviting too many people. If you’re meeting up with friends or family, try to stay at least 6 feet away and avoid handshakes, hugs, and kisses.
Part of avoiding crowded spaces is also making these places safer for those who have to be there. For example, public transportation can be pretty packed, but some people need to use it to get to work or the grocery store. If you have other means of transportation and use that instead, you leave more room on the bus or subway for those who don’t have a choice.
You don’t have to do all of this perfectly; in some circumstances, that’s unrealistic. But the better you can do it, the lower the risk.
5) Avoid shared surfaces
If the coronavirus spreads when people pick up virus-containing droplets from different surfaces, one way to minimize that risk is by trying to avoid shared surfaces as much as possible. Although the research suggests this is a rare form of transmission for Covid-19, there’s likely still some risk.
So even if you go outdoors, avoid surfaces touched by different people, like swings, slides, or benches — or, at the very least, wipe them down before using them. If you have to use public transportation or go inside a building that isn’t your house, try to minimize how much of the space you touch.
And if you’re meeting with people you don’t live with, try to avoid sharing things — food, drinks, toys, board game pieces, and so on.
That doesn’t mean you have to be paranoid about picking up food or getting various things delivered to you. (As Jen Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me, “I often get asked the question: ‘Can I get takeout?’ I think you can.”)
But it does mean a little caution is warranted, either in terms of avoiding these surfaces or taking steps to clean them before you touch them.
6) Space out trips outside the home as much as possible
Whether you’re leaving your home because you have to for food or work, or you’re going out because you can’t stand the sight of your apartment anymore, one way to minimize risk is to space out all your trips.
With every venture outside, you are putting yourself at risk of contracting the coronavirus in a world that’s still engulfed by a pandemic. The risk calculus, then, is straightforward: Try to limit how often you do this.
“It’s not a good idea to be going out to the store every day,” Kates said. “You want to minimize the amount of times you might expose somebody [to coronavirus] or you might be exposed.”
One way to do this is to make the most out of necessary trips. If you’re going to the store, try to buy as much as you can afford and carry in one go, and plan ahead so you don’t forget something. (Still, be reasonable and conscientious of others; taking a year’s supply of toilet paper is unnecessary and could force others to make more trips when the store runs out and they have to go home empty-handed.)
This applies to social gatherings, too. If you saw friends recently, maybe go a few days or weeks before seeing them or another group of friends. Two weeks would be ideal, since it would match the coronavirus’s possible incubation period.
Similar to avoiding crowded spaces and keeping physical distance, this isn’t something everyone is going to be able to do perfectly. We all sometimes forget things at the store and have to go back earlier than we’d like. But the more spaced out trips outside the home are, the better.
7) Create a “closed circle” with specific friends or family
Especially if you’re single and living alone, these can be pretty lonely days. One solution that some experts have put out there is creating a “closed circle” with a friend or family member, in which two people or a group agree to hang out in person but avoid contact with everyone else.
If you and your closed circle avoid everyone else, you’ll reduce the chances of infecting each other and the rest of the world even if you hang out regularly. And if one of you does get sick, the spread should be limited to a small circle.
As Sigal Samuel explained for Vox, this idea isn’t risk-free, and some experts are opposed to it. There’s a risk that people just don’t stick to the pact, putting the whole circle at risk of infection — maybe even at a higher risk if it creates a false sense of security and people in the circle act recklessly toward each other. But even if everyone follows the pact as best as possible, the concept expands your social network and, therefore, your risk of infection — from not only those in the circle, but anyone people in the circle have to interact with at the grocery store, pharmacy, work, or any other setting.
But that’s harm reduction. The closed circle may not eliminate harm, but it does minimize it.
Consider the alternatives. If people are going to interact with their friends and family, but they do it without a closed circle, that’s inherently worse than having a pact, even one that’s not perfectly followed.
Related The rules of social distancing
“Is there a way to make it that, 100 percent, everyone is abiding by those standards? No,” Kates said. “But it’s a harm reduction approach.”
The risk that a closed circle doesn’t work as planned also has to be weighed with the significant risk of loneliness. As Samuel noted, “A meta-review of 70 studies found that loneliness increases your risk of premature mortality by 26 percent. Some experts say it’s as bad for your longevity as smoking. We know that it actually hurts our white blood cells.” We can try to alleviate that loneliness with Skype, Zoom, or phone calls — but, for some people, that’s not going to be enough.
“There are people suffering in isolation,” Marcus said. “In order to sustain this for months or even years, we have to think about how we can connect with others in a way that keeps risk as low as possible, that allows people to feel like they’re living their lives.”
It’s also possible to mitigate the risk of breaches in a closed circle by following the other tips on this list: Even when hanging out with your closed circle, go outside when possible, wear a mask, follow good hygiene, and keep physical distance from each other. A closed circle doesn’t have to be a license for much riskier behavior; it can just be an extra layer of protection if you want to regularly see other humans in person.
8) If you’re in an especially at-risk group, be extra careful
Some people are more vulnerable to the coronavirus. Certain chronic conditions, including asthma, diabetes, liver disease, and obesity, appear to heighten the risk of complications and death due to Covid-19. Those who are older, especially 65 and up, are at higher risk too.
It’s not fair, but it means that those who are at greater risk should be extra careful.
One way experts described this concept: If you fall into one of these at-risk groups, follow the advice on this list but take it to an extra level. If most people typically wash their hands seven times a day, someone in an at-risk group should do it 14 times. If others should stay 6 feet from people, those in at-risk groups should try 10 feet. If the typical person should minimize trips to the store to once a week, people in at-risk groups should try to minimize trips to once every two weeks. And so on.
The safest thing for older people and those with chronic conditions is, like everyone else, to stay home as much as possible. But just like everyone else, this isn’t going to be feasible for some people all day every day, or at least something everyone will be willing to do for weeks or months on end.
“People will take risks, whether we like it or not,” Marcus argued. “The best thing we can do is give them strategies to reduce harm in those situations. If we don’t do that, we’re missing an opportunity.”


vox--2020-05-23--The Trump administration is demanding that Planned Parenthood affiliates give back their PPP loans

Earlier this year , 38 Planned Parenthood affiliates around the United States received over $ 80 million in loans from the federal Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) .
Now , the Small Business Administration ( SBA ) is pressuring those affiliates to return the loans , arguing that they were not eligible for them in the first place .
The loans , distributed as part of a program designed to help small employers keep paying their staff during the economic crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic , were crucial for the clinics that received them , Planned Parenthood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clinics provide reproductive health services from STI testing to contraceptive counseling to abortion .
But with coronavirus spreading across the country , clinics have had to space appointments out , convert some in-person visits to phone consultations , and cancel fundraisers , leaving them with a drop in revenue , Stephanie Fraim , the chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida , told Vox .
Thanks to the PPP loan , she was able to keep all of her staff employed and launch a telehealth program to offer prescriptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among other services .
“ Not only did we not lay anyone off , that meant health care got delivered to lots of patients , ” Fraim said .
The SBA wants Planned Parenthood affiliates like Fraim ’ s to return their PPP loans , claiming that because the clinics are overseen by the nationwide Planned Parenthood Federation of America , which has more than 500 employees , they are not eligible for a loan program meant for smaller employers .
Amid this pressure from the SBA , Republicans in Congress are calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether Planned Parenthood committed fraud by applying for the loans .
The affiliates , meanwhile , argue that their leadership and finances are separate from the nationwide group — and other local affiliates of national nonprofits , like the YMCA , have received PPP loans without issue .
Planned Parenthood affiliates say they ’ re being singled out by the Trump administration because some of their clinics provide abortions , although the PPP money can not be used to pay for them .
“ This is clearly a targeting , ” Fraim said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 41 senators sending a letter to the SBA on Friday urging the agency not to target PPP recipients for political reasons .
The Trump administration has long worked to strip funding from Planned Parenthood — for example , a new rule governing Title X family planning funds forced the group to drop out of that program .
And when the coronavirus pandemic hit , some feared the administration would use the crisis to continue its attacks on the group .
The SBA claims it is just enforcing eligibility requirements when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the affected affiliates , that ’ s not what ’ s happening .
“ This is so obviously another attack on Planned Parenthood and our health care and the patients we serve , ” Fraim said .
The Small Business Administration says Planned Parenthood ’ s structure makes affiliates ineligible for PPP loans Planned Parenthood operates on an affiliate model , meaning that local groups like Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida are separate nonprofit organizations from the national Planned Parenthood Federation of America , which sets some overall standards for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization did not apply for a PPP loan , but many smaller , local affiliates applied , and received them .
Then , in mid-May , the SBA started sending letters to affiliates instructing them to give back the money .
The letters , obtained by NPR , say that “ PPFA is known to have and to exercise control over its local affiliates , ” and that the affiliates ’ status “ in the nationwide PPFA network subject to direction from PPFA on a number of management issues ” makes them ineligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that if borrowers make knowingly false statements in a PPP application , the SBA may refer them “ for appropriate civil or criminal penalties.
” Meanwhile , 26 Republican senators sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on May 21 , asking him to investigate the affiliates for fraudulently applying for the loans , as CBS News reports .
The affiliates “ applied for and received approximately $ 80 million in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program , despite actual knowledge that they were ineligible for such loans , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue they are eligible for the PPP loans , since they are separate from the national PPFA organization .
“ I am a separate 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) , ” Fraim told Vox .
“ I file separate taxes — the IRS certainly understands that.
” She also notes that her affiliate and others have separate boards of directors from the national group , with their own power over hiring and firing .
Fraim knew Planned Parenthood would likely get a different level of scrutiny from the government when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to read the PPP application criteria extremely carefully , she said .
“ It was crystal clear that we qualified.
” Planned Parenthood ’ s affiliate structure is similar to other nonprofits , like the United Way , she added , noting those groups have not been asked to return their PPP loans .
SBA press director Carol Wilkerson , meanwhile , said in response to an inquiry from Vox that the agency does not comment on individual borrowers .
Planned Parenthood says the SBA ’ s decision is politically motivated It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ structured organizations have faced no calls to return their loans that both the local affiliates and the national Planned Parenthood organization believe the SBA letters and calls by Republican senators are motivated by politics .
But it is also because the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have habitually sought to withdraw federal funding from the group because it provides abortions .
Long before the new Title X rules were put in place , congressional Republicans — including now-Vice President Mike Pence — were proposing bills to cut Planned Parenthood ’ s funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-abortion activists , “ Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.
” But PPP funds are limited in scope .
They are meant to be used primarily to cover the costs of payroll , rent , and utilities .
This , coupled with the fact the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion , means PPP funds have not been used for abortion procedures .
Still , attempts to have affiliates return their PPP funds are an attempt to weaken the group and reduce access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Planned Parenthood and its supporters believe .
“ This is a deliberate strategy by Trump and his allies in the Senate to exploit a public health crisis to gut essential reproductive health care , including abortion access and STI testing and treatment , ” Jenny Lawson , executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes , said in a statement on May 22 .
Democrats in Congress , meanwhile , are calling on the SBA to reconsider .
“ It is critical that the SBA implement the PPP as Congress directed , without ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from others , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) and 40 other senators wrote in a May 23 letter .
Some Republicans in Congress counter that Planned Parenthood affiliates should be compared to other large organizations that have returned PPP funds in recent weeks .
“ That ’ s what the Los Angeles Lakers have done .
That ’ s what Shake Shack has done , ” Sen. James Lankford ( R-OK ) told NPR .
“ So other organizations that it was exposed that they should not have taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that would be the reasonable thing for them to be able to do.
” Given the Trump administration ’ s history with Planned Parenthood , however , many have been concerned it might discriminate against the group during the pandemic .
For instance , Mary Alice Carter , a senior adviser at reproductive health watchdog group Equity Forward , wondered in a February interview with Vox whether the Trump administration would decline to ship coronavirus testing kits to Planned Parenthood facilities .
Now , Planned Parenthood affiliates believe the Trump administration has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign against the group , at a time when the stakes may be higher than ever .
“ This is a pattern we ’ ve seen before , ” Fraim said .
“ I never thought they would stoop so low as to do it during a pandemic when , frankly , what we should be doing is caring for our community.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Earlier this year, 38 Planned Parenthood affiliates around the United States received over $80 million in loans from the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Now, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is pressuring those affiliates to return the loans, arguing that they were not eligible for them in the first place.
The loans, distributed as part of a program designed to help small employers keep paying their staff during the economic crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, were crucial for the clinics that received them, Planned Parenthood representatives say.
In normal times, the clinics provide reproductive health services from STI testing to contraceptive counseling to abortion. But with coronavirus spreading across the country, clinics have had to space appointments out, convert some in-person visits to phone consultations, and cancel fundraisers, leaving them with a drop in revenue, Stephanie Fraim, the chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, told Vox.
Thanks to the PPP loan, she was able to keep all of her staff employed and launch a telehealth program to offer prescriptions for hormone therapy for gender-affirming care, among other services. “Not only did we not lay anyone off, that meant health care got delivered to lots of patients,” Fraim said.
The SBA wants Planned Parenthood affiliates like Fraim’s to return their PPP loans, claiming that because the clinics are overseen by the nationwide Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which has more than 500 employees, they are not eligible for a loan program meant for smaller employers. Amid this pressure from the SBA, Republicans in Congress are calling on the Department of Justice to investigate whether Planned Parenthood committed fraud by applying for the loans.
The affiliates, meanwhile, argue that their leadership and finances are separate from the nationwide group — and other local affiliates of national nonprofits, like the YMCA, have received PPP loans without issue. Planned Parenthood affiliates say they’re being singled out by the Trump administration because some of their clinics provide abortions, although the PPP money cannot be used to pay for them.
“This is clearly a targeting,” Fraim said.
Many Democrats in Congress agree, with 41 senators sending a letter to the SBA on Friday urging the agency not to target PPP recipients for political reasons.
The Trump administration has long worked to strip funding from Planned Parenthood — for example, a new rule governing Title X family planning funds forced the group to drop out of that program. And when the coronavirus pandemic hit, some feared the administration would use the crisis to continue its attacks on the group.
The SBA claims it is just enforcing eligibility requirements when it comes to the PPP funds. But according to the affected affiliates, that’s not what’s happening. “This is so obviously another attack on Planned Parenthood and our health care and the patients we serve,” Fraim said.
The Small Business Administration says Planned Parenthood’s structure makes affiliates ineligible for PPP loans
Planned Parenthood operates on an affiliate model, meaning that local groups like Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida are separate nonprofit organizations from the national Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which sets some overall standards for the Planned Parenthood brand. The national organization did not apply for a PPP loan, but many smaller, local affiliates applied, and received them.
Then, in mid-May, the SBA started sending letters to affiliates instructing them to give back the money. The letters, obtained by NPR, say that “PPFA is known to have and to exercise control over its local affiliates,” and that the affiliates’ status “in the nationwide PPFA network subject to direction from PPFA on a number of management issues” makes them ineligible for PPP loans.
The letters also say that if borrowers make knowingly false statements in a PPP application, the SBA may refer them “for appropriate civil or criminal penalties.”
Meanwhile, 26 Republican senators sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on May 21, asking him to investigate the affiliates for fraudulently applying for the loans, as CBS News reports. The affiliates “applied for and received approximately $80 million in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program, despite actual knowledge that they were ineligible for such loans,” the letter states.
However, the affiliates argue they are eligible for the PPP loans, since they are separate from the national PPFA organization.
“I am a separate 501(c)(3),” Fraim told Vox. “I file separate taxes — the IRS certainly understands that.” She also notes that her affiliate and others have separate boards of directors from the national group, with their own power over hiring and firing.
Fraim knew Planned Parenthood would likely get a different level of scrutiny from the government when they applied, so her team was sure to read the PPP application criteria extremely carefully, she said. “It was crystal clear that we qualified.”
Planned Parenthood’s affiliate structure is similar to other nonprofits, like the United Way, she added, noting those groups have not been asked to return their PPP loans.
SBA press director Carol Wilkerson, meanwhile, said in response to an inquiry from Vox that the agency does not comment on individual borrowers.
Planned Parenthood says the SBA’s decision is politically motivated
It’s in part because other, similarly structured organizations have faced no calls to return their loans that both the local affiliates and the national Planned Parenthood organization believe the SBA letters and calls by Republican senators are motivated by politics. But it is also because the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have habitually sought to withdraw federal funding from the group because it provides abortions. Long before the new Title X rules were put in place, congressional Republicans — including now-Vice President Mike Pence — were proposing bills to cut Planned Parenthood’s funding. And President Donald Trump has told anti-abortion activists, “Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.”
But PPP funds are limited in scope. They are meant to be used primarily to cover the costs of payroll, rent, and utilities. This, coupled with the fact the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion, means PPP funds have not been used for abortion procedures. Still, attempts to have affiliates return their PPP funds are an attempt to weaken the group and reduce access to abortion care in the long term, Planned Parenthood and its supporters believe.
“This is a deliberate strategy by Trump and his allies in the Senate to exploit a public health crisis to gut essential reproductive health care, including abortion access and STI testing and treatment,” Jenny Lawson, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes, said in a statement on May 22.
Democrats in Congress, meanwhile, are calling on the SBA to reconsider. “It is critical that the SBA implement the PPP as Congress directed, without ideological efforts to treat certain nonprofit organizations differently from others,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and 40 other senators wrote in a May 23 letter.
To the SBA:
In the CARES Act, the PPP program ensured nonprofits that meet the qualifications would be eligible for help.
You need to stop the ideologically-driven action against Planned Parenthood’s local health centers to score political points for the Trump admin. pic.twitter.com/rv8Cxkwl8T — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 23, 2020
Some Republicans in Congress counter that Planned Parenthood affiliates should be compared to other large organizations that have returned PPP funds in recent weeks.
“That’s what the Los Angeles Lakers have done. That’s what Shake Shack has done,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told NPR. “So other organizations that it was exposed that they should not have taken the money have returned the money, so that would be the reasonable thing for them to be able to do.”
Given the Trump administration’s history with Planned Parenthood, however, many have been concerned it might discriminate against the group during the pandemic. For instance, Mary Alice Carter, a senior adviser at reproductive health watchdog group Equity Forward, wondered in a February interview with Vox whether the Trump administration would decline to ship coronavirus testing kits to Planned Parenthood facilities.
Now, Planned Parenthood affiliates believe the Trump administration has found a different way of continuing a campaign against the group, at a time when the stakes may be higher than ever.
“This is a pattern we’ve seen before,” Fraim said. “I never thought they would stoop so low as to do it during a pandemic when, frankly, what we should be doing is caring for our community.”


vox--2020-05-23--Poll: Many Americans won’t venture into public despite businesses reopening

A new poll from the Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that only about half of Americans are ready to resume many of the activities they regularly did prior to the coronavirus pandemic , like watching a movie or attending a sporting event , if given the option .
The survey results underscore the reality that reviving the US economy is not just a matter of opening businesses and venues , but of the public ’ s perception about the safety of venturing out to crowded spaces and interacting with high-touch surfaces .
The survey , taken from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4.2 percentage point margin of error ) , asked 1,065 US adults about the kinds of activities they did regularly before the pandemic , and whether they would consider taking them up again in the next few weeks if allowed to do so .
It compared these responses to those of Americans in general by combining the answers of respondents who once regularly engaged in the surveyed activities with the answers of those who did not .
Overall , it found that Americans who did things like go to the gym or attend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic were more likely to say they ’ d return to doing so if given the chance .
Nevertheless , for most activities — particularly those with higher risks of infection like concerts or using public transportation — fewer than half of those who once regularly engaged with them said they would do so if restrictions were lifted .
For example , 42 percent of Americans who went to a sporting event regularly ( that is , at least monthly ) said they would “ probably or definitely ” go to one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could .
By contrast , 19 percent of Americans overall said they felt the same way .
Similarly , 48 percent of Americans who had regularly used public transportation said they would again do so if allowed in the next few weeks ; just 14 percent of Americans overall would .
Gyms still had a way to go as well : 50 percent of regular gym-goers would return if local measures let them , while only 24 percent of Americans on the whole said the same .
Respondents expressed more interest in going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the numbers were still low overall : 43 percent of the public overall said they ’ d go to one , and 52 percent of people who did so routinely said the same .
The activities that pollsters found Americans are more likely to be enthusiastic about resuming included visiting friends and family ( 81 percent of those who previously did so regularly said they would resume doing so once allowed ; 73 of the public overall said they would ) ; getting a haircut ( 72 percent of those who got cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them again , compared to 54 percent of Americans overall ) ; and shopping in person for nonessential items ( 69 percent of regular shoppers would pick up their old habits ; 64 percent of Americans said they ’ d go out shopping as well ) .
There was something of a split among Americans in general and regular attendees of religious services — but 67 percent of those who were regular attendees said they planned go back to their services once they could , compared to the 38 percent of Americans overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This poll — and others like it — suggest reopening may not solve the US ’ s economic problems The picture that emerges from the survey is that while there are a substantial number of people inclined to resume their habitual activities , many of them — and sometimes more of them than not — aren ’ t yet ready to do so .
And that Americans on the whole are not ready to resume life as usual .
This would suggest that reopening nonessential businesses may have a limited effect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Matt Yglesias has explained , the economic crisis is not one induced simply by government shutdowns of nonessential businesses designed to contain Covid-19 , but genuine , widespread concern about contracting the coronavirus : As Yglesias notes , restaurant bookings nosedived before bars and restaurants were shuttered by state governments .
Given this fact and data like that of the AP/NORC survey , it ’ s fair to surmise that fear of disease is playing a crucial role in wrecking the economy .
It ’ s telling that the most popular activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and family .
Months of social distancing has certainly left many longing to see those they care about .
But , notably , seeing friends and family is an activity that can generally be done without being exposed to strangers or crowds .
In other words , it ’ s likely popular because it ’ s an activity where people can trust that they ’ re fairly safe .
It is also an activity that — barring a need to travel long distances — does not require spending any significant sum of money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be cautious about activities more likely to stimulate the economy suggests a return to economic normalcy may be some ways off , regardless of how many nonessential businesses reopen .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

A new poll from the Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that only about half of Americans are ready to resume many of the activities they regularly did prior to the coronavirus pandemic, like watching a movie or attending a sporting event, if given the option.
The survey results underscore the reality that reviving the US economy is not just a matter of opening businesses and venues, but of the public’s perception about the safety of venturing out to crowded spaces and interacting with high-touch surfaces.
The survey, taken from May 14 to 18 (with a 4.2 percentage point margin of error), asked 1,065 US adults about the kinds of activities they did regularly before the pandemic, and whether they would consider taking them up again in the next few weeks if allowed to do so. It compared these responses to those of Americans in general by combining the answers of respondents who once regularly engaged in the surveyed activities with the answers of those who did not.
Overall, it found that Americans who did things like go to the gym or attend religious services at least monthly prior to the pandemic were more likely to say they’d return to doing so if given the chance. Nevertheless, for most activities — particularly those with higher risks of infection like concerts or using public transportation — fewer than half of those who once regularly engaged with them said they would do so if restrictions were lifted.
For example, 42 percent of Americans who went to a sporting event regularly (that is, at least monthly) said they would “probably or definitely” go to one in the next few weeks if they could. By contrast, 19 percent of Americans overall said they felt the same way.
Similarly, 48 percent of Americans who had regularly used public transportation said they would again do so if allowed in the next few weeks; just 14 percent of Americans overall would. Gyms still had a way to go as well: 50 percent of regular gym-goers would return if local measures let them, while only 24 percent of Americans on the whole said the same.
Respondents expressed more interest in going out to restaurants and bars, but the numbers were still low overall: 43 percent of the public overall said they’d go to one, and 52 percent of people who did so routinely said the same.
The activities that pollsters found Americans are more likely to be enthusiastic about resuming included visiting friends and family (81 percent of those who previously did so regularly said they would resume doing so once allowed; 73 of the public overall said they would); getting a haircut (72 percent of those who got cuts at least once a month would get them again, compared to 54 percent of Americans overall); and shopping in person for nonessential items (69 percent of regular shoppers would pick up their old habits; 64 percent of Americans said they’d go out shopping as well).
There was something of a split among Americans in general and regular attendees of religious services — but 67 percent of those who were regular attendees said they planned go back to their services once they could, compared to the 38 percent of Americans overall who planned to return to religious events.
This poll — and others like it — suggest reopening may not solve the US’s economic problems
The picture that emerges from the survey is that while there are a substantial number of people inclined to resume their habitual activities, many of them — and sometimes more of them than not — aren’t yet ready to do so. And that Americans on the whole are not ready to resume life as usual.
This would suggest that reopening nonessential businesses may have a limited effect on a struggling economy. As Vox’s Matt Yglesias has explained, the economic crisis is not one induced simply by government shutdowns of nonessential businesses designed to contain Covid-19, but genuine, widespread concern about contracting the coronavirus:
The problem is a question of fear. Americans fear spreading or contracting infection, so much so that they’ve overwhelmingly participated in social distancing measures. They tell pollsters by wide margins that they fear lifting those restrictions too soon much more so than too late. They’re willing to stay put even if it harms the economy.
As Yglesias notes, restaurant bookings nosedived before bars and restaurants were shuttered by state governments. Given this fact and data like that of the AP/NORC survey, it’s fair to surmise that fear of disease is playing a crucial role in wrecking the economy.
It’s telling that the most popular activity in the new poll was seeing friends and family. Months of social distancing has certainly left many longing to see those they care about. But, notably, seeing friends and family is an activity that can generally be done without being exposed to strangers or crowds. In other words, it’s likely popular because it’s an activity where people can trust that they’re fairly safe.
It is also an activity that — barring a need to travel long distances — does not require spending any significant sum of money. And, that people were found to be cautious about activities more likely to stimulate the economy suggests a return to economic normalcy may be some ways off, regardless of how many nonessential businesses reopen.


vox--2020-05-23--The Justice Department is pressuring state and local officials over lockdown orders

The Department of Justice has weighed in on stay-at-home orders in Illinois and California — and has warned officials in both states that the federal government believes they may be exceeding their legal authority with their current means of containing the spread of the coronavirus pandemic .
The Justice Department ’ s signals — a statement of interest backing a lawsuit against Illinois Gov .
J.B. Pritzker ’ s lockdown order , and letters to both Los Angeles officials and California ’ s governor — are part of an initiative announced last month by Attorney General William Barr meant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state or local ordinances that represent an “ overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections.
” The warnings come as the Trump administration is aggressively promoting the reopening of venues like churches and nonessential businesses amid a crashing economy , and as the administration looks for ways to accelerate a return to pre-coronavirus normalcy .
On Friday , Justice Department lawyers filed a statement of interest backing a lawsuit brought against Pritzker by Illinois state Rep. Darren Bailey .
Bailey , a Republican , claims that Pritzker illegally extended state stay-at-home restrictions past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor was allowed to exercise emergency powers .
“ However well-intentioned they may be , the executive orders appear to reach far beyond the scope of the 30-day emergency authority granted to the Governor under Illinois law , ” said Steven Weinhoeft , the US Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois , in a statement explaining the federal government ’ s statement of interest .
“ Even during times of crisis , executive actions undertaken in the name of public safety must be lawful.
” Weinhoeft continued , “ And while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the effects of this public health crisis , including by complying with [ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ] guidelines their constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties must be safeguarded as well.
” Clay County Circuit Judge Michael McHaney ruled in favor of Bailey in late April , but Pritzker has since moved the lawsuit to federal court .
The lawsuit applies only to Bailey himself , but would allow individuals and groups to challenge restrictions themselves .
And in another development on Friday , Eric Dreiband , assistant attorney general for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Division , wrote a letter to Los Angeles officials expressing concern about “ an arbitrary and heavy-handed approach to continuing stay-at-home requirements.
” The letter came in response to city officials ’ statements last week indicating their commitment to long-term restrictions on movement .
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said last week that his city would “ never be completely open until we have a cure ” in an interview with ABC ’ s Good Morning America .
And Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said some form of quarantine restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ for the next three months.
” She later clarified by saying that “ while the ‘ Safer at Home ’ orders will remain in place over the next few months , restrictions will be gradually relaxed.
” “ Reports of your recent public statements indicate that you suggested the possibility of long-term lockdown of the residents in the City and County of Los Angeles , regardless of the legal justification for such restrictions .
Any such approach may be both arbitrary and unlawful , ” Dreiband said in his letter .
Garcetti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department during a press briefing on Friday , saying , “ We are not guided by politics in this , we are guided by science .
We are guided by collaboration .
...
The numbers will always guide us forward — there is nothing else .
There ’ s no games , there ’ s nothing else going on.
” Tuesday , Dreiband sent a similar letter to California Gov .
Gavin Newsom , arguing that the state needs to allow churches to reopen sooner than it currently plans to , accusing Newsom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities ” and of violating the civil rights of worshippers .
California plans to allow places of worship to reopen once criteria are met for the state to move to phase three of its reopening plan , which would allow “ higher-risk workplaces ” to resume normal business .
Although a number of “ superspreader events ” have been tied to religious meetings in South Korea , France , and the United States , the DOJ argued in its letter that “ California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to facilitate nonessential ecommerce , are included on the list as being allowed ... while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden .
Newsom ’ s office has replied to comment requests by saying only it had received the letter , and the governor promised Monday worship would be back in session within “ weeks , if everything holds.
” Neither letter contained any threat of legal action , but both — as well as the department ’ s involvement in the Illinois case — are clear signs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to assist the president in his push to reopen the country .
The Trump administration wants to shift gears as quickly as possible President Trump has advocated for a rapid reopening for weeks , encouraging anti-lockdown protesters with a series of tweets stating someone should “ liberate ” their states , and regularly advocating for businesses to be allowed to reopen on Twitter .
But there are hard limits to what the federal government can do in a federalist system that empowers states to oversee much of their own pandemic responses , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after Trump announced he would order churches to reopen — and “ override the governors ” if they resisted : Congress could theoretically override some decisions by state governors .
The Constitution gives Congress the power to “ regulate commerce with foreign nations , and among the several states , ” a provision which gives Congress broad authority to regulate the national economy and to remove obstacles to interstate trade .
So , if Congress disagreed with a state order closing businesses , it could likely enact a federal law preempting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ churches have a substantial enough impact on interstate commerce that Congress could order them reopened , Trump is not Congress .
Trump can invoke existing laws that give the federal executive branch some power to help manage a public health crisis , but those statutes largely permit the federal government to support ongoing state efforts to control a disease , or to quarantine seeking to enter the country or to cross state lines .
This leaves the Trump administration with limited options for advancing its reopening agenda , particularly in states not governed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DOJ ’ s actions suggest it is increasingly willing to help the president find ways around this limitation .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 Department of Justice has weighed in on stay-at-home orders in Illinois and California — and has warned officials in both states that the federal government believes they may be exceeding their legal authority with their current means of containing the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Justice Department’s signals — a statement of interest backing a lawsuit against Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s lockdown order, and letters to both Los Angeles officials and California’s governor — are part of an initiative announced last month by Attorney General William Barr meant to monitor and take legal action against any state or local ordinances that represent an “overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections.”
The warnings come as the Trump administration is aggressively promoting the reopening of venues like churches and nonessential businesses amid a crashing economy, and as the administration looks for ways to accelerate a return to pre-coronavirus normalcy.
On Friday, Justice Department lawyers filed a statement of interest backing a lawsuit brought against Pritzker by Illinois state Rep. Darren Bailey. Bailey, a Republican, claims that Pritzker illegally extended state stay-at-home restrictions past a 30 day period in which the governor was allowed to exercise emergency powers.
“However well-intentioned they may be, the executive orders appear to reach far beyond the scope of the 30-day emergency authority granted to the Governor under Illinois law,” said Steven Weinhoeft, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, in a statement explaining the federal government’s statement of interest. “Even during times of crisis, executive actions undertaken in the name of public safety must be lawful.”
Weinhoeft continued, “And while the people of Illinois must be physically protected from the effects of this public health crisis, including by complying with [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines their constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties must be safeguarded as well.”
Clay County Circuit Judge Michael McHaney ruled in favor of Bailey in late April, but Pritzker has since moved the lawsuit to federal court. The lawsuit applies only to Bailey himself, but would allow individuals and groups to challenge restrictions themselves.
And in another development on Friday, Eric Dreiband, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, wrote a letter to Los Angeles officials expressing concern about “an arbitrary and heavy-handed approach to continuing stay-at-home requirements.”
The letter came in response to city officials’ statements last week indicating their commitment to long-term restrictions on movement. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said last week that his city would “never be completely open until we have a cure” in an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America. And Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said some form of quarantine restrictions will remain in place for the county “for the next three months.” She later clarified by saying that “while the ‘Safer at Home’ orders will remain in place over the next few months, restrictions will be gradually relaxed.”
“Reports of your recent public statements indicate that you suggested the possibility of long-term lockdown of the residents in the City and County of Los Angeles, regardless of the legal justification for such restrictions. Any such approach may be both arbitrary and unlawful,” Dreiband said in his letter.
Garcetti responded to the letter from the Justice Department during a press briefing on Friday, saying, “We are not guided by politics in this, we are guided by science. We are guided by collaboration. ... The numbers will always guide us forward — there is nothing else. There’s no games, there’s nothing else going on.”
Tuesday, Dreiband sent a similar letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, arguing that the state needs to allow churches to reopen sooner than it currently plans to, accusing Newsom of “pronounced unequal treatment of faith communities” and of violating the civil rights of worshippers.
California plans to allow places of worship to reopen once criteria are met for the state to move to phase three of its reopening plan, which would allow “higher-risk workplaces” to resume normal business.
Although a number of “superspreader events” have been tied to religious meetings in South Korea, France, and the United States, the DOJ argued in its letter that “California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed ... while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden.
Newsom’s office has replied to comment requests by saying only it had received the letter, and the governor promised Monday worship would be back in session within “weeks, if everything holds.”
Neither letter contained any threat of legal action, but both — as well as the department’s involvement in the Illinois case — are clear signs of the Department of Justice’s willingness to assist the president in his push to reopen the country.
The Trump administration wants to shift gears as quickly as possible
President Trump has advocated for a rapid reopening for weeks, encouraging anti-lockdown protesters with a series of tweets stating someone should “liberate” their states, and regularly advocating for businesses to be allowed to reopen on Twitter.
REOPEN OUR COUNTRY! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 18, 2020
But there are hard limits to what the federal government can do in a federalist system that empowers states to oversee much of their own pandemic responses, as Vox’s Ian Millhiser explained Friday, after Trump announced he would order churches to reopen — and “override the governors” if they resisted:
Congress could theoretically override some decisions by state governors. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,” a provision which gives Congress broad authority to regulate the national economy and to remove obstacles to interstate trade. So, if Congress disagreed with a state order closing businesses, it could likely enact a federal law preempting that state order. But even assuming that churches have a substantial enough impact on interstate commerce that Congress could order them reopened, Trump is not Congress. Trump can invoke existing laws that give the federal executive branch some power to help manage a public health crisis, but those statutes largely permit the federal government to support ongoing state efforts to control a disease, or to quarantine people seeking to enter the country or to cross state lines.
This leaves the Trump administration with limited options for advancing its reopening agenda, particularly in states not governed by allies of the president. But the DOJ’s actions suggest it is increasingly willing to help the president find ways around this limitation.