vox--2020-04-29--Should you be buying that online right now?

Share All sharing options for : Should you be buying that online right now ?
Earlier this month , I found myself staring at a pair of Frozen 2-themed shoes with flashing electric blue snowflakes , asking myself , is this essential ?
After almost six weeks in quarantine due to the coronavirus pandemic , my 5-year-old ’ s toes had grown snug in her old sneakers .
Taking her to a local store or resale shop to buy shoes , as I would have pre-COVID-19 , clearly wasn ’ t an option .
At the same time , retailers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loss of revenue from their shuttered brick-and-mortar shops , making an online purchase even more attractive .
My internet search for shoes framed the larger social dilemma .
In one browser window , here was a smoking deal for something I could n't really buy locally at the moment .
In the next window was a story about how Amazon workers were staging weekly sickouts to highlight dangerous labor conditions .
Shelter-in-place orders , compounded with store closures , have swamped the country ’ s online shopping system , risking the lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In response to strikes and protests , Amazon has canceled upcoming promotions to discourage nonessential sales , and some retailers have completely suspended orders to protect their own workers .
As someone who had restrained herself from purchasing much of anything online over the last six weeks , I didn ’ t want my daughter ’ s new shoes to put anyone ’ s health in jeopardy .
But seeing the number of delivery trucks on my block , which now account for the only real traffic on our street , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercising the same restraint .
I wondered what a responsible mom caring for a pair of fast-growing feet should do .
I reached out to Sarah Kaufman , who studies how technology and transportation choices affect cities at New York University ’ s Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management .
She ’ s been confronting a lot of the same dilemmas with her family .
She also lives two blocks from a Manhattan hospital , where the wail of ambulances has given her a sobering reminder of the prioritization of essential services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been thinking a lot about the things that we want and the things that we need , ” she told me .
While we should certainly think carefully about what we ’ re buying during the pandemic , and how our decisions might impact the health and safety of workers , it ’ s important to remember that those considerations won ’ t necessarily go away once the pandemic is over , says Kaufman .
Coronavirus is making long-standing concerns about the Amazonification of our economy much more acute .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she says , “ from accelerating the decline of neighborhood shops to deliveries , which , at this point , still need to be carried out by humans.
” Each day , one in eight Americans receives something purchased online , a number that ’ s expected to double within five years .
And Amazon—where about a third of all U.S. online sales are made—has come under increasing criticism , even before the coronavirus pandemic .
Untrained delivery drivers under contract with Amazon ’ s next- or same-day delivery service have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the death of the company ’ s first chief financial officer .
Operating oversized vehicles on already crowded streets has exacerbated congestion in cities .
Fulfillment centers , which are usually in rural or suburban communities , have become hotbeds of pollution , with the corridors around them dubbed “ diesel death zones.
” So the tsunami of packages making their way to people ’ s doors was already negatively impacting the health and safety of Americans , even before the pandemic .
But , as Kaufman pointed out to me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may end up improving the way deliveries are made .
Fewer overall cars on the street now mean those delivery trucks aren ’ t idling in traffic , so deliveries are being made much more efficiently , says Kaufman .
That means logistics managers can use those empty streets to experiment .
One change she ’ s seeing during the pandemic that might have long-term benefits : policy shifts that prioritize e-bikes for deliveries , which are smaller , nimbler , and safer for city streets .
“ These e-bike drivers who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers , ” she says .
“ It ’ s quite a turnaround.
” The pandemic will likely result in labor reforms for delivery workers , but Kaufman is also seeing increased interest in taking human labor out of the equation—for better or for worse—in the quest for automated , contactless delivery .
Before the novel coronavirus , Amazon was testing sidewalk robots and airborne drones , and ongoing infectious disease outbreaks may accelerate the development of such services .
In the last few weeks , the autonomous delivery startup Nuro has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deploy a pilot program in California , and drones have been dropping critical medical supplies in remote areas of the U.K .
Deliveries also carry a massive carbon footprint , which the industry has only really begun to address .
After Amazon employees orchestrated climate strikes last September , the corporation pledged to make a shift to zero-emission delivery services , including manufacturing 100,000 electric vans and training drivers to operate them .
UPS and FedEx are also moving toward electric vehicles , including cargo e-bikes .
The impending crisis facing the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to use stimulus money to electrify its vehicle fleet , which would save money , create more unionized jobs , and reduce U.S. emissions .
“ The increase in deliveries during shelter in place has shown us just how important the post office is , ” says Kaufman .
“ Upgrading the service to 21st-century vehicles would be more efficient for the service , and cleaner for the entire country.
” The postal service ’ s financial woes also demonstrate another issue for those who want to shop online responsibly—most consumers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ship their packages .
Increasingly , there aren ’ t many options left besides Amazon ’ s delivery networks for some Americans to get basic necessities .
Cheap online deliveries , and all of the negative local effects that come with them , are now the only lifeline for many people with disabilities , those who are unable to drive , or households in remote areas .
A revitalized USPS might be able to change that dynamic .
As shoppers struggle to balance the convenience and perceived safety of online purchases with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the crisis has further exacerbated the economic hardship for local markets and corner stores .
This has resulted in many local institutions like bookshops and record stores quickly pivoting to online-only sales , which also might result in long-term changes in the way transactions are made at the neighborhood level .
Kaufman points to her local bodega , which embraced contactless payment technology and expanded delivery options to adjust to changing consumer preferences .
As I hovered my cursor over the shoes I ’ d found for my daughter , I thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made in my pre-COVID-19 shopping to reduce vehicle trips and balance those local versus global conundrums .
Over the last year I ’ d started having online purchases shipped to my neighborhood Target , which is one of those smaller “ city ” versions of the retailer that somehow manages to have almost everything we need .
Then I can make a single , zero-emission trip on foot , using a wagon I pull my kids around in , to collect my online purchase and pick up a few groceries at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our efforts to minimize our exposure to others had consolidated our shopping trips into a single weekly trip to our local grocery store with more food options , meaning an extra Target outing was out .
I ended up deciding to buy my daughter ’ s shoes through Zappos , which , as a seasoned online retailer , I felt would be taking the proper precautions for employees without introducing new delivery efforts that might put them at risk .
In addition to the Frozen 2 shoes , I added a pair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sale ! )
to the cart .
I chose the slowest delivery method .
To my chagrin , each pair of shoes arrived in separate packages , with the first in the flotilla arriving the very next day , which is , coincidentally , the same day I remembered that Zappos was owned by Amazon .
Kaufman encouraged me not to be too hard on myself , saying even she buys a nonessential online sweatshirt from time to time .
“ I do think about it , ” says Kaufman , “ But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m buying this.
’ ” She lives in a 100-unit building and every time a delivery is made , she sees 10 or more packages , which to her seems reasonably efficient .
But she also pointed out something I think is really important to remember .
The coronavirus pandemic has created not just a public health crisis , but a mental health crisis as well .
The isolation of stay-at-home orders means that , for some people , seemingly nonessential supplies for bread-baking or knitting , or even new running shoes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own well-being .
“ There is something to be said about things you would classify as a want but might be a need—like someone buying paint to repaint their apartment , ” says Kaufman .
“ Right now , it might be keeping them sane to repaint their apartment .
”

Earlier this month, I found myself staring at a pair of Frozen 2-themed shoes with flashing electric blue snowflakes, asking myself, is this essential?
After almost six weeks in quarantine due to the coronavirus pandemic, my 5-year-old’s toes had grown snug in her old sneakers. Taking her to a local store or resale shop to buy shoes, as I would have pre-COVID-19, clearly wasn’t an option. At the same time, retailers were offering tantalizingly deep discounts to offset the loss of revenue from their shuttered brick-and-mortar shops, making an online purchase even more attractive.
My internet search for shoes framed the larger social dilemma. In one browser window, here was a smoking deal for something I couldn't really buy locally at the moment. In the next window was a story about how Amazon workers were staging weekly sickouts to highlight dangerous labor conditions.
Shelter-in-place orders, compounded with store closures, have swamped the country’s online shopping system, risking the lives of warehouse employees and delivery workers. In response to strikes and protests, Amazon has canceled upcoming promotions to discourage nonessential sales, and some retailers have completely suspended orders to protect their own workers.
As someone who had restrained herself from purchasing much of anything online over the last six weeks, I didn’t want my daughter’s new shoes to put anyone’s health in jeopardy. But seeing the number of delivery trucks on my block, which now account for the only real traffic on our street, it was clear that few of my neighbors were exercising the same restraint. I wondered what a responsible mom caring for a pair of fast-growing feet should do.
I reached out to Sarah Kaufman, who studies how technology and transportation choices affect cities at New York University’s Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management. She’s been confronting a lot of the same dilemmas with her family. She also lives two blocks from a Manhattan hospital, where the wail of ambulances has given her a sobering reminder of the prioritization of essential services during the coronavirus crisis. “I’ve been thinking a lot about the things that we want and the things that we need,” she told me.
While we should certainly think carefully about what we’re buying during the pandemic, and how our decisions might impact the health and safety of workers, it’s important to remember that those considerations won’t necessarily go away once the pandemic is over, says Kaufman. Coronavirus is making long-standing concerns about the Amazonification of our economy much more acute. “Online shopping has a profound impact,” she says, “from accelerating the decline of neighborhood shops to deliveries, which, at this point, still need to be carried out by humans.”
Each day, one in eight Americans receives something purchased online, a number that’s expected to double within five years. And Amazon—where about a third of all U.S. online sales are made—has come under increasing criticism, even before the coronavirus pandemic. Untrained delivery drivers under contract with Amazon’s next- or same-day delivery service have been found responsible for dozens of fatal crashes, including the death of the company’s first chief financial officer. Operating oversized vehicles on already crowded streets has exacerbated congestion in cities. Fulfillment centers, which are usually in rural or suburban communities, have become hotbeds of pollution, with the corridors around them dubbed “diesel death zones.”
So the tsunami of packages making their way to people’s doors was already negatively impacting the health and safety of Americans, even before the pandemic. But, as Kaufman pointed out to me, several transformations introduced by the pandemic may end up improving the way deliveries are made.
Fewer overall cars on the street now mean those delivery trucks aren’t idling in traffic, so deliveries are being made much more efficiently, says Kaufman. That means logistics managers can use those empty streets to experiment. One change she’s seeing during the pandemic that might have long-term benefits: policy shifts that prioritize e-bikes for deliveries, which are smaller, nimbler, and safer for city streets. “These e-bike drivers who had been harassed and arrested are suddenly essential workers,” she says. “It’s quite a turnaround.”
The pandemic will likely result in labor reforms for delivery workers, but Kaufman is also seeing increased interest in taking human labor out of the equation—for better or for worse—in the quest for automated, contactless delivery. Before the novel coronavirus, Amazon was testing sidewalk robots and airborne drones, and ongoing infectious disease outbreaks may accelerate the development of such services. In the last few weeks, the autonomous delivery startup Nuro has been taking advantage of the empty streets to deploy a pilot program in California, and drones have been dropping critical medical supplies in remote areas of the U.K.
Deliveries also carry a massive carbon footprint, which the industry has only really begun to address. After Amazon employees orchestrated climate strikes last September, the corporation pledged to make a shift to zero-emission delivery services, including manufacturing 100,000 electric vans and training drivers to operate them. UPS and FedEx are also moving toward electric vehicles, including cargo e-bikes. The impending crisis facing the United States Postal Service has highlighted a tremendous opportunity to use stimulus money to electrify its vehicle fleet, which would save money, create more unionized jobs, and reduce U.S. emissions. “The increase in deliveries during shelter in place has shown us just how important the post office is,” says Kaufman. “Upgrading the service to 21st-century vehicles would be more efficient for the service, and cleaner for the entire country.”
The postal service’s financial woes also demonstrate another issue for those who want to shop online responsibly—most consumers are never offered the choice for how to ship their packages. Increasingly, there aren’t many options left besides Amazon’s delivery networks for some Americans to get basic necessities. Cheap online deliveries, and all of the negative local effects that come with them, are now the only lifeline for many people with disabilities, those who are unable to drive, or households in remote areas. A revitalized USPS might be able to change that dynamic.
As shoppers struggle to balance the convenience and perceived safety of online purchases with the responsibility and risk of supporting neighborhood businesses, the crisis has further exacerbated the economic hardship for local markets and corner stores. This has resulted in many local institutions like bookshops and record stores quickly pivoting to online-only sales, which also might result in long-term changes in the way transactions are made at the neighborhood level. Kaufman points to her local bodega, which embraced contactless payment technology and expanded delivery options to adjust to changing consumer preferences.
As I hovered my cursor over the shoes I’d found for my daughter, I thought about a recent change I’d made in my pre-COVID-19 shopping to reduce vehicle trips and balance those local versus global conundrums. Over the last year I’d started having online purchases shipped to my neighborhood Target, which is one of those smaller “city” versions of the retailer that somehow manages to have almost everything we need. Then I can make a single, zero-emission trip on foot, using a wagon I pull my kids around in, to collect my online purchase and pick up a few groceries at the same time. But in recent weeks, our efforts to minimize our exposure to others had consolidated our shopping trips into a single weekly trip to our local grocery store with more food options, meaning an extra Target outing was out.
I ended up deciding to buy my daughter’s shoes through Zappos, which, as a seasoned online retailer, I felt would be taking the proper precautions for employees without introducing new delivery efforts that might put them at risk. In addition to the Frozen 2 shoes, I added a pair of running shoes for myself (also on sale!) to the cart. I chose the slowest delivery method. To my chagrin, each pair of shoes arrived in separate packages, with the first in the flotilla arriving the very next day, which is, coincidentally, the same day I remembered that Zappos was owned by Amazon.
Kaufman encouraged me not to be too hard on myself, saying even she buys a nonessential online sweatshirt from time to time. “I do think about it,” says Kaufman, “But sometimes I just say, ‘I’m buying this.’” She lives in a 100-unit building and every time a delivery is made, she sees 10 or more packages, which to her seems reasonably efficient.
But she also pointed out something I think is really important to remember. The coronavirus pandemic has created not just a public health crisis, but a mental health crisis as well. The isolation of stay-at-home orders means that, for some people, seemingly nonessential supplies for bread-baking or knitting, or even new running shoes, could actually be quite essential for their own well-being.
“There is something to be said about things you would classify as a want but might be a need—like someone buying paint to repaint their apartment,” says Kaufman. “Right now, it might be keeping them sane to repaint their apartment.”


vox--2020-04-29--Why the coronavirus may be killing more Americans than the government data says

Evidence-based explanations of the coronavirus crisis , from how it started to how it might end to how to protect yourself and others .
It ’ s long been the consensus of experts that more Americans are dying in the coronavirus pandemic than the official figures indicate .
But exactly how many ?
This week , the first estimate of how many more people have perished was published in the Washington Post , using one of the best methods commonly used by researchers : measuring excess deaths .
And it was a grim one .
The Post , in partnership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Health , estimated that 15,400 more people died between March 1 and April 4 than would ordinarily have been expected , a substantially higher toll than the 8,128 coronavirus deaths that were reported over that time by government agencies .
Ordinarily , the researchers project the US would have had a little more than 50,000 deaths in the studied period , but the actual deaths were more than 60,000 .
Not all of those excess deaths were necessarily directly a result of Covid-19 .
As the Post reporters wrote , mortality in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Determining the cause of death is more of an art than a science , and guidelines can change , ” Daniel Weinberger , who led the Yale School of Public Health researchers , told me .
“ There are likely many more people who died of coronavirus-related causes than who have ‘ coronavirus ’ listed as a cause of death on the death certificate.
” Then again , you also have to account for how many of the people who died from Covid-19 might have died anyway , given poor health , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , fewer people are driving automobiles during a period of nationwide lockdowns .
“ One way to avoid these biases is to look at what happens to rates of death due to any cause , ” Weinberger said .
His team created a regression model that adjusts for the seasonal variations in mortality and changes in mortality over time .
They accounted for flu activity as well .
The bottom line , according to Weinberger : “ With all those complexities , we still see that there were about 15,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 .
This is about 1.5 to 2 times higher than the reported number of Covid-19 deaths at the time.
” And if anything , that is probably the floor .
Experts including Weinberger agree the death counts are likely to be revised upward as more reporting come in .
Tallying deaths always takes time because of inconsistent reporting across states .
“ As we gain more detailed information on the causes of death , we will learn more about whether Covid-19 caused them directly , or whether the many disruptions , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , could have caused many of the excess deaths , ” Ellen Meara , a health economics professor at Harvard , told me over email .
“ What is remarkable to me about the sheer number of excess deaths is that this spike in deaths has occurred despite some trends that we expect to lower deaths during Covid-19.
” More people are dying from Covid-19 than the official count says More than 58,000 Americans are confirmed to have died from the coronavirus as of midday on April 29 .
As the Yale study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In some respects , it is no mystery why more people have died during the coronavirus pandemic than the government figures indicate .
The officially reported number of Covid-19 deaths generally comes from hospitals .
People who die at home may not be counted if they are never tested for the coronavirus .
Instead , they may have a pulmonary embolism or heart attack listed as their cause of death , even if Covid-19 was the catalyst for their passing .
“ People who die at home are least likely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people dying of pulmonary embolism or other clotting , ” Natalie Dean , a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida , said .
“ It would be hard to identify COVID-19 as the cause of the death there unless they are doing postmortem testing , ” she said .
“ I assume there is more postmortem testing now than there was earlier , but when tests were in really short supply , I have to imagine postmortem testing was very rare.
” New York City has already revised its death count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumed to have died of Covid-19 but who were never tested for it .
The city is now up to 17,700 reported deaths , as of April 29 .
Future official revisions may be made , but this is one advantage of the approach taken by Weinberger and company : it simply counts how many people are dying overall , of any cause , and compares it to a hypothetical reality with no Covid-19 .
Undercounting coronavirus deaths isn ’ t only an American problem .
The Financial Times analyzed data from 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what would be expected .
Spain has seen 27,600 more deaths than usual in March and April ; Italy is up to 21,500 , and France 16,500 .
A separate FT analysis of England and Wales estimated that Covid-19 is killing twice as many people as the government has attributed to the crisis .
And these numbers are really a baseline .
“ Revisions AAAAALLLLLWAAAAAAAYS go up , ” Lyman Stone , an economist and adjunct fellow with the American Enterprise Institute who has studied mortality rates , told me over email .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ revisions , he is preliminarily projecting that excess deaths could exceed 60,000 or more in March and April .
You get the point .
The coronavirus ’ s toll is likely worse than we know right now .
The big question is why .
There are other reasons people might be dying more — or less — during Covid-19 In all likelihood , some of the 15,400 excess deaths measured in the Yale study were not the direct result of Covid-19 .
So why else are so many more people dying in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates is the strain on the American health system from coronavirus , which is leading people to die from causes they might otherwise not have — think of a mild heart attack or a complication if somebody with a chronic condition runs short on medicine and can ’ t see their doctor to get a prescription filled .
This was a fear from the start , as medical facilities revamped their operations to focus on Covid-19 , and emergency responders were inundated with a record number of calls .
“ It ‘ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and nursing home facilities overburdened with coronavirus have been unable to effectively prevent deaths from other causes they would ordinarily have been able to , ” Jessica Ho , a USC sociologist who studies mortality , said .
The interruptions to routine care for people with chronic conditions could also be to blame , with primary care practices postponing many outpatient services and furloughing staff .
As I wrote recently on the dramatic downturn in primary care visits during the outbreak : Dania Palanker , an assistant research professor for the Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Health Policy Institute and a chronic care patient herself , worried about people recently diagnosed with diabetes or heart disease who won ’ t be able to get that critical first appointment with a new doctor .
“ You can ’ t delay those appointments for a few months.
” The mental health toll of the current economic crisis caused by the coronavirus and accompanying lockdowns could also be driving up deaths , several experts told me .
( There are indications domestic violence is increasing during the pandemic , though it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ translating to a rise in deaths . )
“ We know that reported levels of anxiety and depression are rising , and claims for unemployment insurance are at historic highs , ” Meara said .
“ All of these could contribute to increased death from suicide , as prior economic downturns suggest.
” On the other hand , other causes of deaths might be down because of the pandemic and stay-at-home orders .
Car accidents are one obvious candidate .
Pollution is down , and that could be a boon for health .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ working less , which could also be resulting in fewer deaths than would otherwise occur .
Throw all these ingredients together — uncounted Covid-19 deaths , other preventable deaths from a health system overload , the health toll of record unemployment , and then saved lives because people are driving less and other behavioral changes — and you get a fuller picture of the coronavirus ’ s toll .
The Yale researchers provided a preliminary figure ; Stone ’ s personal estimates anticipate excess deaths will continue to mount .
This data is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a toll beyond the damage caused by the pathogen itself .
But first and foremost , when excess deaths are twice as high as the official coronavirus death toll , it ’ s a clear indication that we are not doing a good job of counting all the deaths that are the direct result of this virus .
As Josh Michaud , associate director for global health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me : “ In all likelihood , many of these excess deaths can likely be attributed to Covid.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America ’ s health care debate .
Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news .
Are you interested in more discussions around health care policy ?
Join our Facebook community for conversation and updates .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

It’s long been the consensus of experts that more Americans are dying in the coronavirus pandemic than the official figures indicate. But exactly how many?
This week, the first estimate of how many more people have perished was published in the Washington Post, using one of the best methods commonly used by researchers: measuring excess deaths.
And it was a grim one. The Post, in partnership with researchers from the Yale School of Public Health, estimated that 15,400 more people died between March 1 and April 4 than would ordinarily have been expected, a substantially higher toll than the 8,128 coronavirus deaths that were reported over that time by government agencies. Ordinarily, the researchers project the US would have had a little more than 50,000 deaths in the studied period, but the actual deaths were more than 60,000.
Not all of those excess deaths were necessarily directly a result of Covid-19. As the Post reporters wrote, mortality in a pandemic is a complicated recipe:
The excess deaths are not necessarily attributable directly to covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. They could include people who died because of the epidemic but not from the disease, such as those who were afraid to seek medical treatment for unrelated illnesses, as well as some number of deaths that are part of the ordinary variation in the death rate. The count is also affected by increases or decreases in other categories of deaths, such as suicides, homicides and motor vehicle accidents. But in any pandemic, higher-than-normal mortality is a starting point for scientists seeking to understand the full impact of the disease.
“Determining the cause of death is more of an art than a science, and guidelines can change,” Daniel Weinberger, who led the Yale School of Public Health researchers, told me. “There are likely many more people who died of coronavirus-related causes than who have ‘coronavirus’ listed as a cause of death on the death certificate.”
Then again, you also have to account for how many of the people who died from Covid-19 might have died anyway, given poor health, as well as the lives saved because, for example, fewer people are driving automobiles during a period of nationwide lockdowns.
“One way to avoid these biases is to look at what happens to rates of death due to any cause,” Weinberger said. His team created a regression model that adjusts for the seasonal variations in mortality and changes in mortality over time. They accounted for flu activity as well.
The bottom line, according to Weinberger: “With all those complexities, we still see that there were about 15,000 excess deaths from March 1 to April 4. This is about 1.5 to 2 times higher than the reported number of Covid-19 deaths at the time.”
And if anything, that is probably the floor. Experts including Weinberger agree the death counts are likely to be revised upward as more reporting come in. Tallying deaths always takes time because of inconsistent reporting across states.
“As we gain more detailed information on the causes of death, we will learn more about whether Covid-19 caused them directly, or whether the many disruptions, both to health care, and economic disruption, could have caused many of the excess deaths,” Ellen Meara, a health economics professor at Harvard, told me over email. “What is remarkable to me about the sheer number of excess deaths is that this spike in deaths has occurred despite some trends that we expect to lower deaths during Covid-19.”
More people are dying from Covid-19 than the official count says
More than 58,000 Americans are confirmed to have died from the coronavirus as of midday on April 29. As the Yale study suggests, that number is likely low.
In some respects, it is no mystery why more people have died during the coronavirus pandemic than the government figures indicate. The officially reported number of Covid-19 deaths generally comes from hospitals. People who die at home may not be counted if they are never tested for the coronavirus. Instead, they may have a pulmonary embolism or heart attack listed as their cause of death, even if Covid-19 was the catalyst for their passing.
“People who die at home are least likely to be counted, particularly since we are seeing some people dying of pulmonary embolism or other clotting,” Natalie Dean, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida, said.
“It would be hard to identify COVID-19 as the cause of the death there unless they are doing postmortem testing,” she said. “I assume there is more postmortem testing now than there was earlier, but when tests were in really short supply, I have to imagine postmortem testing was very rare.”
New York City has already revised its death count upward to account for nearly 4,000 people assumed to have died of Covid-19 but who were never tested for it. The city is now up to 17,700 reported deaths, as of April 29. Future official revisions may be made, but this is one advantage of the approach taken by Weinberger and company: it simply counts how many people are dying overall, of any cause, and compares it to a hypothetical reality with no Covid-19.
Undercounting coronavirus deaths isn’t only an American problem. The Financial Times analyzed data from 14 countries and found 122,000 excess deaths above what would be expected. Spain has seen 27,600 more deaths than usual in March and April; Italy is up to 21,500, and France 16,500. A separate FT analysis of England and Wales estimated that Covid-19 is killing twice as many people as the government has attributed to the crisis.
And these numbers are really a baseline. “Revisions AAAAALLLLLWAAAAAAAYS go up,” Lyman Stone, an economist and adjunct fellow with the American Enterprise Institute who has studied mortality rates, told me over email.
Using a methodology to account for expected revisions, he is preliminarily projecting that excess deaths could exceed 60,000 or more in March and April.
I didn't want to be the first one to publish a US excess death number because I thought it was reckless at this point but
hey since we're doin' it
here's a better estimate than what's shown there pic.twitter.com/nCo6NW7F1v — Lyman Expand the House Stone, AKA 石來民 (@lymanstoneky) April 27, 2020
You get the point. The coronavirus’s toll is likely worse than we know right now. The big question is why.
There are other reasons people might be dying more — or less — during Covid-19
In all likelihood, some of the 15,400 excess deaths measured in the Yale study were not the direct result of Covid-19. So why else are so many more people dying in a pandemic?
One of the most obvious candidates is the strain on the American health system from coronavirus, which is leading people to die from causes they might otherwise not have — think of a mild heart attack or a complication if somebody with a chronic condition runs short on medicine and can’t see their doctor to get a prescription filled. This was a fear from the start, as medical facilities revamped their operations to focus on Covid-19, and emergency responders were inundated with a record number of calls.
“It‘s possible that emergency response teams, hospitals, and nursing home facilities overburdened with coronavirus have been unable to effectively prevent deaths from other causes they would ordinarily have been able to,” Jessica Ho, a USC sociologist who studies mortality, said.
The interruptions to routine care for people with chronic conditions could also be to blame, with primary care practices postponing many outpatient services and furloughing staff. As I wrote recently on the dramatic downturn in primary care visits during the outbreak:
“Within my lifetime, I have not seen anything of this magnitude,” Ateev Mehrotra, a professor at Harvard Medical School who led the study, told me. He also said that “our real concern is those patients who might have deferred a visit and they’re going to have a flare-up of their chronic illness.” In a worst-case scenario, that could lead to patients dying at home — a person with heart failure, for example — who might not have if they’d been able to see their regular doctor. This will add to the death toll of Covid-19, but it will be hard to fully measure.
Dania Palanker, an assistant research professor for the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown’s Health Policy Institute and a chronic care patient herself, worried about people recently diagnosed with diabetes or heart disease who won’t be able to get that critical first appointment with a new doctor. “You can’t delay those appointments for a few months.”
The mental health toll of the current economic crisis caused by the coronavirus and accompanying lockdowns could also be driving up deaths, several experts told me. (There are indications domestic violence is increasing during the pandemic, though it’s not clear if that is translating to a rise in deaths.)
“We know that reported levels of anxiety and depression are rising, and claims for unemployment insurance are at historic highs,” Meara said. “All of these could contribute to increased death from suicide, as prior economic downturns suggest.”
On the other hand, other causes of deaths might be down because of the pandemic and stay-at-home orders. Car accidents are one obvious candidate. Pollution is down, and that could be a boon for health. Some people with physically demanding jobs are working less, which could also be resulting in fewer deaths than would otherwise occur.
Throw all these ingredients together — uncounted Covid-19 deaths, other preventable deaths from a health system overload, the health toll of record unemployment, and then saved lives because people are driving less and other behavioral changes — and you get a fuller picture of the coronavirus’s toll. The Yale researchers provided a preliminary figure; Stone’s personal estimates anticipate excess deaths will continue to mount.
This data is a reminder that a pandemic can take a toll beyond the damage caused by the pathogen itself. But first and foremost, when excess deaths are twice as high as the official coronavirus death toll, it’s a clear indication that we are not doing a good job of counting all the deaths that are the direct result of this virus.
As Josh Michaud, associate director for global health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me: “In all likelihood, many of these excess deaths can likely be attributed to Covid.”
This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter VoxCare Dylan Scott guides you through the fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic and the health care policies that matter most. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Join the conversation
Are you interested in more discussions around health care policy? Join our Facebook community for conversation and updates.


vox--2020-04-30--Netflix’s The Half of It was the queer teen romcom of my dreams — until it wasn’t

Every week , new original films debut on Netflix , Hulu , and other digital services , often films with modest budgets and limited fanfare .
Cinemastream is Vox ’ s series highlighting the most notable of these premieres , in an ongoing effort to keep interesting and easily accessible new films on your radar .
The Half of It The premise : Ellie ghostwrites papers and essays for the kids in her high school for a low , low fee .
But when she ’ s conscripted by local meathead goofball Paul to write him love letters to Astrid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school , Ellie doesn ’ t dare admit to anyone she has feelings for Astrid , too .
It ’ s Cyrano de Bergerac for queer girls , basically .
What it ’ s about : For roughly its first two-thirds , Netflix ’ s The Half of It was the teen romcom of my dreams .
Leah Lewis and Daniel Diemer have terrific best friend chemistry as Ellie and Paul ; director Alice Wu ( making her first film since 2005 ’ s Saving Face ) made the movie ’ s rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ellie slowly realizing that she has actual romantic feelings for Astrid was handled very sweetly .
As a woman married to another woman who comes from a town very similar to Ellie ’ s , it was the kind of story I wish I could have seen at 15 .
Then the end of the movie arrives , and everything falls apart in incredibly disappointing fashion .
The many storylines Wu was juggling with only a few bobbles to that point start to collide into each other , and she drops more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the difference between this being the next To All the Boys I ’ ve Loved Before-sized hit for Netflix and it being just another Netflix movie that sinks without much of a cultural ripple .
There are plenty of reasons to watch The Half of It nevertheless , starting with Lewis , who ’ s very good as the buttoned-down , awkward Ellie , a girl who seems to be a constant fixture in the lives of everyone in her high school but not really as a friend .
The friendship that launches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of the movie , as Ellie courts Astrid via instant messenger apps and old-fashioned snail mail , always pretending to be “ Paul ” ) is easy and goofy , in a way that suggests the actors got along almost as well as their characters do .
And Wu ’ s eye for beautiful shots is present throughout the film .
An opening narration about how the ancient Greeks believed that finding one ’ s soulmate was an act of finding the person who literally completed you is mirrored in a later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local pool together , their faces reflected in the water below .
The soft , warm lighting casts an autumnal glow across the entire film .
And Wu ’ s camera evokes small-town life in a way that neither needlessly celebrates nor demonizes it .
But there are warning signs all the same .
Astrid ( Alexxis Lemire ) isn ’ t really allowed to be a character in the movie until too late , and it ’ s not really clear why there ’ s a teacher played by character actor legend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in maybe four scenes .
Particularly in the third act , this movie feels like it had a full hour cut out of it .
And , again , that third act is kind of a disaster .
There are some really terrific moments there — particularly where the movie leaves its central relationships — but they all hinge on a series of actions that the characters seem to undertake simply because the movie is almost over .
It ’ s too bad .
There ’ s a great movie inside of The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tremendous talent who shouldn ’ t have to wait 15 years to make another feature film .
Like too many Netflix movies , this one feels like the script needed a few more drafts .
Critical reception : Several critics have pointed out similar issues with the story but are more forgiving of it overall , thanks to the refreshing friendship between Ellie and Paul .
Writes Variety ’ s Peter Debruge : “ Wu ’ s unique take on teen angst hints at what else we ’ ve been missing by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such stories .
If the genre seems played out , or else rife with clichés , it ’ s a direct result of such exclusion .
Expanding the field , as Netflix does , reveals that we still haven ’ t seen the half of it.
” And Indiewire ’ s Jude Dry allows that “ dramatically , The Half of It would have benefited from a more focused structure , ” but concludes that Ellie is “ such a refreshing and lovable character that you can ’ t blame everyone for wanting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s only half.
” How to watch it : The Half of It begins streaming on Netflix on Friday , May 1 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Every week, new original films debut on Netflix, Hulu, and other digital services, often films with modest budgets and limited fanfare. Cinemastream is Vox’s series highlighting the most notable of these premieres, in an ongoing effort to keep interesting and easily accessible new films on your radar.
The premise: Ellie ghostwrites papers and essays for the kids in her high school for a low, low fee. But when she’s conscripted by local meathead goofball Paul to write him love letters to Aster, one of the prettiest girls in school, Ellie doesn’t dare admit to anyone she has feelings for Aster, too. It’s Cyrano de Bergerac for queer girls, basically.
What it’s about: For roughly its first two-thirds, Netflix’s The Half of It was the teen rom-com of my dreams. Leah Lewis and Daniel Diemer have terrific best friend chemistry as Ellie and Paul; director Alice Wu (making her first film since 2005’s Saving Face) made the movie’s rural Washington setting look especially picturesque; and Ellie slowly realizing that she has actual romantic feelings for Aster was handled very sweetly. As a woman married to another woman who comes from a town very similar to Ellie’s, it was the kind of story I wish I could have seen at 15.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
Then the end of the movie arrives, and everything falls apart in incredibly disappointing fashion. The many storylines Wu was juggling with only a few bobbles to that point start to collide into each other, and she drops more than a few. The missed landing is the difference between this being the next To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before-size hit for Netflix and it being just another Netflix movie that sinks without much of a cultural ripple.
There are plenty of reasons to watch The Half of It nevertheless, starting with Lewis, who’s very good as the buttoned-down, awkward Ellie, a girl who seems to be a constant fixture in the lives of everyone in her high school but not really as a friend. The friendship that launches between her and Paul (and drives most of the movie, as Ellie courts Aster via instant messenger apps and old-fashioned snail mail, always pretending to be “Paul”) is easy and goofy, in a way that suggests the actors got along almost as well as their characters do.
And Wu’s eye for beautiful shots is present throughout the film. An opening narration about how the ancient Greeks believed that finding one’s soulmate was an act of finding the person who literally completed you is mirrored in a later shot of two characters floating in a local pool together, their faces reflected in the water below. The soft, warm lighting casts an autumnal glow across the entire film. And Wu’s camera evokes small-town life in a way that neither needlessly celebrates nor demonizes it.
But there are warning signs all the same. Aster (Alexxis Lemire) isn’t really allowed to be a character in the movie until too late, and it’s not really clear why there’s a teacher played by character actor legend Becky Ann Baker, who’s in maybe four scenes. Particularly in the third act, this movie feels like it had a full hour cut out of it.
And, again, that third act is kind of a disaster. There are some really terrific moments there — particularly where the movie leaves its central relationships — but they all hinge on a series of actions that the characters seem to undertake simply because the movie is almost over.
It’s too bad. There’s a great movie inside of The Half of It, and Wu is a tremendous talent who shouldn’t have to wait 15 years to make another feature film. Like too many Netflix movies, this one feels like the script needed a few more drafts.
Critical reception: Several critics have pointed out similar issues with the story but are more forgiving of it overall, thanks to the refreshing friendship between Ellie and Paul. Writes Variety’s Peter Debruge: “Wu’s unique take on teen angst hints at what else we’ve been missing by allowing studios to limit who can tell such stories. If the genre seems played out, or else rife with clichés, it’s a direct result of such exclusion. Expanding the field, as Netflix does, reveals that we still haven’t seen the half of it.” And Indiewire’s Jude Dry allows that “dramatically, The Half of It would have benefited from a more focused structure,” but concludes that Ellie is “such a refreshing and lovable character that you can’t blame everyone for wanting a piece of her, even if it’s only half.”
How to watch it: The Half of It begins streaming on Netflix on Friday, May 1.
Correction: The love interest for both Ellie and Paul is named Aster, not Astrid. The article has been updated!


vox--2020-04-30--30 million Americans have lost their jobs in six weeks

More than 3.8 million people filed initial unemployment insurance claims during the week ending April 25 , according to data released by the Department of Labor on Thursday morning .
That brings the total number of people applying for benefits over the last six weeks to roughly 30 million .
It ’ s a staggering amount of people who have filed for unemployment since the coronavirus pandemic triggered nationwide shutdowns and a severe economic downturn weeks ago .
In late March , the Labor Department registered 3.3 million jobless claims in a single week , shattering previous records .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are of a magnitude that would have seemed unimaginable months ago : 6.9 million , 6.6 million , 5.2 million , 4.4 million .
By comparison , the previous record was 695,000 in 1982 .
Unemployment numbers from the full month of April will be released on Friday , May 8 , and provide a fuller picture of the damage the crisis has done to the American job market .
But the next unemployment report is sure to be ugly : The US economy shrank by 4.8 percent in the first quarter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unemployment rate could reach 13 , 20 , even 30 percent in the months to come .
As Vox ’ s Matt Yglesias recently noted , there are caveats to Thursday ’ s jobless claims .
The Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security Act , or CARES Act — the $ 2.2 trillion stimulus President Donald Trump signed into law in March — expands the scope of people who can apply for and collect unemployment benefits .
People who are self-employed , freelancers , and gig economy workers who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still , the situation might be worse than it seems : unemployment insurance lines have been jammed in states all over , and a lot of people who want to apply haven ’ t been able to .
In other words , there are probably more laid-off or furloughed people than are showing up , and what ’ s showing up is already Great Depression-level figures for unemployment .
It ’ s worth remembering this is in large part a deliberate maneuver by government officials : The US has shut down parts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public health crisis represented by Covid-19 .
If businesses do lay off workers , as many have , the government has put in place expanded unemployment benefits to help people stay afloat , and also to compel them to stay home instead of encouraging them to rush out to find other work .
The hope is that this is temporary , but what the federal government does next to intervene and how quickly the country can get the virus under control are important determinants .
Every day at Vox , we aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

More than 3.8 million people filed initial unemployment insurance claims during the week ending April 25, according to data released by the Department of Labor on Thursday morning. That brings the total number of people applying for benefits over the previous six weeks to more than 30 million.
It’s a staggering number of people who have filed for unemployment since the coronavirus pandemic triggered nationwide shutdowns and a severe economic downturn weeks ago. In late March, the Labor Department registered 3.3 million jobless claims in a single week, shattering previous records. And each subsequent week, the figures released are of a magnitude that would have seemed unimaginable months ago: 6.9 million, 6.6 million, 5.2 million, 4.4 million. By comparison, the previous record was 695,000 in 1982.
Preliminary unemployment numbers from the full month of April will be released on Friday, May 8, and provide a fuller picture of the damage the crisis has done to the American job market. But the next unemployment report is sure to be ugly: The US economy shrank by 4.8 percent in the first quarter of the year. Analysts and experts estimate the unemployment rate could reach 13, 20, even 30 percent in the months to come.
As Vox’s Matt Yglesias recently noted, there are caveats to Thursday’s jobless claims.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act — the $2.2 trillion stimulus President Donald Trump signed into law in March — expands the scope of people who can apply for and collect unemployment benefits. People who are self-employed, freelancers, and gig economy workers who were previously ineligible are now eligible.
Still, the situation might be worse than it seems: Unemployment insurance lines have been jammed in all over the country, and a lot of people who want to apply haven’t been able to. In other words, there are probably more laid-off or furloughed people than are showing up in the data, and what’s showing up is already Great Depression-level figures for unemployment.
This is in large part a deliberate maneuver by government officials: The US has shut down parts of its economy in order to respond to the public health crisis represented by Covid-19. When businesses lay off workers, the expanded unemployment benefits help people stay afloat, and also to compel them to stay home instead of encouraging them to rush out to find other work. The hope is that this is temporary, but what the federal government does next to intervene and how quickly the country can get the virus under control are important factors.


vox--2020-04-30--The case for reopening America’s parks

The case for reopening America’s parks

In the week or so after my 5-year-old ’ s Washington , DC , school closed , my wife or I used to take him sometimes to the playground across the street so he could ride his scooter to burn some energy .
He was prohibited from using the climbing equipment , but with appropriate disinfecting , I would let him swing on the swings .
Anytime we went , we would see other kids scooting , biking , running , or swinging .
We ’ d also see adults using the perimeter of the soccer field as a running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents kicked or tossed a ball around with a child .
The benches were mostly used by grown-ups as ersatz gym benches for a variety of workouts .
We could also from time to time see people behaving irresponsibly at the park — either parents allowing small children to play on the climbing structure , which was riskier than I was willing to do , or else younger kids or teens playing basketball , which involves too much physical contact to follow social distancing guidelines .
In response to this kind of activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playgrounds run by the city government to close and worked with the federal government to close some but not all of the numerous federally managed parks in DC .
As an emergency measure , these kinds of broad closures may be the best the US could do .
But as America settles in for a long haul of social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic , it doesn ’ t seem to be well-grounded in the evidence .
Transmission of the virus from runners or people walking around outside looks to be unlikely and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days to come .
The risk that people recreating outdoors will behave irresponsibly is a problem , but the country doesn ’ t have systems in place to prevent irresponsible indoor behavior , so it ’ s not clear why closing outdoor spaces would exacerbate the situation .
The US also isn ’ t trying to prevent people from going outside at all , so closing parks may make other spaces like sidewalks or the random parking lot where my kid now does his scootering more crowded .
What ’ s more , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARS-Cov-2 virus and Covid-19 is somewhat uncertain , the science about the benefits of outdoor activity is clear , and it makes sense to lean more heavily on the more certain aspects of our knowledge .
It ’ s time to give people more freedom outside .
The well-known examples of large-scale coronavirus spread have involved large groups of people being cooped up in confined indoor spaces — whether that ’ s cruise ships , nursing homes , prisons , or Singaporean migrant worker housing .
The other major known vector of transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
Lots of health care workers get infected because they are taking care of Covid-19 patients .
Lots of households see one family member get sick and then the infection spreads to the rest of the house .
Picking up germs from a chance encounter with a stranger outdoors is theoretically possible , but infectious disease experts consider it unlikely .
• “ I would not worry about walking by someone , ” Johns Hopkins infectious disease researcher Amesh Adalja told Slate ’ s Henry Grabar .
• A team of three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Washington Post that “ outdoors , the virus quickly disperses in the air , ” so the risk of becoming infected by someone running or walking past you is likely very low .
• Chinese researchers studied the air in public outdoor spaces in Wuhan and found “ undetectable or very low ” levels of virus outside .
• For other moderately contagious pathogens like tuberculosis , it ’ s now standard to recommend opening windows in hospital settings to reduce the spread of infection — again , dispersing the bacteria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it much less likely that other people will get sick .
• By the same token , during the 1918 flu pandemic , experiments with open-air hospitals were highly successful at reducing the extent to which health care workers got infected .
• Another Chinese study looking at 318 outbreaks featuring three or more Covid-19 cases adding up to 1,245 total confirmed cases across more than 100 cities found just one instance of outdoor transmission .
None of this is to say that it ’ s advisable to get together with 27 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sit in a tight circle , and chat unmasked for four hours .
The initial concern about basketball games where sweaty , heavily breathing people are shoving and bouncing off each other for an extended period of time seems valid .
But to the best of the available knowledge , there is little risk that a person behaving responsibly will become infected via someone briefly passing inside their 6-foot perimeter .
And there ’ s decent evidence from the tuberculosis and flu studies that risky activities are less risky when done outside .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , unfortunately the knowledge base is not as solid as one might like .
And we have to admit it ’ s possible this could turn out to be wrong and some idiosyncratic features of this virus make it highly prone to outdoor transmission .
But the balance of evidence thus far says that ’ s not the case .
Experts caution that it ’ s still important to maintain 6 feet of physical distance from other people but are broadly supportive of the idea that outdoor spaces are less risky places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weigh the uncertainty of our knowledge about this with the well-established fact that it ’ s healthy for people to go outside and move around .
Over 1,000 park and public health organizations have signed a letter supporting outdoor recreation with appropriate safeguards during the pandemic .
You have probably heard that it ’ s healthier to go take a walk in a park than to sit on your couch watching television .
I am not at all an outdoorsy person and rarely take this advice .
It is , however , pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise healthy in general , but it appears to boost immune system function .
In normal circumstances , most people have sufficient Vitamin D levels , but they are boosted by spending time outside and may aid in immune functioning .
As Zeynep Tufekci writes in the Atlantic , going outside can also mitigate some of the psychological downsides of prolonged isolation : None of these effects are so enormous that they ’ d be worth running major risks of infection over .
But as far as we know , the actual risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though modest , are clear .
What ’ s important is that people behave responsibly , which closing parks does not necessarily encourage .
People can break the rules inside , too The concern about opening parks appears to be driven by viral images shared on social media of occasionally overcrowded beaches , park-adjacent parking lots , or other outdoor venues .
In those cases , it ’ s correct for officials to disperse crowds or shut down facilities that are being misused .
But photographic evidence of outdoor misbehavior doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule-breaking , and we don ’ t know what ’ s happening inside people ’ s houses .
Even though it ’ s against most guidelines , the US is not in a practical sense doing anything to stop people from visiting their friends or throwing dinner parties .
People seem to be mostly following the rules due to a healthy mix of self-preservation , concern for others , and shame .
If large numbers of people choose to willfully disobey public health guidance , it ’ s not really clear what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far , though , it hasn ’ t been a big problem .
And opening up more parks and beaches doesn ’ t change the fundamental calculus .
One government official expressed concern to me that if the information that outdoor transmission is less likely is publicized , then people will become more likely to meet up with their friends in a low-risk outdoor venue and the net effect will be counterproductive .
But nothing about the relatively low risk of outdoor transmission changes the fact that it ’ s safer to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
And the odds seem low that the government is going to successfully suppress accurate public health information in order to manipulate people .
More fundamentally , closing parks doesn ’ t make it impossible for people to go outside ; it just makes outside spaces more crowded .
Closing public spaces may make crowding worse , not better As long as people are allowed to go outside , the best way to minimize crowding may be to open up as much space as possible .
Selectively closing perceived overcrowding hot spots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Arboretum and Kenilworth Aquatic Garden here in DC — may feel like an effective way to reduce crowding , but it tends to squeeze people into fewer and fewer places .
Governments should make rules and try to enforce them , not close all public spaces .
State parks in Maryland , for example , have done a good job of shutting down indoor facilities and play structures while keeping trails and open spaces available for recreation .
There ’ s been a gentle but clear police presence at every state park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , which seemed sufficient to keep the vast majority of people following the rules .
Yet even within that framework , Maryland has closed the beach portions of its parks , even though all the same considerations should apply .
And what works for state parks and national parks could also broadly work for city parks .
Specific unsafe activities can be prohibited without closing down public spaces .
The basic coronavirus problem is not going away anytime soon , and we need to find ways to make living with it tolerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some level , the outdoors question comes down to officials ’ level of trust in the public .
If we let people play tennis , can we count on them to keep their distance and avoid playing doubles ?
If we let families go for picnics in the park , can we count on them to avoid turning them into play dates ?
If we let people swim in the ocean or sunbathe on the beach , do we trust them to not go throw wild parties ?
The skepticism is somewhat understandable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is something appealing about the unambiguous notion of ordering people to stay home .
At the same time , millions of Americans aren ’ t staying home because they ’ re working the essential jobs that keep society running .
Can we really tell someone who spends all week working in a drugstore or delivering food for a restaurant that we can ’ t trust him to push his kid on a swing ( disinfected with wipes , of course ) on the weekend ?
In a world where some people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does it make sense to tell working-class people they have to spend all summer stuck inside ?
Fundamentally , the process of digging out from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic is n't going to work unless we can count on people to be reasonably good about adhering to public health advice .
That ’ s important to do at parks and beaches , but it ’ s important everywhere .
And if people go outside safely , it ’ s a healthy and sanity-boosting way to spend time that helps make extended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to open up the great outdoors .
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 pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 .

In the week or so after my 5-year-old’s Washington, DC, school closed, my wife or I used to take him sometimes to the playground across the street so he could ride his scooter to burn some energy. He was prohibited from using the climbing equipment, but with appropriate disinfecting, I would let him swing on the swings. Anytime we went, we would see other kids scooting, biking, running, or swinging.
We’d also see adults using the perimeter of the soccer field as a running track, while on the interior some parents kicked or tossed a ball around with a child. The benches were mostly used by grown-ups as ersatz gym benches for a variety of workouts.
We could also from time to time see people behaving irresponsibly at the park — either parents allowing small children to play on the climbing structure, which was riskier than I was willing to do, or else younger kids or teens playing basketball, which involves too much physical contact to follow social distancing guidelines. In response to this kind of activity, the mayor ordered the parks and playgrounds run by the city government to close and worked with the federal government to close some but not all of the numerous federally managed parks in DC.
As an emergency measure, these kinds of broad closures may be the best the US could do. But as America settles in for a long haul of social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic, it doesn’t seem to be well-grounded in the evidence. Transmission of the virus from runners or people walking around outside looks to be unlikely and possibly even less likely in the warmer days to come.
The risk that people recreating outdoors will behave irresponsibly is a problem, but the country doesn’t have systems in place to prevent irresponsible indoor behavior, so it’s not clear why closing outdoor spaces would exacerbate the situation. The US also isn’t trying to prevent people from going outside at all, so closing parks may make other spaces like sidewalks or the random parking lot where my kid now does his scootering more crowded.
What’s more, while much about the science of the SARS-Cov-2 virus and Covid-19 is somewhat uncertain, the science about the benefits of outdoor activity is clear, and it makes sense to lean more heavily on the more certain aspects of our knowledge.
It’s time to give people more freedom outside.
Outdoor coronavirus transmission appears to be rare
The well-known examples of large-scale coronavirus spread have involved big groups of people being cooped up in confined indoor spaces — whether that’s cruise ships, nursing homes, prisons, or Singaporean migrant worker housing. The other major known vector of transmission relates to prolonged direct contact with sick people. Lots of health care workers get infected because they are taking care of Covid-19 patients. Lots of households see one family member get sick and then the infection spreads to the rest of the house.
Picking up germs from a chance encounter with a stranger outdoors is theoretically possible, but infectious disease experts consider it unlikely.
None of this is to say that it’s advisable to get together with 27 of your friends in the closest park, sit in a tight circle, and chat unmasked for four hours. The initial concern about basketball games where sweaty, heavily breathing people are shoving and bouncing off each other for an extended period of time seems valid. But to the best of the available knowledge, there is little risk that a person behaving responsibly will become infected via someone briefly passing inside their 6-foot perimeter. And there’s decent evidence from the tuberculosis and flu studies that risky activities are less risky when done outside.
As with most other aspects of this pandemic, unfortunately the knowledge base is not as solid as one might like. And we have to admit it’s possible this could turn out to be wrong and some idiosyncratic features of this virus make it highly prone to outdoor transmission. But the balance of evidence thus far says that’s not the case. Experts caution that it’s still important to maintain 6 feet of physical distance from other people but are broadly supportive of the idea that outdoor spaces are less risky places to be. And we need to weigh the uncertainty of our knowledge about this with the well-established fact that it’s healthy for people to go outside and move around.
More than 1,000 park and public health organizations have signed a letter supporting outdoor recreation with appropriate safeguards during the pandemic.
Outdoor activity is healthy
You have probably heard that it’s healthier to go take a walk in a park than to sit on your couch watching television.
I am not at all an outdoorsy person and rarely take this advice. It is, however, pretty well-supported. Indeed, not only is exercise healthy in general, but it appears to boost immune system function. In normal circumstances, most people have sufficient vitamin D levels, but they are boosted by spending time outside and may aid in immune functioning.
As Zeynep Tufekci writes in the Atlantic, going outside can also mitigate some of the psychological downsides of prolonged isolation:
Mental health is also a crucial part of the resilience we need to fight this pandemic. Keeping people’s spirits up in the long haul will be important, and exercise and the outdoors are among the strongest antidepressants and mental-health boosters we know of, often equaling or surpassing drugs and/or therapy in clinical trials. Stress has long been known to be a significant suppressor of immunity, and not being able to get some fresh air and enjoy a small change of scenery will surely add to people’s stress. We may well be facing a spike in suicides and violence as individuals and families face significant stress and isolation: The Air Force Academy initially imposed drastic isolation on its cadets due to the coronavirus, but had to reverse course after two tragic suicides. Domestic violence is another real concern: Not having a place to go, even for an hour, may greatly worsen conditions in some households.
None of these effects are so enormous that they’d be worth running major risks of infection over. But as far as we know, the actual risk is low, while the benefits, though modest, are clear. What’s important is that people behave responsibly, which closing parks does not necessarily encourage.
People can break the rules inside, too
The concern about opening parks appears to be driven by viral images shared on social media of occasionally overcrowded beaches, park-adjacent parking lots, or other outdoor venues.
In those cases, it’s correct for officials to disperse crowds or shut down facilities that are being misused.
But photographic evidence of outdoor misbehavior doesn’t mean outdoor settings are unusually prone to rule-breaking, and we don’t know what’s happening inside people’s houses. Even though it’s against most guidelines, the US is not in a practical sense doing anything to stop people from visiting their friends or throwing dinner parties.
People seem to be mostly following the rules due to a healthy mix of self-preservation, concern for others, and shame. If large numbers of people choose to willfully disobey public health guidance, it’s not really clear what the government could do about that. So far, though, it hasn’t been a big problem. And opening up more parks and beaches doesn’t change the fundamental calculus.
One government official expressed concern to me that if the information that outdoor transmission is less likely is publicized, then people will become more likely to meet up with their friends in a low-risk outdoor venue and the net effect will be counterproductive.
But nothing about the relatively low risk of outdoor transmission changes the fact that it’s safer to avoid your friends than to hang out with them. And the odds seem low that the government is going to successfully suppress accurate public health information in order to manipulate people. More fundamentally, closing parks doesn’t make it impossible for people to go outside; it just makes outside spaces more crowded.
Closing public spaces may make crowding worse, not better
As long as people are allowed to go outside, the best way to minimize crowding may be to open up as much space as possible.
Selectively closing perceived overcrowding hot spots — beaches in most jurisdictions, the National Arboretum and Kenilworth Aquatic Garden here in DC — may feel like an effective way to reduce crowding, but it tends to squeeze people into fewer and fewer places.
Governments should make rules and try to enforce them, not close all public spaces. State parks in Maryland, for example, have done a good job of shutting down indoor facilities and play structures while keeping trails and open spaces available for recreation. There’s been a gentle but clear police presence at every state park I’ve visited over the past month, which seemed sufficient to keep the vast majority of people following the rules. Yet even within that framework, Maryland has closed the beach portions of its parks, though all the same considerations should apply.
And what works for state parks and national parks could also broadly work for city parks. Specific unsafe activities can be prohibited without closing down public spaces. The basic coronavirus problem is not going away anytime soon, and we need to find ways to make living with it tolerable.
We need trust to survive
On some level, the outdoors question comes down to officials’ level of trust in the public.
If we let people play tennis, can we count on them to keep their distance and avoid playing doubles? If we let families go for picnics in the park, can we count on them to avoid turning them into play dates? If we let people swim in the ocean or sunbathe on the beach, do we trust them to not go throw wild parties?
The skepticism is somewhat understandable.
From a public communication standpoint, there is something appealing about the unambiguous notion of ordering people to stay home. At the same time, millions of Americans aren’t staying home because they’re working the essential jobs that keep society running. Can we really tell someone who spends all week working in a drugstore or delivering food for a restaurant that we can’t trust him to push his kid on a swing (disinfected with wipes, of course) on the weekend? In a world where some people have huge backyards or vacation getaway houses, does it make sense to tell working-class people they have to spend all summer stuck inside?
Fundamentally, the process of digging out from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic isn't going to work unless we can count on people to be reasonably good about adhering to public health advice. That’s important to do at parks and beaches, but it’s important everywhere. And if people go outside safely, it’s a healthy and sanity-boosting way to spend time that helps make extended quarantine more endurable. It’s time to open up the great outdoors.


What day is it today?

Today is Thursday , April 30 , 2020 , at least in the continental United States .
It is already Friday , May 1 , in some parts of the world .
Did you know May was imminent ?
Feels wrong , huh ?
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
For we are now at a point where sociologists are discussing the “ problem ” of leisure .
And a part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invention .
Is it still necessary ?
I don ’ t know .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m risking everything . )
I hope there is a 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Write an epic poem .
Watch a TV show you ’ ve 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 Thursday , April 30 , 2020 .
In some parts of the world , it is Friday , May 1 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day is it today ?
” superfan ?
Check out our official 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.