vox--2020-07-01--What President Joe Biden would do to stop Covid-19

Joe Biden ’ s message on Covid-19 is simple : “ It did not have to be this way.
” That is arguably the theme of Biden ’ s entire presidential campaign .
But it is especially relevant to health care , where the coronavirus response and the conservative crusade to overturn Obamacare combine to demonstrate the vivid contrast between the president we have and the president Joe Biden promises to be .
It is a distinction Biden sounded eager to draw as I listened to the speech he gave Tuesday in Wilmington , Delaware .
“ Month after month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took the necessary steps to get the virus under control , Donald Trump failed us , ” Biden said .
“ Month after month , as many of us urged him to step up and do his job , he failed us.
” In his speech , Biden listed all the times he had urged decisive action on the coronavirus pandemic while President Trump downplayed the threat or diverted his attention to anything other than taking the necessary steps to contain the outbreak .
“ Just look at the record , ” Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he was sounding the alarm about the coronavirus while Trump assured Americans the pandemic was “ totally under control.
” In February , Biden says he demanded full disclosure from the Chinese government while Trump praised President Xi Jinping and said the country where the crisis began was “ doing very well.
” Biden has pushed for more investment in testing and for using the authority of the Defense Production Act to ramp up manufacturing of protective gear ; Trump has often demurred on those initiatives and , these days , complains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a higher number of confirmed cases , which makes him look bad .
Biden ’ s story has a lot of truth in it .
Trump was slow to acknowledge the full scope of the threat , and today he discusses the country ’ s deadliest disease outbreak this century as little as possible .
He did have kind words for Chinese leaders in the early days .
He has been reluctant to exploit the executive powers available to him to ramp up testing , increase production of protective gear , and coordinate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on contact tracing , on encouraging mask-wearing , on centering science over politics , Biden contrasted what he has proposed and what Trump has done .
And , as Biden put it , “ the numbers don ’ t lie.
” More than 125,000 Americans are dead .
Infection rates , after slowing during the months of lockdown , are on the rise across the country in red and blue states alike .
“ The statewide lockdowns that so many Americans lived under for months were intended to buy us the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden said .
“ But instead of using that time to prepare ourselves , Donald Trump squandered it.
” I asked some experts how Biden ’ s proposed Covid-19 response differs from what the current federal government has done .
They pointed to a few specific provisions in his plans : • Establishing a public-private “ pandemic testing board ” to scale up and allocate testing across the country .
( “ This would deal with one of the problems we still seem to have , that supply and demand are out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Kaiser Family Foundation . )
• Creating a state and local government emergency fund that would pay for medical supplies , hiring more health care workers , and providing overtime pay for certain essential workers .
• Eliminating cost-sharing for Covid-19 testing and treatment — and changing the law so that provision would apply to future public health emergencies .
• Setting minimum standards for the number of testing sites in each state , including 10 mobile or drive-through sites .
• Establishing a national public health jobs corps , which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact tracing .
Biden ’ s plan is detailed , but the real differences on coronavirus between him and Trump start at the more conceptual level .
“ The big differences are the emphasis on science and experts , versus politics and politicians , and more coordination and leadership at the federal level , ” Kates said .
Some of these items — contact tracing specifically — have been more or less ignored by the Trump administration , even though public health experts say it is necessary to safely relax social distancing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially prevent wider outbreaks .
But as NPR reported , right now most states do not have enough people to perform that job .
“ Contact tracing has been mostly ignored at the federal level , and states have been left to prioritize as they see fit , ” Joshua Michaud at the Kaiser Family Foundation said .
“ Which means that some have done more and others have done much less.
” That is indicative of the Trump administration ’ s overall approach : hands off .
Biden is promising much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the administration has pushed decision-making and responsibility almost entirely to the state and local levels on testing , tracing , etc.
, ” Kates told me .
“ While some of this reflects our federal system and how public health generally functions in the US , this certainly is not the ideal approach in a true public health emergency.
” Trump is trying to repeal Obamacare during Covid-19 .
Biden wants to expand it .
If those differences in emergency preparedness and pandemic response weren ’ t clear enough , the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US Supreme Court last week arguing all of the Affordable Care Act should be overturned .
It is Obamacare repeal by another means , after the White House and congressional Republicans failed in 2017 .
Whether or not Trump ’ s SCOTUS gambit succeeds , his administration has been working in myriad ways to undermine Obamacare and its protections for preexisting conditions .
Biden , as you may recall from before the bad times , ran in the Democratic primary on expanding the ACA to include , among other things , a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda , the subject of a new investigative series from Vox and the Center for Public Integrity , has given health insurers free rein in the middle of a pandemic to sell plans that don ’ t cover preexisting medical conditions and don ’ t provide comprehensive financial protection .
More and more Americans are signing up for insurance thinking they are getting a good deal on the price , only to find out , when they go to use it , that it doesn ’ t cover as much as they thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ashley Lawley , from my story on Trump ’ s deregulation of short-term limited-duration health insurance : In October 2018 , Ashley Lawley saw a chiropractor in her home state of Alabama .
During that visit , the chiropractor examined a suspicious lump on her neck and advised her to consult a surgeon about having it removed .
But she needed to make sure her insurance covered her .
She called a health insurance broker , one she had previously spoken with on the phone .
The broker — given the alias “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year — told her she ’ d need to purchase a new major medical plan .
He allegedly assured her that her lump would not be considered a preexisting condition and that any procedure would be covered .
She bought the plan , saw a doctor , and scheduled her surgery , but not before confirming again with her insurance agent that she would only need to pay $ 500 for the procedure .
The lump was removed , and Lawley paid her copay .
Then the bills started coming .
She received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that no benefits would be paid .
It was only then she learned she had been sold a short-term health insurance plan , not the major medical insurance that she believed it to be .
She faced $ 20,000 in unpaid medical bills .
There are plenty of other stories like these .
I spoke with a lymphoma patient who ended up with $ 800,000 in hospital bills after his short-term plan had decided his cancer was a preexisting condition because he had been treated by a chiropractor for back pain before signing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 3,000 by his short-term plan for a flu test — which he took while he worried he actually had Covid-19 — and then started scouring his old medical records to figure out if that was a preexisting condition .
There might be some legitimate reasons people want a short-term plan , but what Trump has really done is set up a parallel , deregulated health insurance market to compete with the ACA .
He ’ s permitted short-term plans to last for a full year ( Obama had limited them to 90 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their short-term plan up to three times .
During the coronavirus pandemic , experts are worried because this market is rife with misleading marketing if not outright fraud ( as alleged in Lawley ’ s lawsuit ) , and right now , millions of people have lost their health insurance and might be shopping for a new plan .
As covered in my story , if they search online for health insurance , they are more likely to end up on a third-party website selling short-term plans right alongside ACA-compliant insurance .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are too often misled about the benefits a short-term plan would provide .
Researchers at Brookings conducted secret-shopping trials to ask about Covid-19 benefits specifically and found a staggering amount of misinformation .
“ I was shocked by the amount of misinformation we encountered , ” Christen Linke Young , who led the project , said .
“ They were totally dishonest about the nature of the coverage.
” To borrow Biden ’ s words from his Covid-19 remarks : It didn ’ t have to be this way .
In March , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and promised he would reverse the sabotage of Obamacare overseen by his opponent .
“ During a public health emergency that could touch anyone , anywhere , Americans deserve a government that strives to expand access to health care and ensure the best possible care , ” the former veep said .
“ They don ’ t want or need junk.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stats and news .
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 financial contribution will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Joe Biden’s message on Covid-19 is simple: “It did not have to be this way.”
That is arguably the theme of Biden’s entire presidential campaign. But it is especially relevant to health care, where the coronavirus response and the conservative crusade to overturn Obamacare combine to demonstrate the vivid contrast between the president we have and the president Joe Biden promises to be.
It is a distinction Biden sounded eager to draw as I listened to the speech he gave Tuesday in Wilmington, Delaware.
“Month after month, as other leaders in other countries took the necessary steps to get the virus under control, Donald Trump failed us,” Biden said. “Month after month, as many of us urged him to step up and do his job, he failed us.”
How Biden’s proposed coronavirus response differs from Trump’s actual record
In his speech, Biden listed all the times he had urged decisive action on the coronavirus pandemic while President Trump downplayed the threat or diverted his attention to anything other than taking the necessary steps to contain the outbreak.
“Just look at the record,” Biden said.
In January, Biden says, he was sounding the alarm about the coronavirus while Trump assured Americans the pandemic was “totally under control.”
In February, Biden says he demanded full disclosure from the Chinese government while Trump praised President Xi Jinping and said the country where the crisis began was “doing very well.”
Biden has pushed for more investment in testing and for using the authority of the Defense Production Act to ramp up manufacturing of protective gear; Trump has often demurred on those initiatives and, these days, complains that too much testing has led to a higher number of confirmed cases, which makes him look bad.
Biden’s story has a lot of truth in it. Trump was slow to acknowledge the full scope of the threat, and today he discusses the country’s deadliest disease outbreak this century as little as possible. He did have kind words for Chinese leaders in the early days. He has been reluctant to exploit the executive powers available to him to ramp up testing, increase production of protective gear, and coordinate a national response.
On safely reopening, on contact tracing, on encouraging mask-wearing, on centering science over politics, Biden contrasted what he has proposed and what Trump has done.
And, as Biden put it, “the numbers don’t lie.” More than 125,000 Americans are dead. Infection rates, after slowing during the months of lockdown, are on the rise across the country in red and blue states alike.
“The statewide lockdowns that so many Americans lived under for months were intended to buy us the time to get our act together,” Biden said. “But instead of using that time to prepare ourselves, Donald Trump squandered it.”
I asked some experts how Biden’s proposed Covid-19 response differs from what the current federal government has done. They pointed to a few specific provisions in his plans:
Establishing a public-private “pandemic testing board” to scale up and allocate testing across the country. (“This would deal with one of the problems we still seem to have, that supply and demand are out of sync,” says Jennifer Kates with the Kaiser Family Foundation.)
Creating a state and local government emergency fund that would pay for medical supplies, hiring more health care workers, and providing overtime pay for certain essential workers.
Eliminating cost-sharing for Covid-19 testing and treatment — and changing the law so that provision would apply to future public health emergencies.
Setting minimum standards for the number of testing sites in each state, including 10 mobile or drive-through sites.
Establishing a national public health jobs corps, which would employ at least 100,000 people to do contact tracing.
Biden’s plan is detailed, but the real differences on coronavirus between him and Trump start at the more conceptual level.
“The big differences are the emphasis on science and experts, versus politics and politicians, and more coordination and leadership at the federal level,” Kates said.
Some of these items — contact tracing specifically — have been more or less ignored by the Trump administration, even though public health experts say it is necessary to safely relax social distancing. Contact tracers can identify new clusters and potentially prevent wider outbreaks. But as NPR reported, right now most states do not have enough people to perform that job.
“Contact tracing has been mostly ignored at the federal level, and states have been left to prioritize as they see fit,” Joshua Michaud at the Kaiser Family Foundation said. “Which means that some have done more and others have done much less.”
That is indicative of the Trump administration’s overall approach: hands off. Biden is promising much more aggressive federal intervention.
“In general, the administration has pushed decision-making and responsibility almost entirely to the state and local levels on testing, tracing, etc.,” Kates told me. “While some of this reflects our federal system and how public health generally functions in the US, this certainly is not the ideal approach in a true public health emergency.”
Trump is trying to repeal Obamacare during Covid-19. Biden wants to expand it.
If those differences in emergency preparedness and pandemic response weren’t clear enough, the Trump administration also filed a brief to the US Supreme Court last week arguing all of the Affordable Care Act should be overturned. It is Obamacare repeal by another means, after the White House and congressional Republicans failed in 2017.
Whether or not Trump’s SCOTUS gambit succeeds, his administration has been working in myriad ways to undermine Obamacare and its protections for preexisting conditions. Biden, as you may recall from before the bad times, ran in the Democratic primary on expanding the ACA to include, among other things, a new public option.
Trump’s deregulation agenda, the subject of a new investigative series from Vox and the Center for Public Integrity, has given health insurers free rein in the middle of a pandemic to sell plans that don’t cover preexisting medical conditions and don’t provide comprehensive financial protection. More and more Americans are signing up for insurance thinking they are getting a good deal on the price, only to find out, when they go to use it, that it doesn’t cover as much as they thought it did.
Take the story of Ashley Lawley, from my story on Trump’s deregulation of short-term limited-duration health insurance:
In October 2018, Ashley Lawley saw a chiropractor in her home state of Alabama. During that visit, the chiropractor examined a suspicious lump on her neck and advised her to consult a surgeon about having it removed. But she needed to make sure her insurance covered her. She called a health insurance broker, one she had previously spoken with on the phone. The broker — given the alias “Justin” in a class-action lawsuit this year — told her she’d need to purchase a new major medical plan. He allegedly assured her that her lump would not be considered a preexisting condition and that any procedure would be covered. She bought the plan, saw a doctor, and scheduled her surgery, but not before confirming again with her insurance agent that she would only need to pay $500 for the procedure. The lump was removed, and Lawley paid her copay. Then the bills started coming. She received a form from her insurer telling her that no benefits would be paid. It was only then she learned she had been sold a short-term health insurance plan, not the major medical insurance that she believed it to be. She faced $20,000 in unpaid medical bills.
There are plenty of other stories like these. I spoke with a lymphoma patient who ended up with $800,000 in hospital bills after his short-term plan had decided his cancer was a preexisting condition because he had been treated by a chiropractor for back pain before signing up. A Florida man was charged $3,000 by his short-term plan for a flu test — which he took while he worried he actually had Covid-19 — and then started scouring his old medical records to figure out if that was a preexisting condition.
There might be some legitimate reasons people want a short-term plan, but what Trump has really done is set up a parallel, deregulated health insurance market to compete with the ACA. He’s permitted short-term plans to last for a full year (Obama had limited them to 90 days), and customers can renew their short-term plan up to three times.
During the coronavirus pandemic, experts are worried because this market is rife with misleading marketing if not outright fraud (as alleged in Lawley’s lawsuit), and right now, millions of people have lost their health insurance and might be shopping for a new plan.
As covered in my story, if they search online for health insurance, they are more likely to end up on a third-party website selling short-term plans right alongside ACA-compliant insurance. If they speak with a broker, they are too often misled about the benefits a short-term plan would provide. Researchers at Brookings conducted secret-shopping trials to ask about Covid-19 benefits specifically and found a staggering amount of misinformation.
“I was shocked by the amount of misinformation we encountered,” Christen Linke Young, who led the project, said. “They were totally dishonest about the nature of the coverage.”
To borrow Biden’s words from his Covid-19 remarks: It didn’t have to be this way. In March, he called these short-term plans “junk” and promised he would reverse the sabotage of Obamacare overseen by his opponent.
“During a public health emergency that could touch anyone, anywhere, Americans deserve a government that strives to expand access to health care and ensure the best possible care,” the former veep said. “They don’t want or need junk.”
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--2020-07-01--Networks of self-driving trucks are becoming a reality in the US

Fully autonomous trucking may be one step closer to reality .
On Wednesday , the San Diego-based self-driving startup TuSimple announced what it ’ s calling the world ’ s first autonomous freight network .
That means that the company is laying the groundwork for delivering a lot more of our stuff with self-driving trucks .
TuSimple is hardly the only company working to making fully automated shipping a reality .
Several companies , including Aurora , Daimler , and Embark Trucks , are competing for a slice of the future of self-driving freight trucks .
Alphabet-owned Waymo confirmed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own self-driving trucking routes throughout the American Southwest and Texas , following previous tests in Arizona , California , Michigan , and Georgia .
TuSimple ’ s expansion plans seem more concrete than some of its competitors .
The company is expanding existing shipments with UPS , which has also invested in TuSimple , and the foodservice delivery giant McLane .
The major shipping company US Xpress , one of the nation ’ s largest freight companies , will also start shipping goods through TuSimple , which now has 22 contracted customers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ which routes are digitally mapped out next for self-driving trucks .
“ Imagine if you could influence , back in the day , where a railroad track was being built , and you could build that railroad track right to your front door , ” TuSimple president Cheng Lu told Recode .
“ As a shipper , wouldn ’ t that give you a big advantage ?
” TuSimple plans to expand its routes in the next four years , starting with the addition of new delivery service throughout the Texas triangle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 and 2021 .
( The company plans to keep drivers behind the self-driving wheel just in case something goes awry . )
By 2023 , the company wants its self-driving trucks on routes between Los Angeles and Jacksonville , Florida , and hopes to be shipping nationwide by 2024 .
Currently , TuSimple has just 40 autonomous trucks in use — though it ’ s adding 10 more later this year — and its longest route is the 1,000-mile drive between Phoenix and Dallas .
TuSimple ’ s trucks are ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; they will be trained on mapped routes , but the goal is to autonomously navigate traffic— and other surprises — on the roads .
The challenge is building a trustworthy , AI-powered “ virtual driver ” that can effectively process information from a wide array of sensors , like lots and lots of high-quality cameras , but also lidar and radar .
TuSimple , which was valued at around $ 1 billion last year , is mainly focused on long-haul trucking and hasn ’ t spent as much time on self-driving cars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Waymo , which has focused on last-mile delivery and has already used its smaller self-driving minivans to move packages for UPS and AutoNation .
In a call with reporters on Tuesday , Waymo ’ s commercial lead for trucking , Charlie Jatt , shared how the company plans to move forward with trucking .
The strategy centers on demonstrating and testing a platform for self-driving trucks until the technology can be implemented into vehicles and parts produced by other manufacturers .
“ We see ourselves as a technology company , not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jatt said , according to a transcript of the call .
“ We ’ re developing the Waymo Driver and then will partner with OEMs to ensure that our technology can be successfully integrated on classic trucks that are being manufactured and sold to the market in the future.
” Waymo said it is manufacturing some of its own self-driving trucks in Detroit — these are the giant , Class 8 shipping trucks you often see on highways — but the company wouldn ’ t detail how large the fleet would be .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Waymo sends out smaller vehicles , generally minivans , to collect data and map out routes .
Thus far , Waymo says those trucks have previously helped deliver freight for Google ’ s logistics division in Atlanta , but ultimately , Waymo says it wants to focus on building software and mapping technology .
While TuSimple , Waymo , and others are making progress , it will be years before the majority of America ’ s long-haul shipping is carried out by autonomous trucks .
Engineers and regulators are still studying how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually work on the road .
But the hope is that the technology will make trucking cheaper , safer , faster , and more fuel-efficient .
Still , these companies ’ moves reflect that they ’ re not looking to destroy trucking as we know it , but instead want to strategically insert their autonomous technology into the manufacturing , shipping , and infrastructure that exists today .
That ’ s probably good for trucking overall .
Where it leaves truckers themselves is still unclear .
Trucking jobs will change amid automation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how One of the biggest fears about self-driving trucks is that the industry will ultimately displace the nearly 2 million people working as heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers .
For now , it ’ s not obvious how many of them will be affected in the near future .
Researchers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate that there are just under half a million long-haul drivers whose positions are the most vulnerable to autonomous technology , and point out that humans will still be needed for other , trucking-related tasks , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are already on the road also still need backup drivers .
Meanwhile , companies like TuSimple say they ’ re addressing a shortage of and high turnover among long-haul drivers , pointing to research from the American Trucking Associations .
There ’ s also concern over the dangers of truck driving , with risk factors that include long hours behind the wheel , unforgiving weather , and driving under the influence .
TuSimple addresses this anxiety in its marketing .
But Lu , TuSimple ’ s president , argues that even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be able to find other jobs that focus more on first- and last-mile hauls , rather than the longer trips , and other types of jobs that are less exhausting .
“ It ’ s not like if you ’ re a long-haul driver , you can only be a long-haul driver , ” Lu said .
TuSimple worked with Pima Community College in Arizona to launch an online autonomous vehicles specialist certification program that ’ s meant to help truck drivers adapt to the new technology .
Brenna Bayles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truck and is studying in the Pima program , said that she doesn ’ t fear automation , despite concerns that AI could take away jobs in the industry .
In fact , she wants to own a fleet of self-driving vehicles herself one day .
“ The buggy-whip manufacturers didn ’ t want to see cars come along , ” Bayles told Recode , arguing that self-driving cars will ultimately be safer and cheaper to insure .
“ They either get with the program and work in that field , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find another field , but we don ’ t stop progress.
” Representatives of other truckers seem less optimistic .
According to Norita Taylor , a spokesperson for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association , beyond automation potentially threatening jobs , there are still many unanswered questions as to how self-driving trucks will navigate on-the-road situations typically handled by humans , like emergencies , problems with cargo , and dealing with law enforcement on the road .
“ We have a lot of concern that federal regulators are going to put on blinders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the industry ’ s problems without considering the negative impacts of those technologies , ” she said .
Kara Deniz , press secretary for the Teamsters , expressed concern that self-driving technology could be used to extend the hours expected of human drivers behind the wheel and limit the rest and breaks that they ’ re entitled to .
The union remains worried about the impact this technology could have on jobs , among concerns of safety and lack of transparency .
“ None of these [ companies ’ ] speculations take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Deniz said in an email , “ or reflect the understanding of the industry from the perspective of someone who actually does the job day in and out.
” But the reality of those jobs certainly could change , especially as companies that employ truck drivers start to look more closely at self-driving technology .
While it ’ s not clear how fast they will get there or what the rules of the road may be , Wednesday ’ s news is just another sign that the technology is on its way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Fully autonomous trucking may be one step closer to reality. On Wednesday, the San Diego-based self-driving startup TuSimple announced what it’s calling the world’s first autonomous freight network. That means that the company is laying the groundwork for delivering a lot more of our stuff with self-driving trucks.
TuSimple is hardly the only company working to making fully automated shipping a reality. Several companies, including Aurora, Daimler, and Embark Trucks, are competing for a slice of the future of self-driving freight trucks. Alphabet-owned Waymo confirmed on Tuesday that it will be expanding its own self-driving trucking routes throughout the American Southwest and Texas, following previous tests in Arizona, California, Michigan, and Georgia.
TuSimple’s expansion plans seem more concrete than some of its competitors. The company is expanding existing shipments with UPS, which has also invested in TuSimple, and the foodservice delivery giant McLane. The major shipping company US Xpress, one of the nation’s largest freight companies, will also start shipping goods through TuSimple, which now has 22 contracted customers. Those companies will ultimately have influence over which routes are digitally mapped out next for self-driving trucks.
“Imagine if you could influence, back in the day, where a railroad track was being built, and you could build that railroad track right to your front door,” TuSimple president Cheng Lu told Recode. “As a shipper, wouldn’t that give you a big advantage?”
TuSimple plans to expand its routes in the next four years, starting with the addition of new delivery service throughout the Texas triangle of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio in 2020 and 2021. (The company plans to keep drivers behind the self-driving wheel just in case something goes awry.) By 2023, the company wants its self-driving trucks on routes between Los Angeles and Jacksonville, Florida, and hopes to be shipping nationwide by 2024.
Currently, TuSimple has just 40 autonomous trucks in use — though it’s adding 10 more later this year — and its longest route is the 1,000-mile drive between Phoenix and Dallas. TuSimple’s trucks are (eventually) meant to operate without humans; they will be trained on mapped routes, but the goal is to autonomously navigate traffic— and other surprises — on the roads. The challenge is building a trustworthy, AI-powered “virtual driver” that can effectively process information from a wide array of sensors, like lots and lots of high-quality cameras, but also lidar and radar. TuSimple, which was valued at around $1 billion last year, is mainly focused on long-haul trucking and hasn’t spent as much time on self-driving cars.
That’s a big difference from Waymo, which has focused on last-mile delivery and has already used its smaller self-driving minivans to move packages for UPS and AutoNation. In a call with reporters on Tuesday, Waymo’s commercial lead for trucking, Charlie Jatt, shared how the company plans to move forward with trucking. The strategy centers on demonstrating and testing a platform for self-driving trucks until the technology can be implemented into vehicles and parts produced by other manufacturers.
“We see ourselves as a technology company, not a trucking or fleet management company,” Jatt said, according to a transcript of the call. “We’re developing the Waymo Driver and then will partner with OEMs to ensure that our technology can be successfully integrated on classic trucks that are being manufactured and sold to the market in the future.”
Waymo said it is manufacturing some of its own self-driving trucks in Detroit — these are the giant, Class 8 shipping trucks you often see on highways — but the company wouldn’t detail how large the fleet would be. Before the autonomous trucks hit the highway, Waymo sends out smaller vehicles, generally minivans, to collect data and map out routes. Thus far, Waymo says those trucks have previously helped deliver freight for Google’s logistics division in Atlanta, but ultimately, Waymo says it wants to focus on building software and mapping technology.
While TuSimple, Waymo, and others are making progress, it will be years before the majority of America’s long-haul shipping is carried out by autonomous trucks. Engineers and regulators are still studying how self-driving trucks — and self-driving cars — actually work on the road. But the hope is that the technology will make trucking cheaper, safer, faster, and more fuel-efficient.
Still, these companies’ moves reflect that they’re not looking to destroy trucking as we know it, but instead want to strategically insert their autonomous technology into the manufacturing, shipping, and infrastructure that exists today. That’s probably good for trucking overall. Where it leaves truckers themselves is still unclear.
Trucking jobs will change amid automation, but it’s not yet clear how
One of the biggest fears about self-driving trucks is that the industry will ultimately displace the nearly 2 million people working as heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers. For now, it’s not obvious how many of them will be affected in the near future. Researchers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate that there are just under half a million long-haul drivers whose positions are the most vulnerable to autonomous technology, and point out that humans will still be needed for other, trucking-related tasks, like customer service and loading. Self-driving trucks that are already on the road also still need backup drivers.
Meanwhile, companies like TuSimple say they’re addressing a shortage of and high turnover among long-haul drivers, pointing to research from the American Trucking Associations. There’s also concern over the dangers of truck driving, with risk factors that include long hours behind the wheel, unforgiving weather, and driving under the influence. TuSimple addresses this anxiety in its marketing.
But Lu, TuSimple’s president, argues that even if the technology does displace drivers, they’ll be able to find other jobs that focus more on first- and last-mile hauls, rather than the longer trips, and other types of jobs that are less exhausting.
“It’s not like if you’re a long-haul driver, you can only be a long-haul driver,” Lu said.
TuSimple worked with Pima Community College in Arizona to launch an online autonomous vehicles specialist certification program that’s meant to help truck drivers adapt to the new technology. Brenna Bayles, a Kansas-based driver who owns her own truck and is studying in the Pima program, said that she doesn’t fear automation, despite concerns that AI could take away jobs in the industry. In fact, she wants to own a fleet of self-driving vehicles herself one day.
“The buggy-whip manufacturers didn’t want to see cars come along,” Bayles told Recode, arguing that self-driving cars will ultimately be safer and cheaper to insure. “They either get with the program and work in that field, in the capacities that they can, or they find another field, but we don’t stop progress.”
Representatives of other truckers seem less optimistic. According to Norita Taylor, a spokesperson for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, beyond automation potentially threatening jobs, there are still many unanswered questions as to how self-driving trucks will navigate on-the-road situations typically handled by humans, like emergencies, problems with cargo, and dealing with law enforcement on the road.
“We have a lot of concern that federal regulators are going to put on blinders and push for more technology as the answer to the industry’s problems without considering the negative impacts of those technologies,” she said.
Kara Deniz, press secretary for the Teamsters, expressed concern that self-driving technology could be used to extend the hours expected of human drivers behind the wheel and limit the rest and breaks that they’re entitled to. The union remains worried about the impact this technology could have on jobs, among concerns of safety and lack of transparency.
“None of these [companies’] speculations take into account the reality of driving,” Deniz said in an email, “or reflect the understanding of the industry from the perspective of someone who actually does the job day in and out.”
But the reality of those jobs certainly could change, especially as companies that employ truck drivers start to look more closely at self-driving technology. While it’s not clear how fast they will get there or what the rules of the road may be, Wednesday’s news is just another sign that the technology is on its way.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-07-01--USMCA, Trump’s new trade deal, explained in 600 words

The United States Mexico Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) is an updated version of the nearly 25-year-old , trillion-dollar North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) .
It includes major changes on cars and new policies on labor and environmental standards , intellectual property protections , and some digital trade provisions .
During the 2016 presidential campaign , Donald Trump promised to renegotiate NAFTA , which he called “ the worst trade deal ever made.
” As president , he did so .
The result is the USMCA , which Trump signed into law in January and touted as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State of the Union address .
Here ’ s a brief overview of what ’ s in it : • Country of origin rules : Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico , the US , or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs ( up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA ) .
• Labor provisions : 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts must be made by workers who earn at least $ 16 an hour by 2023 .
Mexico agreed to pass new labor laws to give greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women .
Most notably , these laws are supposed to make it easier for Mexican workers to unionize .
• US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market : The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers , a big issue for Trump .
• Intellectual property and digital trade : The deal extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author ( up from 50 ) .
It also includes new provisions to deal with the digital economy , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ebooks , and protections for internet companies so they ’ re not liable for content their users produce .
• Sunset clause : The agreement adds a 16-year sunset clause — meaning the terms of the agreement expire , or “ sunset , ” after 16 years .
The deal is also subject to a review every six years , at which point the US , Mexico , and Canada can decide to extend the USMCA .
In June 2019 , Mexico became the first country to ratify the deal .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill refused to sign on to the deal without stronger enforcement of labor provisions , stricter environmental protections , and other changes .
House Democrats formed a working group to work with the administration on those demands .
In December , House Democrats announced they ’ d reached a revised USMCA deal with the Trump administration that included most of the updates they wanted .
One big one was a “ rapid-response mechanism ” that calls for an independent , three-person panel of multinational , independent experts who will make sure Mexico abides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The revised version won the support of Richard Trumka , president of the AFL-CIO , the largest federation of labor unions in the United States , who had initially opposed the deal .
Environmental groups said it didn ’ t go far enough , though , and some unions still opposed it .
But it was good enough to gain bipartisan support in Congress .
On December 19 , the USMCA passed the House with a vote of 385 to 41 .
About a month later , the Senate overwhelmingly approved the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 29 , Trump officially signed the USMCA , notching a major achievement for the president as he heads into the 2020 election .
Canada ratified the agreement in March , and the USMCA went into force on July 1 , 2020 .
Though NAFTA is officially dead , governments and companies are still adjusting to the new rules , mostly notably the new labor provisions .
The coronavirus may also complicate the implementation , as manufacturers will be adapting to new guidelines in the middle of a global economic crisis .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) is an updated version of the nearly 25-year-old, trillion-dollar North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It includes major changes on cars and new policies on labor and environmental standards, intellectual property protections, and some digital trade provisions.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to renegotiate NAFTA, which he called “the worst trade deal ever made.” As president, he did so. The result is the USMCA, which Trump signed into law in January and touted as one of his signature achievements in his State of the Union address.
Here’s a brief overview of what’s in it:
Country of origin rules: Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA).
Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA). Labor provisions: 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts must be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Mexico agreed to pass new labor laws to give greater protections to workers, including migrants and women. Most notably, these laws are supposed to make it easier for Mexican workers to unionize.
40 to 45 percent of automobile parts must be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Mexico agreed to pass new labor laws to give greater protections to workers, including migrants and women. Most notably, these laws are supposed to make it easier for Mexican workers to unionize. US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market: The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers, a big issue for Trump.
The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers, a big issue for Trump. Intellectual property and digital trade: The deal extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author (up from 50). It also includes new provisions to deal with the digital economy, such as prohibiting duties on things like music and ebooks, and protections for internet companies so they’re not liable for content their users produce.
The deal extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author (up from 50). It also includes new provisions to deal with the digital economy, such as prohibiting duties on things like music and ebooks, and protections for internet companies so they’re not liable for content their users produce. Sunset clause: The agreement adds a 16-year sunset clause — meaning the terms of the agreement expire, or “sunset,” after 16 years. The deal is also subject to a review every six years, at which point the US, Mexico, and Canada can decide to extend the USMCA.
In June 2019, Mexico became the first country to ratify the deal. But in the US, Democrats on Capitol Hill refused to sign on to the deal without stronger enforcement of labor provisions, stricter environmental protections, and other changes.
House Democrats formed a working group to work with the administration on those demands.
In December, House Democrats announced they’d reached a revised USMCA deal with the Trump administration that included most of the updates they wanted. One big one was a “rapid-response mechanism” that calls for an independent, three-person panel of multinational, independent experts who will make sure Mexico abides by its union rules and other protections.
The revised version won the support of Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of labor unions in the United States, who had initially opposed the deal. Environmental groups said it didn’t go far enough, though, and some unions still opposed it.
But it was good enough to gain bipartisan support in Congress.
On December 19, the USMCA passed the House with a vote of 385 to 41. About a month later, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the USMCA, 89 to 10.
On January 29, Trump officially signed the USMCA, notching a major achievement for the president as he heads into the 2020 election.
Canada ratified the agreement in March, and the USMCA went into force on July 1, 2020. Though NAFTA is officially dead, governments and companies are still adjusting to the new rules, mostly notably the new labor provisions. The coronavirus may also complicate the implementation, as manufacturers will be adapting to new guidelines in the middle of a global economic crisis.


vox--2020-07-01--Just 2 states meet these basic criteria to reopen and stay safe

All 50 states have moved to reopen their economies , at least partially , after shutting down businesses and gatherings in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
But a Vox analysis suggests that most states haven ’ t made the preparations needed to contain future waves of the pandemic — putting themselves at risk for a rise in Covid-19 cases and deaths should they continue to reopen , which some states have already seen .
Experts told me states need three things to be ready to reopen .
State leaders , from the governor to the legislature to health departments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no longer spreading unabated .
They need the testing capacity to track and isolate the sick and their contacts .
And they need the hospital capacity to handle a potential surge in Covid-19 cases .
More specifically , states should meet at least five basic criteria .
They should see a two-week drop in coronavirus cases , indicating that the virus is actually abating .
They should have fewer than four daily new cases per 100,000 people per day — to show that cases aren ’ t just dropping , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day , letting them quickly track and contain outbreaks .
They need an overall positive rate for tests below 5 percent — another critical indicator for testing capacity .
And states should have at least 40 percent of their ICU beds free to actually treat an influx of people stricken with Covid-19 should it be necessary .
These metrics line up with a range of expert recommendations , as well as the various policy plans put out by both independent groups and government officials to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metrics doesn ’ t mean that a state is ready to reopen its economy — a process that describes a wide range of local and state actions .
And failing them doesn ’ t mean a state is in immediate danger of a coronavirus outbreak if it starts to reopen ; with Covid-19 , there ’ s always an element of luck and other factors .
But with these metrics , states can gauge if they have repressed the coronavirus while building the capacity to contain future outbreaks should they come .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready states are for the next phase of the fight .
So far , most states are not there .
As of July 1 , just two states — New York and Rhode Island — met four or five of the goals , which demonstrates strong progress .
Twenty-one states and Washington , DC , hit two or three of the benchmarks .
The other 27 achieved zero or one .
Even the states that have made the most progress aren ’ t necessarily ready to fully reopen .
Without a vaccine or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still out there .
Especially in states that suffered big outbreaks , such as New York , even a lot of progress doesn ’ t mean all the underlying problems that led to an epidemic are gone .
Nor do the metrics cover everything that states should do before they can safely reopen .
They don ’ t show , for example , if states have the capacity to do contact tracing , in which people who came into contact with someone who ’ s sick with Covid-19 are tracked down by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Contact tracing is key to containing an epidemic , but states don ’ t track how many contact tracers they ’ ve hired in a standardized , readily available way .
States also don ’ t have ready data for health care workers ’ access to personal protective equipment , such as masks and gloves — a critical measure of the health care system ’ s readiness that ’ s difficult to track .
But the map gives an idea of how much progress states have made toward containing the coronavirus and keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow these kinds of metrics as they reopen .
If the numbers — especially coronavirus cases — go in the wrong direction again , experts said governments should be ready to bring back restrictions .
If states move too quickly to reopen or respond too slowly to a turn for the worse , they could see a renewed surge in Covid-19 cases .
“ Planning for reclosing is part of planning for reopening , ” Mark McClellan , a health policy expert at Duke , told me .
“ There will be outbreaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pauses and going back — hopefully not too much if we do this carefully.
” So this will be a work in progress , at least until we get a Covid-19 vaccine or the pandemic otherwise ends , whether by natural or human means .
But the metrics can at least help give states an idea of how far along they are in finally starting to open back up .
What ’ s the goal ?
A 10 percent drop in daily new coronavirus cases compared to two weeks ago and a 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ago , based on data from the New York Times .
Which states meet the goal ?
Massachusetts and Rhode Island — just two states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
Why is this important ?
Guidance from the White House and several independent groups emphasize that states need to see coronavirus cases drop consistently over two weeks before they can say they ’ re ready to begin reopening .
After all , nothing shows you ’ re out of an outbreak like a sustained reduction in infections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] is you want to have a continued decrease in cases , ” Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist , told me .
“ It ’ s a huge piece.
” A simple reduction in cases compared to two weeks prior isn ’ t enough ; it has to be a significant drop , and it has to be sustained over the two weeks .
So for Vox ’ s map , states need at least a 10 percent drop in daily new cases compared to two weeks prior and at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week prior .
Reported cases can be a reflection of testing capacity : More testing will pick up more cases , and less testing will pick up fewer .
So it ’ s important that the decrease occur while testing is either growing or already sufficient .
And since states have recently boosted their testing abilities , increases in Covid-19 cases can also reflect improvements in testing .
Even after meeting this benchmark , continued caution is warranted .
If a state meets the goal of a reduction in cases compared to one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go up in recent days , then perhaps it ’ s not time to reopen just yet .
“ You have to use common sense , ” Cyrus Shahpar , a director at the public health policy group Resolve to Save Lives , told me .
What ’ s the goal ?
Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the New York Times and Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Connecticut , Hawaii , Maine , Massachusetts , Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York , Rhode Island , Vermont , and West Virginia — 11 states .
Why is this important ?
One of the best ways to know you ’ re getting away from a disease outbreak is to no longer see a high number of daily new infections .
While there ’ s no universally accepted number , experts said that four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people is a decent ceiling .
“ If I go from one to two to three [ coronavirus cases a day ] , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 3,000 , even though the percent difference is the same , ” Shahpar said .
“ That ’ s why you have to take into account the overall level , too.
” To put it another way , it ’ s not enough for daily new Covid-19 cases to drop , even for weeks .
Cases also should fall below a certain level before a state can be deemed truly safe .
At the same time , if your state is now below four daily new cases per 100,000 but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s a reason for caution .
Even the worst-hit states , after all , began with a handful of cases before they saw an exponential surge .
But if your state is below the threshold , it ’ s in a pretty solid place relative to most other states .
What ’ s the goal ?
At least 150 tests per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Florida , Illinois , Iowa , Louisiana , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Montana , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , North Dakota , Oklahoma , Rhode Island , South Carolina , Tennessee , Utah , and Wisconsin — for a total of 26 states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
Why is this important ?
Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic , experts have argued that the US needs the capacity for at least 500,000 Covid-19 tests a day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to about 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day .
Testing is crucial to getting the coronavirus outbreak under control .
When paired with contact tracing , testing lets officials track the scale of the outbreak , isolate the sick , quarantine those the sick came into contact with , and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary .
Testing and tracing are how other countries , like South Korea and Germany , have managed to control their outbreaks and started to reopen their economies .
The idea , experts said , is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they turn into full wildfires .
“ States should be shoring up their testing capacity not just for what it looks like right now while everyone ’ s in their homes , but as people start to move more , ” Jen Kates , the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me .
“ As people start doing more movement , you ’ ll have to test more , because people are going to come into contact with each other more.
” The 500,000-a-day goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommended as many as millions of tests nationwide each day .
But 500,000 is the most often-cited goal , and it ’ s , at the very least , a good start .
This goal is supposed to be for diagnostic tests , not antibody tests .
Diagnostic tests gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is , therefore , sick right at the moment of the test .
Antibody tests check if someone ever developed antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been sick in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more recent gauge of the level of infection , they ’ re seen as much more reliable for evaluating the current state of the Covid-19 outbreak in a state .
But some states have mixed up numbers for diagnostic and antibody tests , which could skew the data collected by the Covid Tracking Project .
“ The virus isn ’ t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable ; it ’ s going to continue to spread , ” Crystal Watson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center for Health Security , told me .
“ It ’ s better to really understand what ’ s going on and report that accurately.
” For states honestly reporting these numbers , though , they ’ re a critical measure of their ability to detect , control , and contain coronavirus outbreaks .
What ’ s the goal ?
Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Connecticut , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kentucky , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesota , Montana , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Dakota , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , West Virginia , and Wyoming — for a total of 26 states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
Why is this important ?
The positive or positivity rate , which tracks how many tests come back positive for Covid-19 , is another way to measure testing capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests there ’ s not enough testing happening .
An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people , many of whom don ’ t have the disease or don ’ t show severe symptoms .
The positive testing rate in South Korea , for example , is below 2 percent .
High positive rates indicate only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested , so there ’ s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak .
Previously , the World Health Organization ( WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 percent .
But the WHO more recently recommended 5 percent , which is in line with the rate for countries that have better managed to better control their outbreaks , like Germany , New Zealand , and South Korea .
“ Even lower is better , ” Shahpar said .
The positive rate data is subject to the same limitations as the overall testing data from the Covid Tracking Project .
So if a state includes antibody tests in its test count , it could skew the positive rate to look better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurting themselves if they do this .
What ’ s the goal ?
Below 60 percent occupancy of ICU beds in hospitals , based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Delaware , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Nebraska , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Dakota , Ohio , South Dakota , Wisconsin , and Wyoming — for a total of 17 states .
Why is this important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care system needs to be ready to treat the most severe cases and potentially save lives .
That ’ s the key goal of “ flattening the curve ” and “ raising the line , ” in which social distancing helps reduce the spread of the disease so the health care system can maintain and grow its capacity to treat an influx of Covid-19 patients .
“ There ’ s this idea that in six weeks we can open more things , ” Amesh Adalja , a senior scholar at the Johns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
“ But the virus is still there .
It ’ s all about making sure that the case count isn ’ t too immense for our hospital system to deal with.
” The aim is to avoid the nightmare scenario that Italy went through when it had more Covid-19 cases than its health care system could handle , leading to hospitals turning away even dangerously ill patients .
To gauge this , experts recommended looking at ICU capacity , with states aiming to have at most 60 percent occupancy in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metric : It ’ s based on data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of only some hospitals in each state .
So it might not be fully representative of hospital capacity throughout an entire state .
But it ’ s the best , most current data available .
Hitting the benchmarks is the beginning , not the end Vox ’ s map is just one way of tracking success against the coronavirus .
Other groups have come up with their own measures , including Covid Act Now , Covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Vox ’ s model uses more up-to-date data than some of these other examples , while focusing not just on the state of the pandemic but states ’ readiness to contain Covid-19 outbreaks in the future .
Very few states hit all the marks recommended by experts .
But even those that do shouldn ’ t consider the pandemic over .
They should continue to improve — for example , getting the positive rate below even 1 percent , as in New Zealand — and look at even more granular metrics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level .
Meeting the benchmarks , however , indicates a state is better equipped to contain future coronavirus outbreaks as it eases previous restrictions .
Experts emphasized that states have to keep hitting all these goals week after week and day after day — Covid-19 cases must remain low , testing ability needs to stay high , and hospital capacity should be good enough for an influx of patients — until the pandemic is truly over , whether thanks to a vaccine or other means .
Otherwise , a future wave of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , could kill many more people .
“ You need to have all the metrics met , ” Popescu said .
“ This needs to be a very incremental , slow process to ensure success.
” And if the numbers do start trending in the wrong direction , states should be ready to shut down at least some parts of the economy again .
Maybe not as much as before , as we learn which places are truly at risk of increasing spread .
But experts caution that future shutdowns will likely be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do worry we ’ re going to see surges of cases and hot spots , ” Watson said .
“ We do need to keep pushing on building those capacities .
… Otherwise , we ’ re just rolling the dice on the spread of the virus .
It ’ s better if we have more control of the spread.
” That ’ s another reason these metrics , along with broader coronavirus surveillance , are so important : They not only help show how far along states are in dealing with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track progress to stop and prevent future crises as well .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

All 50 states have moved to reopen their economies, at least partially, after shutting down businesses and gatherings in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
But a Vox analysis suggests that most states haven’t made the preparations needed to contain outbreaks — putting themselves at risk for a rise in Covid-19 cases and deaths should they continue to reopen. Some states have already had to backtrack on reopening measures.
Experts told me states need three things to be safe to open. State leaders, from the governor to the legislature to health departments, need to ensure the SARS-CoV-2 virus is no longer spreading unabated. They need the testing capacity to track and isolate the sick and their contacts. And they need the hospital capacity to handle a potential surge in Covid-19 cases.
More specifically, states should meet at least five basic criteria. They should see a two-week drop in coronavirus cases, indicating that the virus is actually abating. They should have fewer than four daily new cases per 100,000 people per day — to show that cases aren’t just dropping but are also below dangerous levels. They need at least 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day, letting them quickly track and contain outbreaks. They need an overall positive rate for tests below 5 percent — another critical indicator for testing capacity. And states should have at least 40 percent of their ICU beds free to actually treat an influx of people stricken with Covid-19 should it be necessary.
These metrics line up with a range of expert recommendations, as well as the various policy plans put out by both independent groups and government officials to deal with the coronavirus.
Meeting these metrics doesn’t mean that a state is ready to safely reopen its economy — a process that describes a wide range of local and state actions. And failing them doesn’t mean a state is in immediate danger of a coronavirus outbreak if it starts to reopen; with Covid-19, there’s always an element of luck and other factors.
But with these metrics, states can gauge if they have repressed the coronavirus while building the capacity to contain future outbreaks should they come. In other words, the benchmarks show how ready states are for the next phase of the fight.
So far, most states are not there. Just four states — Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York — met four or five of the goals, which demonstrates strong progress. Twenty-five states and Washington, DC, hit two or three of the benchmarks. The remaining 19 achieved zero or one. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Even the states that have made the most progress aren’t safe to fully reopen. Without a vaccine or similar treatment, the threat of the coronavirus is still out there. Especially in states that suffered big outbreaks, such as Arizona and New York, even a lot of progress or some progress doesn’t mean all the underlying problems that led to an epidemic are gone.
Nor do the metrics cover everything that states should do before they can safely reopen. They don’t show, for example, if states have the capacity to do contact tracing, in which people who came into contact with someone who’s sick with Covid-19 are tracked down by “disease detectives” and quarantined. Contact tracing is key to containing an epidemic, but states don’t track how many contact tracers they’ve hired in a standardized, readily available way.
States also don’t have ready data for health care workers’ access to personal protective equipment, such as masks and gloves — a critical measure of the health care system’s readiness that’s difficult to track.
But the map gives an idea of how much progress states have made toward containing the coronavirus and keeping it contained.
States will have to follow these kinds of metrics as they reopen. If the numbers — especially coronavirus cases — go in the wrong direction again, experts said governments should be ready to bring back restrictions. If states move too quickly to reopen or respond too slowly to a turn for the worse, they could see a renewed surge in Covid-19 cases.
“Planning for reclosing is part of planning for reopening,” Mark McClellan, a health policy expert at Duke, told me. “There will be outbreaks, and there will be needs for pauses and going back — hopefully not too much if we do this carefully.”
So this will be a work in progress, at least until we get a Covid-19 vaccine or the pandemic otherwise ends, whether by natural or human means. But the metrics can at least help give states an idea of how far along they are in the fight against the coronavirus.
Goal 1: A sustained two-week drop in coronavirus cases
What’s the goal? A 10 percent drop in daily new coronavirus cases compared to two weeks ago and a 5 percent drop in cases compared to one week ago, based on data from the New York Times.
Which states meet the goal? Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, and Wyoming — a total of nine states.
Why is this important? Guidance from the White House and several independent groups emphasize that states need to see coronavirus cases drop consistently over two weeks before they can say they’re ready to begin reopening. After all, nothing shows you’re out of an outbreak like a sustained reduction in infections.
“The first and foremost [metric] is you want to have a continued decrease in cases,” Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, told me. “It’s a huge piece.”
A simple reduction in cases compared to two weeks prior isn’t enough; it has to be a significant drop, and it has to be sustained over the two weeks. So for Vox’s map, states need at least a 10 percent drop in daily new cases compared to two weeks prior and at least a 5 percent drop compared to one week prior.
Reported cases can be a reflection of testing capacity: More testing will pick up more cases, and less testing will pick up fewer. So it’s important that the decrease occur while testing is either growing or already sufficient. And since states have recently boosted their testing abilities, increases in Covid-19 cases can also reflect improvements in testing.
Even after meeting this benchmark, continued caution is warranted. If a state meets the goal of a reduction in cases compared to one and two weeks ago but cases seemed to go up in recent days, then perhaps it’s not time to reopen just yet. And if cases have dropped but only from a very high baseline of cases, then that’s less comforting than a drop from a lower baseline.
“You have to use common sense,” Cyrus Shahpar, a director at the public health policy group Resolve to Save Lives, told me.
Goal 2: A low number of daily new Covid-19 cases
What’s the goal? Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont — just six states.
Why is this important? One of the best ways to know you’re getting away from a disease outbreak is to no longer see a high number of daily new infections. While there’s no universally accepted number, experts said that four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people is a reasonable ceiling.
“If I go from one to two to three [coronavirus cases a day], it’s different than going from 1,000 to 2,000 to 3,000, even though the percent difference is the same,” Shahpar said. “That’s why you have to take into account the overall level, too.”
To put it another way, it’s not enough for daily new Covid-19 cases to drop, even for weeks. Cases also should fall below a certain level before a state can be deemed truly safe.
For example, Arizona has seen its daily new cases drop over the past two weeks. But its daily new cases are still, after controlling for population, the third-highest in the country. That indicates an epidemic that remains out of control.
At the same time, if your state is now below four daily new cases per 100,000 but it’s seen a recent uptick in cases, that’s a reason for caution. Even the worst-hit states, after all, began with a handful of cases before they saw an exponential surge.
But if your state is below the threshold, it’s in a pretty solid place relative to most states.
Goal 3: High coronavirus testing capacity
What’s the goal? At least 150 tests per 100,000 people per day, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and the Census Bureau.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia — 37 states. Washington, DC, did as well. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Why is this important? Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, experts have argued that the US needs the capacity for at least 500,000 Covid-19 tests a day. Controlling for population, that adds up to about 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day.
Testing is crucial to getting the coronavirus outbreak under control. When paired with contact tracing, testing lets officials track the scale of the outbreak, isolate the sick, quarantine those the sick came into contact with, and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary. Testing and tracing are how other countries, like South Korea and Germany, have managed to control their outbreaks and started to reopen their economies.
The idea, experts said, is to have enough surveillance to detect embers before they turn into full wildfires.
“States should be shoring up their testing capacity not just for what it looks like right now while everyone’s in their homes, but as people start to move more,” Jen Kates, the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “As people start doing more movement, you’ll have to test more, because people are going to come into contact with each other more.”
The 500,000-a-day goal is the minimum. Some experts have recommended as many as millions of tests nationwide each day. But 500,000 is the most often-cited goal, and it’s, at the very least, a good start.
It’s preferable if states report this number by how many people they’ve tested, not just the total number of tests. For containing an outbreak, it’s generally more useful to test 500,000 people one time than to test one person 500,000 times. But some states report the figures for total tests, not the number of tested individuals — counting tests for a single person multiple times. That could skew the numbers.
This goal is also supposed to be for diagnostic tests, not antibody tests. Diagnostic tests gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is, therefore, sick right at the moment of the test. Antibody tests check if someone ever developed antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been sick in the past. Since diagnostic tests give a more recent gauge of the level of infection, they’re seen as much more reliable for evaluating the current state of the Covid-19 outbreak in a state.
But some states have mixed up numbers for diagnostic and antibody tests, which could skew the data collected by the Covid Tracking Project.
“The virus isn’t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable; it’s going to continue to spread,” Crystal Watson, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “It’s better to really understand what’s going on and report that accurately.”
For states honestly reporting these numbers, though, they’re a critical measure of their ability to detect, control, and contain coronavirus outbreaks.
Goal 4: A low test positive rate
What’s the goal? Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week, based on data from the Covid Tracking Project.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming — 23 states. Washington, DC, did as well. (Alabama and Florida are excluded due to recent issues with test reporting.)
Why is this important? The positive or positivity rate, which tracks how many tests come back positive for Covid-19, is another way to measure testing capacity.
Generally, a higher positive rate suggests there’s not enough testing happening. An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people, many of whom don’t have the disease or don’t show severe symptoms. The positive testing rate in South Korea, for example, is below 1 percent. High positive rates indicate only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested, so there’s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak.
Previously, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended a maximum positive rate of 10 percent. But the WHO more recently recommended 5 percent, which is in line with the rate for countries that have managed to better control their outbreaks, like Germany, New Zealand, and South Korea. “Even lower is better,” Shahpar said.
The positive rate data is subject to the same limitations as the overall testing data from the Covid Tracking Project. So if a state includes antibody tests in its test count, it could skew the positive rate to look better than it is. States only risk hurting themselves if they do this.
Goal 5: Availability of ICU beds
What’s the goal? Below 60 percent occupancy of ICU beds in hospitals, based on data from the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Which states meet the goal? Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — 17 states.
Why is this important? If a pandemic hits, the health care system needs to be ready to treat the most severe cases and potentially save lives. That’s the key goal of “flattening the curve” and “raising the line,” in which social distancing helps reduce the spread of the disease so the health care system can maintain and grow its capacity to treat an influx of Covid-19 patients.
“There’s this idea that in six weeks we can open more things,” Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told me. “But the virus is still there. It’s all about making sure that the case count isn’t too immense for our hospital system to deal with.”
The aim is to avoid the nightmare scenario that Italy went through when it had more Covid-19 cases than its health care system could handle, leading to hospitals turning away even dangerously ill patients.
To gauge this, experts recommended looking at ICU capacity, with states aiming to have at most 60 percent occupancy in their ICUs.
Hitting the benchmarks is the beginning, not the end
Vox’s map is just one way of tracking success against the coronavirus. Other groups have come up with their own measures, including Covid Act Now, Covid Exit Strategy, and Test and Trace. Vox’s model uses more up-to-date data than some of these other examples, while focusing not just on the state of the pandemic but also on states’ readiness to contain Covid-19 outbreaks in the future.
Very few states hit all the marks recommended by experts. But even those that do shouldn’t consider the pandemic over. They should continue to improve — for example, getting the positive rate below 1 percent, as in New Zealand — and look at even more granular metrics, such as at the city or county level.
Meeting the benchmarks, however, indicates a state is better equipped to contain future coronavirus outbreaks as it eases previous restrictions.
Experts emphasized that states have to keep hitting all these goals week after week and day after day — Covid-19 cases must remain low, testing ability needs to stay high, and hospital capacity should be good enough for an influx of patients — until the pandemic is truly over, whether thanks to a vaccine or other means. Otherwise, a future wave of coronavirus cases, as seen in past pandemics, could kill many more people.
“You need to have all the metrics met,” Popescu said. “This needs to be a very incremental, slow process to ensure success.”
And if the numbers do start trending in the wrong direction, states should be ready to shut down at least some parts of the economy again. Maybe not as much as before, as we learn which places are truly at risk of increasing spread. But experts caution that future shutdowns will likely be necessary to some extent.
“I do worry we’re going to see surges of cases and hot spots,” Watson said. “We do need to keep pushing on building those capacities. … Otherwise, we’re just rolling the dice on the spread of the virus. It’s better if we have more control of the spread.”
That’s another reason these metrics, along with broader coronavirus surveillance, are so important: They not only help show how far along states are in dealing with their current Covid-19 outbreaks, but will help track progress to stop and prevent future crises as well.
Will you become our 20,000th supporter? When the economy took a downturn in the spring and we started asking readers for financial contributions, we weren’t sure how it would go. Today, we’re humbled to say that nearly 20,000 people have chipped in. The reason is both lovely and surprising: Readers told us that they contribute both because they value explanation and because they value that other people can access it, too. We have always believed that explanatory journalism is vital for a functioning democracy. That’s never been more important than today, during a public health crisis, racial justice protests, a recession, and a presidential election. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive, and advertising alone won’t let us keep creating it at the quality and volume this moment requires. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will help keep Vox free for all. Contribute today from as little as $3.