vox--2020-04-26--Dr. Deborah Birx says, “Social distancing will be with us through the summer”

Dr. Deborah Birx , one of the White House coronavirus task force ’ s top public health officials , said Sunday Americans should expect to continue practicing social distancing through the summer .
As more than a dozen states prepare to loosen restrictions on social and business interactions , Birx noted those plans do not mean protective measures can be suspended .
And she also said that mass diagnostic testing — on a scale not yet possible — would be needed before social distancing guidelines can be safely lifted .
“ Social distancing will be with us through the summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another as we move through these phases , ” she told Chuck Todd in an appearance on NBC ’ s Meet the Press .
The statement came in response to a question from Todd about comments recently made by Vice President Mike Pence ; the vice president said he believes the United States will “ largely have this coronavirus epidemic behind us ” by Memorial Day weekend , around May 25 .
Pence , Trump , and White House officials without scientific training have long been more optimistic than the federal government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus might be under control .
Trump has said he expects to see protective guidelines relaxed “ sooner rather than later , ” and Saturday once again promised there “ will be a ‘ Miracle ’ end ” to the pandemic .
Birx said Sunday that models and data from certain viral hotspots , such as New Orleans , Houston , and Detroit , have indeed offered some hope for a downturn in infection rates : “ If you look at those outbreaks over time … and you look at how they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what those cases look like as they come down , it gives us great hope , ” she said .
Health officials in those three cities have cautiously expressed the hope that their curves may indeed be flattening , but it remains to be seen whether those trends continue — and if they have enough testing capacity to identify potential future outbreaks .
Birx cautioned against taking aggressive action to reopen businesses until that capacity is increased — and warned current testing capabilities may fall short when it comes to confirming cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have to have a breakthrough innovation in testing .
We have to be able to detect antigens , ” molecules that trigger an immune system response , Birx said .
“ Rather than constantly trying to detect the actual live virus or the viral particles itself.
” Such tests would help experts to understand the scope and scale of the virus ’ s spread , and could help limit community spread as states begin to reopen .
Birx said she believes antigen testing will be available soon , and that states should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing protocols in “ the next two to three weeks.
” The doctor ’ s comments come as at least 16 states prepare to reopen portions of their economies .
Most are mandating social distancing at reopened nonessential businesses , but some are reopening businesses where social distancing can not take place — such as hair salons and tattoo parlors .
All this has some experts concerned those states ’ policies will lead to a new wave of infections that will mean social distancing will have to be practiced not through the summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 constitute a donation , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Dr. Deborah Birx, one of the White House coronavirus task force’s top public health officials, said Sunday Americans should expect to continue practicing social distancing through the summer.
As more than a dozen states prepare to loosen restrictions on social and business interactions, Birx noted those plans do not mean protective measures can be suspended. And she also said that mass diagnostic testing — on a scale not yet possible — would be needed before social distancing guidelines can be safely lifted.
“Social distancing will be with us through the summer to really ensure that we protect one another as we move through these phases,” she told Chuck Todd in an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.
The statement came in response to a question from Todd about comments recently made by Vice President Mike Pence; the vice president said he believes the United States will “largely have this coronavirus epidemic behind us” by Memorial Day weekend, around May 25.
Pence, Trump, and White House officials without scientific training have long been more optimistic than the federal government’s public health experts about when the coronavirus might be under control. Trump has said he expects to see protective guidelines relaxed “sooner rather than later,” and Saturday once again promised there “will be a ‘Miracle’ end” to the pandemic.
Birx said Sunday that models and data from certain viral hotspots, such as New Orleans, Houston, and Detroit, have indeed offered some hope for a downturn in infection rates: “If you look at those outbreaks over time … and you look at how they’ve reached their peak and come down and what those cases look like as they come down, it gives us great hope,” she said.
Health officials in those three cities have cautiously expressed the hope that their curves may indeed be flattening, but it remains to be seen whether those trends continue — and if they have enough testing capacity to identify potential future outbreaks.
Birx cautioned against taking aggressive action to reopen businesses until that capacity is increased — and warned current testing capabilities may fall short when it comes to confirming cases.
“We have to realize that we have to have a breakthrough innovation in testing. We have to be able to detect antigens,” molecules that trigger an immune system response, Birx said. “Rather than constantly trying to detect the actual live virus or the viral particles itself.”
Such tests would help experts understand the scope and scale of the virus’s spread, and could help limit community spread as states begin to reopen. Birx said she believes antigen testing will be available soon, and that states should have access to improved versions of current testing protocols in “the next two to three weeks.”
The doctor’s comments come as at least 16 states prepare to reopen portions of their economies. Most are mandating social distancing at reopened nonessential businesses, but some are reopening businesses where social distancing cannot take place — such as hair salons and tattoo parlors. All this has some experts concerned those states’ policies will lead to a new wave of infections that will mean social distancing will have to be practiced not through the summer, but long past it.


vox--2020-04-26--Andrew Cuomo has a plan to start reopening New York — eventually

New York has been hit harder than any other region of the United States by the coronavirus so far , and the state ’ s nightmare is far from over .
Saturday , 5,902 more people tested positive , and while that ’ s a substantial decline from the state ’ s peak ( when some days saw more than 10,000 people test positive ) , it ’ s still more new confirmed cases in New York today than 25 states have had in total over the three months since the virus ’ s spread in the US began .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday that as case numbers continue to decline , New York will start to think about reopening .
The plan is to follow CDC guidelines , which say a state should not start to reopen until new coronavirus-related hospitalizations have declined for 14 days .
That will happen in some parts of the state sooner than in other parts , and the least-affected areas of the state will get to begin reopening first .
“ Phase one of reopening will involve construction and manufacturing activities , ” Cuomo said .
“ And within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pose a low risk.
” Phase two will involve all businesses , with state leaders weighing how essential each business it is , how reopening the business might affect community spread risks , and how those risks can be mitigated .
“ In phase two , ” Cuomo said , “ we need businesses to do that analysis .
They need to think about how they ’ re going to reopen with this ‘ new normal ’ — what precautions are they going to take in the workplace ?
” After each phase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take two weeks to monitor the effects of the changes — if a sudden surge of cases is detected , the state will take a step back and reconsider , while if infections remain low , it will proceed to the next phase .
Cuomo didn ’ t specify an exact timeline for the execution of this plan .
But it may not be implemented any time soon : While the coronavirus has caused widespread economic devastation in New York and around the country , there is not widespread public support for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelmingly favor stay-home orders continuing until they ’ re no longer needed to contain the coronavirus .
That hasn ’ t stopped many governors from putting forward plans to reopen their state economies .
Some of them , like Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp ’ s plan to reopen nail and hair salons , as well as bowling alleys , have been roundly condemned by experts as incoherent and dangerous policy that will lead to a resurgence of cases .
But many of the more careful plans are designed to keep coronavirus case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social effects of the shelter-in-place orders Americans have now been living under , in many cases , for more than a month .
If they work , they could make the long road until there ’ s a vaccine or effective treatment more bearable .
The problem is , it ’ s not clear that there are any businesses that can be safely reopened while the country is still lagging so desperately on measures needed to fight the virus successfully .
The best way forward — the approach used in other countries that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to test millions of Americans .
The US is not increasing its testing capacity anywhere near fast enough to pull that off .
It ’ s not clear if there ’ s another route to making people safe enough that business as almost-usual can resume — but proposals like New York ’ s are an attempt to find one .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .
Sign up for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

New York has so far been hit harder than any other region of the United States by the coronavirus, and the state’s nightmare is far from over. Saturday, 5,902 more people tested positive, and while that’s a substantial decline from the state’s peak (when some days saw more than 10,000 people test positive), it’s still more new confirmed cases in New York today than 25 states have had in total over the three months since the virus’s spread in the US began.
Nonetheless, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Sunday that as case numbers continue to decline, New York will start to think about reopening. The plan is to follow CDC guidelines, which say a state should not start to reopen until new coronavirus-related hospitalizations have declined for 14 days. That will happen in some parts of the state sooner than in other parts, and the least-affected areas of the state will get to begin reopening first.
“Phase one of reopening will involve construction and manufacturing activities,” Cuomo said. “And within construction and manufacturing, those businesses that pose a low risk.”
Phase two will involve all businesses, with state leaders weighing how essential each business is, how reopening the business might affect community spread risks, and how those risks can be mitigated. “In phase two,” Cuomo said, “we need businesses to do that analysis. They need to think about how they’re going to reopen with this ‘new normal’ — what precautions are they going to take in the workplace?”
After each phase, Cuomo said, the state will take two weeks to monitor the effects of the changes — if a sudden surge of cases is detected, the state will take a step back and reconsider, while if infections remain low, it will proceed to the next phase.
Cuomo didn’t specify an exact timeline for the execution of this plan. But it may not be implemented any time soon: While the coronavirus has caused widespread economic devastation in New York and around the country, there is not widespread public support for a prompt reopening. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly favor stay-at-home orders continuing until they’re no longer needed to contain the coronavirus.
That hasn’t stopped many governors from putting forward plans to reopen their state economies. Some of them, like Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s plan to reopen nail and hair salons, as well as bowling alleys, have been roundly condemned by experts as incoherent and dangerous policy that will lead to a resurgence of cases.
But many of the more careful plans are designed to keep coronavirus case numbers falling while easing the economic and social effects of the shelter-in-place orders Americans have now been living under, in many cases, for more than a month. If they work, they could make the long road until there’s a vaccine or effective treatment more bearable.
The problem is, it’s not clear that there are any businesses that can be safely reopened while the country is still lagging so desperately on measures needed to fight the virus successfully. The best way forward — the approach used in other countries that have successfully controlled their outbreaks — is to test millions of Americans. The US is not increasing its testing capacity anywhere near fast enough to pull that off. It’s not clear if there’s another route to making people safe enough that business as almost-usual can resume — but proposals like New York’s are an attempt to find one.


vox--2020-04-26--Italy will take small steps to restart its economy as early as this week

Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte announced plans on Sunday , April 26 , that sketch out how the government will incrementally relax coronavirus-related social distancing restrictions in the coming months , some of which will be lifted as early as this week .
Conte ’ s plans highlight how Italy — where coronavirus has been more lethal than anywhere else in Europe — is seeking to strike a balance between reviving its nearly lifeless economy without unleashing a new wave of cases that will cause another lockdown .
In an interview with the newspaper La Repubblica , Conte explained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primarily involved in exports — could be opened as early as this week .
He pointed out that letting these sectors restart was urgent because they could be cut out of production chains , according to Reuters .
“ We can ’ t prolong any further this lockdown ... we would risk seriously undermining the socioeconomic fabric of the country , ” Conte said .
According to Reuters ’ s analysis of local reporting and Conte ’ s interview , the tentative plan for what he has called “ phase 2 ” of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Construction , manufacturing , and wholesale businesses open on May 4 • Bars and restaurants open on May 18 As these policies roll out , businesses are expected to observe safety measures to minimize risk of transmission .
Conte is expected to release a formal roadmap laying out the details early next week .
His interview comes days after a Facebook post in which he called for “ serious scientific policy ” that helps gradually revive the economy .
“ I would like to be able to say , let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote on Facebook .
“ But such a decision would be irresponsible .
It would make the contagion curve rise uncontrollably , and would jeopardize all the efforts that we ’ ve made until now.
” Italy has been in strict lockdown since March 9 .
It was in many ways the canary in the coal mine for the West — the first example outside Asia of the havoc that coronavirus could wreak on an unprepared country .
A new study suggests Italy ’ s outbreak likely began in January , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on February 21 — after which cases and deaths quickly skyrocketed .
Over 25,000 people have died in the country , giving it one of the highest per capita fatality rates in the world .
Italy ’ s Civil Protection Agency has reported the rate of new infections has slowed since early March ; last week it said there was a decrease in the number of active coronavirus cases in Italy for the first time since February .
The day after Italy crossed that milestone — in which the number of cases dropped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Italian special commissioner for the coronavirus emergency , Domenico Arcuri , said , “ This gives us the strength to go forward.
” Italian business leaders have been advocating for restarting the economy as quickly as possible .
but so far the government has emphasized that reopening must be extremely careful in order to avoid a relapse .
In his Facebook post , Conte said that “ maximum caution ” must remain as a guiding principle , and that “ the easing of measures must take place on the basis of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s coronavirus advisers have also emphasized to the public that things won ’ t simply be returning to normal anytime soon .
“ It ’ s not by chance that you use the same word , ‘ depression , ’ both economically and existentially , ” Fabrizio Starace , a psychiatrist on Italy ’ s coronavirus task force , recently told the Washington Post .
“ The fantasy everyone is entertaining is that of a return to normalcy .
Clearly our gradual recovery won ’ t match normalcy.
” “ We need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our lives , our lifestyles , ” Filomena Maggino , another member of the task force , told the Post .
Some politicians in Italy have called for using antibody testing to see who has recovered from Covid-19 in order to get them to repopulate the workforce , and to give them special licenses .
Still , as of now , the WHO has recommended against such policies given concerns over the possibility of reinfection and uncertainty over the biological markers that indicate immunity .
Italy is also rolling out a non-mandatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve been near someone with a confirmed case of the virus , but the Washington Post reports that experts are skeptical Italy has the manpower required to make the app effective for executing targeted quarantines .
Nonetheless , Italy , poised for the worst recession it has seen since World War II , is moving ahead as quickly and as carefully as possible .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox @ @

Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte announced plans on Sunday, April 26, that sketch out how the government will incrementally relax coronavirus-related social distancing restrictions in the coming months, some of which will be lifted as early as this week.
Conte’s plans highlight how Italy — where the coronavirus has been more lethal than anywhere else in Europe — is seeking to strike a balance between reviving its nearly lifeless economy and unleashing a new wave of cases that will cause another lockdown.
In an interview with the newspaper La Repubblica, Conte explained that some businesses considered “strategic” — primarily involved in exports — could be opened as early as this week. He pointed out that letting these sectors restart was urgent because they could be cut out of production chains, according to Reuters.
“We can’t prolong any further this lockdown ... we would risk seriously undermining the socioeconomic fabric of the country,” Conte said.
According to Reuters’s analysis of local reporting and Conte’s interview, the tentative plan for what he has called “phase 2” of the coronavirus response looks like this:
Construction, manufacturing, and wholesale businesses open on May 4
Retailers open on May 11
Bars and restaurants open on May 18
Schools will remain closed until September
As these policies roll out, businesses are expected to observe safety measures to minimize risk of transmission. Conte is expected to release a formal roadmap laying out the details early next week.
His interview comes days after a Facebook post in which he called for “serious scientific policy” that helps gradually revive the economy.
“I would like to be able to say, let’s open everything. Right away,” he wrote on Facebook. “But such a decision would be irresponsible. It would make the contagion curve rise uncontrollably, and would jeopardize all the efforts that we’ve made until now.”
Italy has been in strict lockdown since March 9. It was in many ways the canary in the coal mine for the West: the first example outside Asia of the havoc the coronavirus could wreak on an unprepared country.
A new study suggests Italy’s outbreak likely began in January, but the country diagnosed its first local patient on February 21 — after which, cases and deaths quickly skyrocketed. More than 25,000 people have died in the country, giving it one of the highest per capita fatality rates in the world.
Italy’s Civil Protection Agency reported that the rate of new infections has slowed since early March; last week, it said there was a decrease in the number of active coronavirus cases in Italy for the first time since February.
The day after Italy crossed that milestone — in which the number of cases dropped by 20 from the day before — the Italian special commissioner for the coronavirus emergency, Domenico Arcuri, said, “This gives us the strength to go forward.”
Italian business leaders have been advocating for restarting the economy as quickly as possible. but so far the government has emphasized that reopening must be extremely careful in order to avoid a relapse.
In his Facebook post, Conte said that “maximum caution” must remain as a guiding principle, and that “the easing of measures must take place on the basis of a well-structured and articulated plan.”
Conte’s coronavirus advisers have also emphasized to the public that things won’t simply be returning to normal anytime soon.
“It’s not by chance that you use the same word, ‘depression,’ both economically and existentially,” Fabrizio Starace, a psychiatrist on Italy’s coronavirus task force, recently told the Washington Post. “The fantasy everyone is entertaining is that of a return to normalcy. Clearly our gradual recovery won’t match normalcy.”
“We need to rethink development, production, the speed of our lives, our lifestyles,” Filomena Maggino, another member of the task force, told the Post.
Some politicians in Italy have called for using antibody testing to see who has recovered from Covid-19 in order to get them to repopulate the workforce and to give them special licenses. Still, as of now, the WHO has recommended against such policies given concerns over the possibility of reinfection and uncertainty over the biological markers that indicate immunity.
Italy is also rolling out a non-mandatory contact tracing app that will alert people if they’ve been near someone with a confirmed case of the virus, but the Washington Post reports that experts are skeptical Italy has the labor force required to make the app effective for executing targeted quarantines.
Nonetheless, Italy, poised for the worst recession it has seen since World War II, is moving ahead as quickly and as carefully as possible.


vox--2020-04-26--Stacey Abrams makes the case for herself as Biden’s VP pick

Stacey Abrams , who rose to national prominence as the Democratic candidate for Georgia governor in 2018 , made her case to be presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden ’ s running mate Sunday , arguing that her work advocating for voters ’ rights — and her executive experience — make her perfectly suited to the role .
In appearances on NBC ’ s Meet the Press and CNN ’ s State of the Union Sunday , Abrams full-throatedly endorsed Biden ’ s bid for the White House , and explained why she has been openly campaigning to be the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others reportedly under consideration have declined to do so .
“ As a young black girl growing up in Mississippi , I learned that if I didn ’ t speak up for myself no one else would , ” she said on Meet the Press .
“ I was raised to tell the truth , so when I ’ m asked a question , I answer it as directly and honestly as I can .
So my mission is to say out loud , if I ’ m asked the question , yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” On State of the Union , Abrams said she sees her campaign for the vice president role as being mostly about drawing attention to her qualifications , as well as the qualifications of other people of color .
“ If you don ’ t raise your hand , people won ’ t see you and they won ’ t give you attention , ” she said .
“ But it ’ s not about attention for being the running mate .
It is about making sure my qualifications aren ’ t in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just speaking to me , they ’ re speaking to young black women , young women of color , young people of color , who wonder if they too can be seen.
” Abrams went on to list a number of those qualifications in her NBC appearance .
“ For the last year and a half , I have run three national organizations including Fair Fight 2020 , which is in 18 states protecting the right to vote , ” Abrams said .
“ I ’ ve been traveling the country promoting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us prepare for the next pandemic and for redistricting .
And I ’ ve been working to make certain that poor families , especially those in the South , but around the country , have the services they need.
” And prior to her gubernatorial run , Abrams served as her party ’ s minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives .
She is reportedly on Biden ’ s list of potential vice presidential candidates — and he has said he will select a woman for his running mate .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to select Abrams , particularly among black Democrats .
She was among the women Rep. James Clyburn — who is credited with Biden ’ s primary win in South Carolina — named when asked who he believes Biden should choose , and Rev .
Al Sharpton is expected to endorse her specifically .
Despite this , Abrams said Sunday she does not think of herself as having secured the position , noting Biden “ has no shortage of good candidates to choose from.
” As Vox ’ s Ella Nilsen has reported , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into account when making his selection .
His political calculations include finding someone with whom he is ideologically aligned , and who can help him appeal to certain voter groups .
For example , as Nilsen writes , some advisers are publicly pushing Biden to select a woman of color , in part because voters of color , and especially black women , are stalwart Democratic voters .
There remains an open question regarding how important a veep pick actually is — particularly during such a contested election year , and especially in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the race entirely .
But Biden , who , at 77 , would be the oldest first-term president ever , has signaled he is actively looking for someone who would fit in well in the Oval Office .
“ The most important thing is that there has to be someone who , the day after they ’ re picked , is prepared to be president of the United States of America if something happened , ” Biden has said .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , and podcasts at the quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Stacey Abrams, who rose to national prominence as the Democratic candidate for Georgia governor in 2018, made her case to be presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s running mate Sunday, arguing that her work advocating for voters’ rights — and her executive experience — make her perfectly suited to the role.
In appearances on NBC’s Meet the Press and CNN’s State of the Union Sunday, Abrams full-throatedly endorsed Biden’s bid for the White House and explained why she has been openly campaigning to be the former vice president’s running mate while others reportedly under consideration have declined to do so.
“As a young black girl growing up in Mississippi, I learned that if I didn’t speak up for myself no one else would,” she said on Meet the Press. “I was raised to tell the truth, so when I’m asked a question, I answer it as directly and honestly as I can. So my mission is to say out loud, if I’m asked the question, yes, I would be willing to serve.”
WATCH: Former candidate for governor in Georgia Stacey Abrams says she would be ready to serve as Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick. #MTP @StaceyAbrams: “As a young black girl growing up in Mississippi, I learned that if I didn’t speak up for myself no one else would.” pic.twitter.com/OqwZVEiksf — Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) April 26, 2020
On State of the Union, Abrams said she sees her campaign for the vice president role as being mostly about drawing attention to her qualifications, as well as the qualifications of other people of color.
“If you don’t raise your hand, people won’t see you and they won’t give you attention,” she said. “But it’s not about attention for being the running mate. It is about making sure my qualifications aren’t in question. Because they’re not just speaking to me, they’re speaking to young black women, young women of color, young people of color, who wonder if they too can be seen.”
Stacey Abrams on her ambitions to be Joe Biden's running mate: "As a young black woman growing up in Mississippi, I learned that if you don't raise your hand, people won't see you and they won't give you attention" https://t.co/q9q0Rkiy84 #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/pnUaHIXSuq — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) April 26, 2020
Abrams went on to list a number of those qualifications in her NBC appearance.
“For the last year and a half, I have run three national organizations including Fair Fight 2020, which is in 18 states protecting the right to vote,” Abrams said. “I’ve been traveling the country promoting a census that is accurate and that helps us prepare for the next pandemic and for redistricting. And I’ve been working to make certain that poor families, especially those in the South, but around the country, have the services they need.”
And prior to her gubernatorial run, Abrams served as her party’s minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives. She is reportedly on Biden’s list of potential vice presidential candidates — and he has said he will select a woman for his running mate. There is pressure from certain Democratic corners for Biden to select Abrams, particularly among black Democrats. She was among the women Rep. James Clyburn — who is credited with Biden’s primary win in South Carolina — named when asked who he believes Biden should choose, and Rev. Al Sharpton is expected to endorse her specifically.
Despite this, Abrams said Sunday she does not think of herself as having secured the position, noting Biden “has no shortage of good candidates to choose from.”
As Vox’s Ella Nilsen has reported, Biden will have many considerations to take into account when making his selection. His political calculations include finding someone with whom he is ideologically aligned and who can help him appeal to certain voter groups. For example, as Nilsen writes, some advisers are publicly pushing Biden to select a woman of color, in part because voters of color, and especially black women, are stalwart Democratic voters.
There remains an open question regarding how important a veep pick actually is — particularly during such a contested election year, and especially in the midst of a pandemic that upended the race entirely. But Biden, who, at 77, would be the oldest first-term president ever, has signaled he is actively looking for someone who would fit in well in the Oval Office.
“The most important thing is that there has to be someone who, the day after they’re picked, is prepared to be president of the United States of America if something happened,” Biden has said.


vox--2020-04-26--Trump claims the media misrepresented his coronavirus cure comments. Video proves otherwise.

On Saturday , President Donald Trump accused the media of misreporting the facts surrounding his widely ridiculed comments on Thursday about disinfectant injections and sunlight being possible miracle coronavirus treatments .
There ’ s just one problem — there ’ s video proving he ’ s lying .
It demonstrates the lengths to which he ’ s willing to go to shift blame instead of simply admitting he misspoke .
Trump ’ s new line , as expressed in tweets posted on Saturday , is that the “ corrupt & sick ” media got it “ wrong ” by reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions of Dr. Deborah Birx ” about “ sunlight etc .
& the CoronaVirus.
” “ What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the Lamestream Media asks nothing but hostile questions , & then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately , ” the president continued .
But video from Thursday ’ s briefing shows clearly that Trump was speaking directly to Birx when he asked her , “ I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there ’ s any way that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cure [ coronavirus ] ...
I ’ m not a doctor , but I ’ m , like , a person who has a good you-know-what.
” Suffice it to say that Birx looked less than thrilled with Trump ’ s comments .
Watch for yourself : Here ’ s the backstory : During Thursday ’ s briefing , William Bryan , undersecretary for Science and Technology at the Department of Homeland Security , discussed preliminary government research indicating that “ heat and humidity suppress Covid-19 ” and “ commonly available disinfectants work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presentation , Trump took to the podium and made a deeply bizarre inference .
“ Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous , whether it ’ s ultraviolet or just very powerful light ... and then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body , which you can do either through the skin or in some other way .
And I think you said you ’ re gon na test that , ” Trump said , addressing Bryan .
“ And then I see disinfectant , where it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a minute — one minute — and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside , or almost a cleaning .
Because , you see , it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs , so it ’ d be interesting to check that .
So , that you ’ re going to have to use medical doctors with , but it sounds interesting to me.
” The exchange with Birx happened later during the briefing .
Trump ’ s tweets claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he made his bizarre “ light and heat ” comments represented the second straight day he tried to rewrite history about Thursday ’ s briefing .
On Friday , as his comments came under heavy criticism , Trump told reporters he was being “ sarcastic ” and merely asking a “ question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside.
” However , video in this instance also proves that neither of those claims is true .
While Trump desperately tries to spin the incident into grist for an attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to painstaking lengths to avoid criticizing the president .
During a Fox News interview that aired over the weekend , she said of the president , “ When he gets new information , he likes to talk that through out loud ...
I think he just saw the information at the time immediately before the press conference and he was still digesting.
” Then , during a CNN appearance Sunday , Birx expressed frustration that people are still talking about the incident three days later .
“ It bothers me that this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
“ I worry that we don ’ t get the information to the American people that they need when we continue to bring up something that was from Thursday night.
” One could argue Birx should be more upset that Trump would make such irresponsible comments — ones that prompted an increase in calls to emergency hotlines in a number of states .
Still , the White House coronavirus task force coordinator has already made it abundantly clear that not only is she unwilling to criticize the president , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay in his good graces .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

On Saturday, President Donald Trump accused the media of misreporting the facts surrounding his widely ridiculed comments on Thursday about disinfectant injections and sunlight being possible miracle coronavirus treatments.
There’s just one problem — there’s video proving he’s lying. It demonstrates the lengths to which he’s willing to go to shift blame instead of simply admitting he misspoke.
Trump’s new line, as expressed in tweets posted on Saturday, is that the “corrupt & sick” media got it “wrong” by reporting that he was “speaking & asking questions of Dr. Deborah Birx” about “sunlight etc. & the CoronaVirus.”
“What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the Lamestream Media asks nothing but hostile questions, & then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately,” the president continued.
But video from Thursday’s briefing shows clearly that Trump was speaking directly to Birx when he asked her, “I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there’s any way that you can apply light and heat to cure [coronavirus] ... I’m not a doctor, but I’m, like, a person who has a good you-know-what.”
Suffice it to say that Birx looked less than thrilled with Trump’s comments. Watch for yourself:
Here's Trump's tweet claiming he wasn't speaking to Dr. Birx about "light and heat" being a potential coronavirus cure, followed by the video clip proving he's lying pic.twitter.com/lYhxpO3tlz — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 25, 2020
Here’s the backstory: During Thursday’s briefing, William Bryan, undersecretary for Science and Technology at the Department of Homeland Security, discussed preliminary government research indicating that “heat and humidity suppress Covid-19” and “commonly available disinfectants work to kill the virus.”
After Bryan’s presentation, Trump took to the podium and made a deeply bizarre inference.
“Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light ... and then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re gonna test that,” Trump said, addressing Bryan. “And then I see disinfectant, where it knocks it [coronavirus] out in a minute — one minute — and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because, you see, it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So, that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.”
The exchange with Birx happened later during the briefing.
Trump’s tweets claiming he wasn’t addressing Birx when he made his bizarre “light and heat” comments represented the second straight day he tried to rewrite history about Thursday’s briefing. On Friday, as his comments came under heavy criticism, Trump told reporters he was being “sarcastic” and merely asking a “question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside.”
However, video in this instance also proves that neither of those claims is true.
Here's a mashup of Trump claiming today he was just asking "a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room" when he mused about disinfectant injections as a possible coronavirus miracle cure, followed by the original clip showing beyond a doubt that he was not doing that. pic.twitter.com/wby4ucd59Q — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 24, 2020
While Trump desperately tries to spin the incident into grist for an attack on the press, Birx has gone to painstaking lengths to avoid criticizing the president. During a Fox News interview that aired over the weekend, she said of the president, “When he gets new information, he likes to talk that through out loud ... I think he just saw the information at the time immediately before the press conference and he was still digesting.”
Dr Birx defends Trump musing about disinfectant injections: "When he gets new information, he likes to talk that through out loud ... I think he just saw the information at the time immediately before the press conference and he was still digesting." pic.twitter.com/UPr9XwPhaq — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 24, 2020
Then, during a CNN appearance Sunday, Birx expressed frustration that people are still talking about the incident three days later.
“It bothers me that this is still in the news cycle,” she said. “I worry that we don’t get the information to the American people that they need when we continue to bring up something that was from Thursday night.”
“It bothers me that this is still in the news cycle,” Dr. Deborah Birx says about Pres. Trump’s disinfectant remarks. “I worry that we don’t get the information to the American people that they need when we continue to bring up something that was from Thursday night" #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/eu9n1jCVkO — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) April 26, 2020
One could argue Birx should be more upset that Trump would make such irresponsible comments — ones that prompted an increase in calls to emergency hotlines in a number of states. Still, the White House coronavirus task force coordinator has already made it abundantly clear that not only is she unwilling to criticize the president, but she’ll say whatever it takes to stay in his good graces.


vox--2020-04-26--Why Pence’s favorite talking point about coronavirus testing is misleading

Vice President Mike Pence ’ s favorite talking point about coronavirus testing demonstrates that President Donald Trump isn ’ t the only White House official capable of misleading the public .
On Friday , Pence touted what he called a milestone for coronavirus testing in the United States — but his remarks left out important context that reveals it isn ’ t everything he ’ s cracking it up to be .
“ You may recall that one month ago , all of the testing that had been done in America , 80,000 Americans had been tested .
But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been tested for the coronavirus , ” Pence said .
That number may sound impressive in a vacuum , but a look at the context of that number reveals Pence is misleading people in at least three ways .
First , the number Pence cited refers to the total number of tests completed , not necessarily the number of people tested .
President Trump , for instance , has taken at least two coronavirus tests .
So the number of people tested falls short of the number of tests completed .
Pence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assuming 5 million Americans have been tested , that ’ s still only 1.3 percent of the American population . )
More importantly , Pence ’ s comments represent an effort to take credit for the passage of time itself .
Nationally , testing has proceeded at a fairly steady clip for weeks — hitting the 5 million mark was only a matter of time .
The larger issue is that up until last Thursday , the number of coronavirus tests completed per day in the US had been stuck at around 150,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The tests-completed-per-day trendline has started to tick up toward 200,000 tests completed per day over the weekend , but even so , the country is still falling far short of the 500,000-tests-per-day threshold experts believe is necessary to safely reopen businesses .
Pence likely understands this .
But in an effort to get people to believe more progress is being made in the struggle against coronavirus than is actually the case , the vice president has gotten in the habit of citing out-of-context raw numbers during the White House press briefings and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point is strikingly reminiscent of gaslighting .
What he ’ s saying isn ’ t a lie — it ’ s factually correct — but by presenting facts out of context , he ’ s misleading people .
Dr. Anthony Fauci is being more honest about testing .
During a National Academy of Science webcast on Saturday , Fauci referred to the US ’ s current coronavirus testing capacity and said , “ We probably should get up to twice that as we get into the next several weeks , and I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be conducted in the weeks to come are reliable is another question .
With the Food and Drug Administration taking a hands-off approach to new tests that are becoming available , public health experts like Dr. Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota are questioning the reliability of new tests , arguing that they are giving incorrect results , making them essentially useless .
And even if test quality improves — and if the US does hit Fauci ’ s ambitious benchmark — the Trump administration won ’ t deserve much credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government to build up America ’ s testing capacity , Trump ’ s approach has been to cajole governors to do more on their own while telling brazen lies about the number of tests the US is doing compared to the rest of the world .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Vox today .

Vice President Mike Pence’s favorite talking point about coronavirus testing demonstrates that President Donald Trump isn’t the only White House official capable of misleading the public.
On Friday, Pence touted what he called a milestone for coronavirus testing in the United States — but his remarks left out important context that reveals it isn’t everything he’s cracking it up to be.
“You may recall that one month ago, all of the testing that had been done in America, 80,000 Americans had been tested. But as of this morning, 5.1 million Americans have been tested for the coronavirus,” Pence said.
Pence touts that more than 5 million Americans have now been tested for coronavirus, but what he doesn't mention is that the number of tests completed in the country per day has been largely flat for a month pic.twitter.com/T2cfdotQhS — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 24, 2020
That number may sound impressive in a vacuum, but a look at the context of that number reveals Pence is misleading people in at least three ways.
First, the number Pence cited refers to the total number of tests completed, not necessarily the number of people tested. President Trump, for instance, has taken at least two coronavirus tests. So the number of people tested falls short of the number of tests completed. Pence obfuscated that distinction. (And even assuming 5 million Americans have been tested, that’s still only 1.3 percent of the American population.)
More importantly, Pence’s comments represent an effort to take credit for the passage of time itself. Nationally, testing has proceeded at a fairly steady clip for weeks — hitting the 5 million mark was only a matter of time. The larger issue is that up until last Thursday, the number of coronavirus tests completed per day in the US had been stuck at around 150,000 for the better part of a month. The tests-completed-per-day trendline has started to tick up toward 200,000 tests completed per day over the weekend, but even so, the country is still falling far short of the 500,000-tests-per-day threshold experts believe is necessary to safely reopen businesses.
Pence likely understands this. But in an effort to get people to believe more progress is being made in the struggle against coronavirus than is actually the case, the vice president has gotten in the habit of citing out-of-context raw numbers during the White House press briefings and in interviews.
PENCE: "We are literally doing more than 150,000 tests a day now."
REALITY: The US has been doing about that many coronavirus tests a day for a month. It may sound like a lot but it's not close to enough. https://t.co/1SJxSM90bb pic.twitter.com/ukacDG5OFb — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 19, 2020
Pence’s talking point is strikingly reminiscent of gaslighting. What he’s saying isn’t a lie — it’s factually correct — but by presenting facts out of context, he’s misleading people.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is being more honest about testing. During a National Academy of Science webcast on Saturday, Fauci referred to the US’s current coronavirus testing capacity and said, “We probably should get up to twice that as we get into the next several weeks, and I think we will.”
Whether the tests set to be conducted in the weeks to come are reliable is another question. With the Food and Drug Administration taking a hands-off approach to new tests that are becoming available, public health experts like Dr. Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota are questioning the reliability of new tests, arguing that they are giving incorrect results, making them essentially useless.
WATCH: Dr. Michael Osterholm says COVID-19 testing is in crisis right now. #MTP #IfItsSunday
Dr. Osterholm: “The FDA has all but given up its oversight responsibility for the tests we have on the market. Many of them are nothing short of a disaster. ” pic.twitter.com/MAXySI9q5D — Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) April 26, 2020
And even if test quality improves — and if the US does hit Fauci’s ambitious benchmark — the Trump administration won’t deserve much credit. Instead of marshaling the resources of the federal government to build up America’s testing capacity, Trump’s approach has been to cajole governors to do more on their own while telling brazen lies about the number of tests the US is doing compared to the rest of the world.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-04-26--Trump dismisses daily coronavirus press briefings as “not worth the time & effort”

Evidence-based explanations of the coronavirus crisis , from how it started to how it might end to how to protect yourself and others .
President Donald Trump has expressed growing frustration with his daily coronavirus-related press conferences , calling them “ not worth the time and effort ” Saturday .
The sentiment , coming days after an erratic briefing at which Trump incorrectly suggested that injecting cleaning products could help kill off the coronavirus that causes Covid-19 , has been echoed by some Republican allies , who reportedly worry that the conferences hurt the party as a whole .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tweet about how the media has responded to his press conferences , calling reporters “ hostile , ” while suggesting he has helped network news receive high ratings during the Covid-19 pandemic .
The tweet came shortly after the White House stated Saturday ’ s expected daily coronavirus press conference would not take place , and a day after a noticeably shortened conference on Friday , at which Trump took no questions .
Trump eschewed regular press conferences for much of his presidency , but began holding daily updates as the novel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For a time , Trump celebrated these interactions as both a way to speak directly to the American people , and as television ratings bonanzas .
But according to the New York Times , some Republican leaders see these news briefings as potentially sabotaging their party ’ s plans to keep control of the White House and Senate .
“ Now we have the foundation of the campaign yanked out from underneath us , ” said Glen Bolger , a Republican pollster , echoing sentiments expressed by some other Republicans who spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they fear the tanking economy and Trump ’ s unpredictable responses will lose the party swing states — and Senate seats — come November .
These concerns came to the fore after remarks Trump made at his Thursday briefing went viral .
Speaking off-the-cuff , Trump suggested that household disinfectants — the kind used to remove the virus from hard surfaces — could be injected into infected bodies to fight the coronavirus from within .
He likewise promoted sunlight as a potential miracle cure , due to its ultraviolet rays .
Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such cleaners immediately warned that people should never ingest toxic materials , and scientists stated there is no evidence ultraviolet rays can cure Covid-19 .
Trump later said he had been speaking sarcastically , while White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the comments had been taken out of context .
Trump ’ s frustrations with the conferences now mirror those of his critics It remains to be seen whether Trump will resume regular press briefings .
Speaking to reporters on Saturday afternoon , McEnany said future briefings are “ entirely his decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president is at his best when he ’ s speaking directly to the American people ” — referring , perhaps , to Trump ’ s rallies , rather than televised question-and-answer sessions with journalists .
Trump ’ s current frustration with the conferences — notably that they are “ not worth the time ” — echoes critiques from his opponents .
As Vox ’ s Zeeshan Aleem has written , these critics argued the frequent misinformation that Trump relayed at these briefings , such as whether the outbreak will get worse and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect , made them of little use to the public .
And these concerns eventually led to discussions in the media about whether to stop broadcasting them live .
Trump responded to these considerations in late March , by comparing his press conferences to other major television events , like Monday Night Football .
As Aleem points out , the president ’ s response at that time discounted the reason people tune into such briefings during a pandemic ; not to see the president , but “ because they want to keep up-to-date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies on it : ” During these briefings it ’ s not just Trump who speaks , but his coronavirus task force , which includes top public health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci , the widely respected director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , and Dr. Deborah Birx , a physician noted for her work combating HIV/AIDS and the White House ’ s coronavirus response coordinator .
The coronavirus pandemic has caused an economic crisis , policy chaos at home and abroad , and widespread physical and mental suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense that millions are tuning in to hear the nation ’ s top officials provide clear , accurate information on the latest .
As Vox ’ s Matt Yglesias has written , Trump critics broadly opposed live broadcasts of Trump ’ s briefings because they believed that they served as “ ersatz rallies held for political purposes rather than bona fide attempts to inform the public.
” But now , Trump ’ s style and bravado has begun to catch hold in unflattering ways .
Amid a crumbling economy and ongoing pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call for a significant change to these press conferences .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

President Donald Trump has expressed growing frustration with his daily coronavirus-related press conferences, calling them “not worth the time and effort” Saturday.
The sentiment, coming days after an erratic briefing at which Trump incorrectly suggested that injecting cleaning products could help kill off the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, has been echoed by some Republican allies, who reportedly worry that the conferences hurt the party as a whole.
On Saturday evening, Trump lashed out in a tweet about how the media has responded to his press conferences, calling reporters “hostile,” while suggesting he has helped network news receive high ratings during the Covid-19 pandemic.
What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the Lamestream Media asks nothing but hostile questions, & then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately. They get record ratings, & the American people get nothing but Fake News. Not worth the time & effort! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 25, 2020
The tweet came shortly after the White House stated Saturday’s expected daily coronavirus press conference would not take place, and a day after a noticeably shortened conference on Friday, at which Trump took no questions.
Trump eschewed regular press conferences for much of his presidency, but began holding daily updates as the novel coronavirus took hold in the United States. For a time, Trump celebrated these interactions as both a way to speak directly to the American people, and as television ratings bonanzas.
But according to the New York Times, some Republican leaders see these news briefings as potentially sabotaging their party’s plans to keep control of the White House and Senate.
“Now we have the foundation of the campaign yanked out from underneath us,” said Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster, echoing sentiments expressed by some other Republicans who spoke to the Times, all of whom said they fear the tanking economy and Trump’s unpredictable responses will lose the party swing states — and Senate seats — come November.
These concerns came to the fore after remarks Trump made at his Thursday briefing went viral. Speaking off-the-cuff, Trump suggested that household disinfectants — the kind used to remove the virus from hard surfaces — could be injected into infected bodies to fight the coronavirus from within. He likewise promoted sunlight as a potential miracle cure, due to its ultraviolet rays.
Health experts and the chemical companies that produce such cleaners immediately warned that people should never ingest toxic materials, and scientists stated there is no evidence ultraviolet rays can cure Covid-19. Trump later said he had been speaking sarcastically, while White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the comments had been taken out of context.
Trump’s frustrations with the conferences now mirror those of his critics
It remains to be seen whether Trump will resume regular press briefings. Speaking to reporters on Saturday afternoon, McEnany said future briefings are “entirely his decision,” and said that “the president is at his best when he’s speaking directly to the American people” — referring, perhaps, to Trump’s rallies, rather than televised question-and-answer sessions with journalists.
Trump’s current frustration with the conferences — notably that they are “not worth the time” — echoes critiques from his opponents. As Vox’s Zeeshan Aleem has written, these critics argued the frequent misinformation that Trump relayed at these briefings, such as whether the outbreak will get worse and how long social distancing guidelines will remain in effect, made them of little use to the public. And these concerns eventually led to discussions in the media about whether to stop broadcasting them live.
Trump responded to these considerations in late March, by comparing his press conferences to other major television events, like Monday Night Football. As Aleem points out, the president’s response at that time discounted the reason people tune into such briefings during a pandemic; not to see the president, but “because they want to keep up-to-date on coronavirus and the US’s policies on it:”
During these briefings it’s not just Trump who speaks, but his coronavirus task force, which includes top public health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci, the widely respected director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Deborah Birx, a physician noted for her work combating HIV/AIDS and the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator. The coronavirus pandemic has caused an economic crisis, policy chaos at home and abroad, and widespread physical and mental suffering around the globe — it would make sense that millions are tuning in to hear the nation’s top officials provide clear, accurate information on the latest.
As Vox’s Matt Yglesias has written, Trump critics broadly opposed live broadcasts of Trump’s briefings because they believed that they served as “ersatz rallies held for political purposes rather than bona fide attempts to inform the public.”
But now, Trump’s style and bravado has begun to catch hold in unflattering ways. Amid a crumbling economy and ongoing pandemic, his allies seem to be joining the call for a significant change to these press conferences.


vox--2020-04-26--Why the government makes it hard for Americans to get unemployment benefits

Twenty-six million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits as of April 23 , as a result of the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic .
And many of them are discovering what plenty of people already knew : our system is dysfunctional .
Although unemployment programs are run by the states , which means the quality varies from place to place , across the country , the broader social welfare system in the United States is generally hard to access : riddled with red tape , and plagued by pointless burdens .
In Florida , for example , the previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a congested unemployment system that was nearly impossible to use so that the unemployment numbers would remain artificially low .
Other states try to run an efficient system but simply lack the capacity to do so .
Pamela Herd is a public policy professor at Georgetown University and the co-author of Administrative Burdens : Policymaking by Other Means .
That book , like much of her research , examines how policy interacts with and reinforces inequality .
In a recent op-ed for the New York Times , she argues that the “ gap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reality of their design ” has been uniquely exposed by this pandemic .
I spoke to Herd by phone about how the system we have is the result of deliberate political choices and why she thinks we need to completely rethink “ how we administer the safety net in the United States.
” A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
In normal times , if you lose your job and need unemployment benefits or food stamps to feed your children , what does the process of getting help look like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the challenges is that it all depends on which state you live in .
If you live in Mississippi , it might look really different than if you live in New York state or Connecticut or California .
And there ’ s a wide range in terms of eligibility standards and compliance procedures and all the stuff you have to do to access benefits .
So let ’ s take something like food stamps .
If you need food stamps in some states , you might be able to apply online .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to collect a ton of documentation of things like your earnings or any child support you might be receiving .
And if you collect all of this documentation , along with your eligibility forms , then hopefully [ you ] can upload it online .
But the process is extensive and exhausting and at the end of it , you usually have to go through an interview — this is the case in most states , at least .
And often you have to go through all of this again every six months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live .
Thankfully , a lot of this has been relaxed in the wake of this pandemic .
Which regions of the country , or which states , tend to do this the best ?
And what do you think accounts for that gap ?
It ’ s a complicated question .
Some states that have more generous benefits , states we might typically think of as more liberal , are oftentimes easier in terms of these kinds of procedures and protocols .
But that ’ s not strictly true , either .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are really thorny processes for food stamps because where you enroll and what you need to do varies based on what county you live in , and some counties are much better than others .
And then there ’ s a conservative state like Wisconsin that actually has fairly good administrative processes and it ’ s not that hard to get benefits .
But the general rule is that more poorly resourced states , like Southern states , just lack the administrative capacity to do this stuff well , even if they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they lack the administrative capacity , aren ’ t they responsible for that lack ?
Isn ’ t it the state governments that choose to gut their public programs ?
There is absolutely evidence in a lot of these states that it ’ s by design .
Apparently the former governor of Florida , Rick Scott , designed their unemployment benefits system so that it would be difficult to access and act as a deterrent for people .
Florida is the clearest example of this for sure .
And Florida has the resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because Gov .
Scott deliberately wrecked Florida ’ s program , they ’ ve actually only processed somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of their applications for unemployment going back into March .
They literally just don ’ t have the capacity to do it , and it ’ s precisely because it was designed that way .
The Florida example seems particularly egregious , but is it an outlier ?
Are there other examples of states hamstringing their own systems ?
It ’ s tricky because the reality is that most states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance and some of it has to do with the prevailing logic since the Great Recession in 2008 .
The guiding principle in most states is that people don ’ t need to be on unemployment and that there are plenty of jobs available .
So they ’ ve built in processes to try to get people off it quickly .
And most states designed their systems with something like 3 or 4 percent unemployment in mind , so they don ’ t have the capacity to deal with much more than that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your New York Times op-ed that captures maybe the fundamental problem here : “ For too long , administrative processes have been designed to prevent claimants from incorrectly receiving benefits , rather than ensuring that those in need get help.
” That ’ s an assumption , or a value judgment , built into our model of social welfare that all but guarantees it won ’ t work well for the people who need it .
I ’ m glad you brought that up , because it ’ s huge .
Most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a way where they ’ re a lot more concerned about preventing people who aren ’ t eligible from accessing benefits than ensuring that those who are eligible actually receive them .
We ’ re fixated on fraud and abuse , which is extremely low in social welfare programs — something like 1 to 2 percent of cases .
And even then , it ’ s not what people mean when they think of “ fraud and abuse.
” It ’ s mostly people making mistakes because they didn ’ t understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unjustified obsession with fraud and abuse is that it means 20 to 30 percent of people are unable to access these programs even when they ’ re clearly eligible for them , because they ’ ve created all these administrative burdens designed to target people they don ’ t want on the programs .
So it ’ s a huge disconnect in terms of trying to meet the broader goals of these programs .
I want to push a little on this point because I don ’ t think a lot of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and abuse are really concerned about fraud and abuse .
As far as I can tell , this is about trumping up these accusations in order to undermine programs they fundamentally don ’ t believe in , just as a lot of Republicans disingenuously complain about voting fraud as a cover for depressing voting numbers .
You ’ re right about that .
Partly , this is a way conservatives justify the use of administrative burdens .
They make these sorts of arguments all the time , whether it ’ s about voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is always about preventing fraud and abuse .
But think about a program like SNAP , or food stamps .
The goal of that program was to prevent hunger , was to ensure people had adequate nutrition .
If you think about that goal and you realize the way that you ’ re running that program means that 20 percent of people eligible for that benefit aren ’ t getting that help that they really need , then you ’ re fundamentally undermining these programmatic goals .
You ’ re allowing all those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s partly why I brought this up , because sometimes it ’ s not clear whether we ’ re talking about cruelty or incompetence , but the distinction matters — There ’ s plenty of both .
You can look at a lot of the proposals to alter the Medicaid program over the last five years , and it ’ s very clear that a lot of conservative Republicans pushing those were pushing them knowing that they were extraordinarily burdensome , that they weren ’ t really encouraging people to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people who were eligible for benefits would have a harder time accessing them .
Can you give me an example of what you mean here ?
Arkansas is a great example of this .
[ Most people ] who lost benefits when they put in place the work requirement lost them because they couldn ’ t meet the new documentation burdens .
And despite clear evidence that the program wasn ’ t working , they continued to push these burdens .
So that ’ s a case where I think the intentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for “ a reconfiguration of how we administer the safety net in the United States.
” Do you think this pandemic is the catalyst we needed ?
It ’ s possible .
We ’ re in a moment where a lot of people , all at once , are trying to seek help from the government and are actually seeing what it ’ s actually like when you try to do that .
People paid into unemployment , they qualify for unemployment , and it ’ s completely not their fault that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve built this system that makes it almost impossible to get help .
So maybe that realization will motivate people to push our legislators to do better .
But I think this is also a moment for progressives to rethink their approach to this stuff .
Progressives have been far more focused on expanding eligibility , but a lot less attention has been paid to these sorts of administrative burdens that are preventing a lot of people who are eligible for these programs from accessing them .
What are the simplest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve this process right now for people in need ?
There are technocratic things like requiring state governments and the federal government to quantify how many people who are eligible for benefits aren ’ t getting them .
Right now they ’ re required to report on fraud and abuse , but they should also be required to report how many people they ’ re failing to reach .
This would be a good start .
In the short term , if we ’ re thinking about how to deal with this crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things the government can do , like increasing SNAP benefits .
No one needs to do anything .
It just gets loaded on your card and it ’ s super effective in terms of the return on investment and economic activity .
On the unemployment front , I ’ d like to see the federal government relax the verification rules for states .
We have all these new groups for unemployment , like gig workers , and a lot of these people haven ’ t even been able to file yet , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to administer that part of the program .
And one of the reasons why they ’ re slow about doing it is because the feds have basically said , “ You ’ re responsible for the verification , and if people get on who shouldn ’ t get on , you ’ re going to have to pony up the resources.
” So it gives states this really strong incentive to slow-roll this process .
But we don ’ t have time for that right now .
One other thing I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people help is being hindered by these verification requirements that require people to check in every week to say that they ’ re still unemployed .
But that absorbs a ton of staff capacity right now and we could easily stop doing that for at least a couple months .
These are small things but they would make a significant difference .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Twenty-six million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits as of April 23, as a result of the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. And many of them are discovering what plenty of people already knew: our system is dysfunctional.
Although unemployment programs are run by the states, which means the quality varies from place to place, across the country, the broader social welfare system in the United States is generally hard to access: riddled with red tape, and plagued by pointless burdens.
In Florida, for example, the previous Republican governor, Rick Scott, created a congested unemployment system that was nearly impossible to use so that the unemployment numbers would remain artificially low. Other states try to run an efficient system but simply lack the capacity to do so.
Pamela Herd is a public policy professor at Georgetown University and the co-author of Administrative Burdens: Policymaking by Other Means. That book, like much of her research, examines how policy interacts with and reinforces inequality. In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, she argues that the “gap between the promise of public programs and the reality of their design” has been uniquely exposed by this pandemic.
I spoke to Herd by phone about how the system we have is the result of deliberate political choices and why she thinks we need to completely rethink “how we administer the safety net in the United States.”
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
In normal times, if you lose your job and need unemployment benefits or food stamps to feed your children, what does the process of getting help look like? How painful is it?
Pamela Herd
One of the challenges is that it all depends on which state you live in. If you live in Mississippi, it might look really different than if you live in New York state or Connecticut or California. And there’s a wide range in terms of eligibility standards and compliance procedures and all the stuff you have to do to access benefits.
So let’s take something like food stamps. If you need food stamps in some states, you might be able to apply online. But it’ll also require you to collect a ton of documentation of things like your earnings or any child support you might be receiving. And if you collect all of this documentation, along with your eligibility forms, then hopefully [you] can upload it online. But the process is extensive and exhausting and at the end of it, you usually have to go through an interview — this is the case in most states, at least. And often you have to go through all of this again every six months or so, depending on where you live.
Thankfully, a lot of this has been relaxed in the wake of this pandemic.
Sean Illing
Which regions of the country, or which states, tend to do this the best? And what do you think accounts for that gap?
Pamela Herd
It’s a complicated question. Some states that have more generous benefits, states we might typically think of as more liberal, are oftentimes easier in terms of these kinds of procedures and protocols. But that’s not strictly true, either.
In California, for example, there are really thorny processes for food stamps because where you enroll and what you need to do varies based on what county you live in, and some counties are much better than others. And then there’s a conservative state like Wisconsin that actually has fairly good administrative processes and it’s not that hard to get benefits.
But the general rule is that more poorly resourced states, like Southern states, just lack the administrative capacity to do this stuff well, even if they want to do it better.
Sean Illing
But if they lack the administrative capacity, aren’t they responsible for that lack? Isn’t it the state governments that choose to gut their public programs?
Pamela Herd
There is absolutely evidence in a lot of these states that it’s by design.
Sean Illing
Apparently the former governor of Florida, Rick Scott, designed their unemployment benefits system so that it would be difficult to access and act as a deterrent for people.
Pamela Herd
Florida is the clearest example of this for sure. And Florida has the resources to do unemployment insurance reasonably well. Because Gov. Scott deliberately wrecked Florida’s program, they’ve actually only processed somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of their applications for unemployment going back into March. They literally just don’t have the capacity to do it, and it’s precisely because it was designed that way.
Sean Illing
The Florida example seems particularly egregious, but is it an outlier? Are there other examples of states hamstringing their own systems?
Pamela Herd
It’s tricky because the reality is that most states just aren’t great at unemployment insurance and some of it has to do with the prevailing logic since the Great Recession in 2008. The guiding principle in most states is that people don’t need to be on unemployment and that there are plenty of jobs available. So they’ve built in processes to try to get people off it quickly. And most states designed their systems with something like 3 or 4 percent unemployment in mind, so they don’t have the capacity to deal with much more than that.
Sean Illing
There’s a line in your New York Times op-ed that captures maybe the fundamental problem here: “For too long, administrative processes have been designed to prevent claimants from incorrectly receiving benefits, rather than ensuring that those in need get help.” That’s an assumption, or a value judgment, built into our model of social welfare that all but guarantees it won’t work well for the people who need it.
Pamela Herd
I’m glad you brought that up, because it’s huge. Most of our social welfare policies are designed in such a way where they’re a lot more concerned about preventing people who aren’t eligible from accessing benefits than ensuring that those who are eligible actually receive them. We’re fixated on fraud and abuse, which is extremely low in social welfare programs — something like 1 to 2 percent of cases. And even then, it’s not what people mean when they think of “fraud and abuse.” It’s mostly people making mistakes because they didn’t understand eligibility rules.
The problem with this unjustified obsession with fraud and abuse is that it means 20 to 30 percent of people are unable to access these programs even when they’re clearly eligible for them, because they’ve created all these administrative burdens designed to target people they don’t want on the programs. So it’s a huge disconnect in terms of trying to meet the broader goals of these programs.
Sean Illing
I want to push a little on this point because I don’t think a lot of people who claim to be concerned about fraud and abuse are really concerned about fraud and abuse. As far as I can tell, this is about trumping up these accusations in order to undermine programs they fundamentally don’t believe in, just as a lot of Republicans disingenuously complain about voting fraud as a cover for depressing voting numbers.
Pamela Herd
You’re right about that. Partly, this is a way conservatives justify the use of administrative burdens. They make these sorts of arguments all the time, whether it’s about voting or social welfare programs. The pretense is always about preventing fraud and abuse. But think about a program like SNAP, or food stamps. The goal of that program was to prevent hunger, was to ensure people had adequate nutrition. If you think about that goal and you realize the way that you’re running that program means that 20 percent of people eligible for that benefit aren’t getting that help that they really need, then you’re fundamentally undermining these programmatic goals. You’re allowing all those people to go hungry.
Sean Illing
Well, that’s partly why I brought this up, because sometimes it’s not clear whether we’re talking about cruelty or incompetence, but the distinction matters —
Pamela Herd
There’s plenty of both. You can look at a lot of the proposals to alter the Medicaid program over the last five years, and it’s very clear that a lot of conservative Republicans pushing those were pushing them knowing that they were extraordinarily burdensome, that they weren’t really encouraging people to work but instead were ensuring that a lot of people who were eligible for benefits would have a harder time accessing them.
Sean Illing
Can you give me an example of what you mean here?
Pamela Herd
Arkansas is a great example of this. [Most people] who lost benefits when they put in place the work requirement lost them because they couldn’t meet the new documentation burdens. And despite clear evidence that the program wasn’t working, they continued to push these burdens. So that’s a case where I think the intentions are pretty clear.
Sean Illing
You’ve called for “a reconfiguration of how we administer the safety net in the United States.” Do you think this pandemic is the catalyst we needed?
Pamela Herd
It’s possible. We’re in a moment where a lot of people, all at once, are trying to seek help from the government and are actually seeing what it’s actually like when you try to do that. People paid into unemployment, they qualify for unemployment, and it’s completely not their fault that they lost their jobs. But we’ve built this system that makes it almost impossible to get help. So maybe that realization will motivate people to push our legislators to do better.
But I think this is also a moment for progressives to rethink their approach to this stuff. Progressives have been far more focused on expanding eligibility, but a lot less attention has been paid to these sorts of administrative burdens that are preventing a lot of people who are eligible for these programs from accessing them.
Sean Illing
What are the simplest, most effective things we could do to improve this process right now for people in need?
Pamela Herd
There are technocratic things like requiring state governments and the federal government to quantify how many people who are eligible for benefits aren’t getting them. Right now they’re required to report on fraud and abuse, but they should also be required to report how many people they’re failing to reach. This would be a good start.
In the short term, if we’re thinking about how to deal with this crisis, we need some quick, easy things the government can do, like increasing SNAP benefits. No one needs to do anything. It just gets loaded on your card and it’s super effective in terms of the return on investment and economic activity.
On the unemployment front, I’d like to see the federal government relax the verification rules for states. We have all these new groups for unemployment, like gig workers, and a lot of these people haven’t even been able to file yet, because states haven’t figured out how to administer that part of the program. And one of the reasons why they’re slow about doing it is because the feds have basically said, “You’re responsible for the verification, and if people get on who shouldn’t get on, you’re going to have to pony up the resources.” So it gives states this really strong incentive to slow-roll this process. But we don’t have time for that right now.
One other thing I’d say is that the process of getting people help is being hindered by these verification requirements that require people to check in every week to say that they’re still unemployed. But that absorbs a ton of staff capacity right now and we could easily stop doing that for at least a couple months. These are small things but they would make a significant difference.