vox--2020-04-22--Mitch McConnell hints he could block the next stimulus package

This week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suggested he might be ready to pump the breaks on any future coronavirus relief packages .
“ We haven ’ t had much discussion about adding $ 2.7 trillion to the national debt , and the way that could indeed also threaten the future of the country , ” McConnell recently said on The Hugh Hewitt Show .
Leaders of both parties have acknowledged that more aid is needed to address the overwhelming economic fallout that ’ s occurred during the pandemic , but McConnell appears increasingly reluctant to approve additional stimulus at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passage of a $ 480 billion bill aimed at providing more funding for small businesses this week , the combined coronavirus relief will include over $ 2.7 trillion going toward workers , businesses , and states .
These bills far surpass the roughly $ 1.5 trillion lawmakers approved across different bills in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis .
But the current economic crisis and public health crisis is unprecedented ; more than 22 million people have filed for unemployment insurance in the span of a month .
Many economic experts note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to match the singular magnitude — and nature — of the crisis .
Additionally , they emphasize that current interest rates , which are lower than they were when Congressional Republicans imposed their tax cuts in 2018 , reduce the cost of borrowing .
“ We want massive , debt-financed disaster relief while the economy is in its medically induced coma , ” economist Paul Krugman has said .
McConnell and other Republicans , including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , meanwhile , have been hammering the idea that continuing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be detrimental to the national debt .
They ’ ve argued that the best response to the economic downturn may not be ramping up the degree of stimulus but to reopen parts of the economy strategically .
“ The best way to get the economy back [ up ] and running is to begin to open it up again , rather than passing immediately another bill where we have to borrow , ” McConnell told Politico .
While the timing around reopening the economy is by far the largest question on pretty much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too soon could result in further spread of the coronavirus , which would then have even worse implications for the economy down the line .
As Vox ’ s Ezra Klein put it , “ So long as the virus is a live threat , our economies won ’ t recover because we won ’ t let them recover.
” At this point , McConnell ’ s statements appear to indicate that he ’ s less open to the same types of stimulus that Democrats are proposing in the upcoming package — something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have signaled that their priorities include expanding funding for states and cities , which are under severe financial strain due to tax revenue shortfalls , and including hazard pay for frontline workers .
While Democrats have leverage of their own in both the House and the Senate , McConnell ’ s comments make it seem like he ’ ll be putting up some serious opposition .
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 @ @

This week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suggested he might be ready to pump the brakes on any future coronavirus relief packages.
“We haven’t had much discussion about adding $2.7 trillion to the national debt, and the way that could indeed also threaten the future of the country,” McConnell recently said on The Hugh Hewitt Show.
Leaders of both parties have acknowledged that more aid is needed to address the overwhelming economic fallout that’s occurred during the pandemic, but McConnell appears increasingly reluctant to approve additional stimulus at the current scale. He also suggested that bankruptcy for some states might be preferable to bailouts — a process almost all states currently cannot use.
With the likely passage of a $480 billion bill aimed at providing more funding for small businesses this week, the combined coronavirus relief will include over $2.7 trillion going toward workers, businesses, and states. These bills far surpass the roughly $1.5 trillion lawmakers approved across different bills in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
But the current economic crisis and public health crisis is unprecedented; more than 22 million people have filed for unemployment insurance in the span of a month.
Many economic experts note that the stimulus that’s needed will have to match the singular magnitude — and nature — of the crisis. Additionally, they emphasize that current interest rates, which are lower than they were when congressional Republicans imposed their tax cuts in 2018, reduce the cost of borrowing.
“We want massive, debt-financed disaster relief while the economy is in its medically induced coma,” economist Paul Krugman has said.
McConnell and other Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, meanwhile, have been stressing that continuing to approve stimulus packages at this rate could be detrimental to the national debt. They’ve argued that the best response to the economic downturn may not be ramping up the degree of stimulus but to reopen parts of the economy strategically.
“The best way to get the economy back [up] and running is to begin to open it up again, rather than passing immediately another bill where we have to borrow,” McConnell told Politico.
While the timing around reopening the economy is by far the largest question on pretty much everyone’s minds, doing so too soon could result in further spread of the coronavirus, which would then have even worse implications for the economy down the line. As Vox’s Ezra Klein put it, “So long as the virus is a live threat, our economies won’t recover because we won’t let them recover.”
At this point, McConnell’s statements appear to indicate that he’s less open to the same types of stimulus that Democrats are proposing in the upcoming package — something lawmakers have dubbed CARES 2. Democrats have signaled that their priorities include expanding funding for states and cities, which are under severe financial strain due to tax revenue shortfalls, and including hazard pay for frontline workers.
While Democrats have leverage of their own in both the House and the Senate, McConnell’s comments make it seem like he’ll be putting up some serious opposition.


vox--2020-04-22--HHS official says he was ousted after his objections to a drug Trump praised

In a scathing letter , the former director of the federal agency overseeing the development of a coronavirus vaccine claims he was removed from his post following clashes with Trump administration officials over their pushing of unproven and potentially dangerous coronavirus treatments .
“ Specifically , and contrary to misguided directives , I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine , promoted by the administration as a panacea , but which clearly lack scientific merit , ” writes Dr. Rick Bright in the letter , which was released through the law firm representing him .
Bright was alluding to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his supporters in government and the media have made in recent weeks to promote hydroxychloroquine as a potential coronavirus miracle drug .
“ While I am prepared to look at all options and to think ‘ outside the box ’ for effective treatments , I rightly resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public , ” Bright continued .
“ I insisted that these drugs be provided only to hospitalized patients with confirmed Covid-19 while under the supervision of a physician.
” Bright led the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) , the agency leading the push for vaccines and treatments for Covid-19 , until he was demoted Tuesday into a lesser role within the National Institutes of Health .
In the letter , first reported by the New York Times , Bright demanded the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General investigate whether his demotion to a lesser role with the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) stemmed from political or financial motives instead of public health ones .
( Trump has a small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine , and numerous wealthy Republican donors who are close with Trump have larger financial stakes in hydroxychloroquine drugs . )
“ These drugs have potentially serious risks associated with them , including increased mortality observed in some recent studies in patients with Covid-19 , ” Bright writes .
“ Sidelining me in the middle of this pandemic and placing politics and cronyism ahead of science puts lives at risk and stunts national efforts to safely and effectively address this urgent public health crisis.
” HHS did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking comment .
Politico , however , cited unnamed sources within the department who pushed back on Bright ’ s explosive account by characterizing his departure as “ more than a year in the making ” and following clashes between him and other officials .
Later Wednesday , another Politico report cited “ three people with with knowledge of HHS ’ s recent acquisition ” of hydroxychloroquine who claimed Bright actually praised the purchases in internal email exchanges .
Trump , for what it ’ s worth , claimed to have never heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefing .
Bright ’ s demotion came just ahead of publication of a study of coronavirus patients in Veterans Affairs hospitals that found more deaths among those treated with hydroxychloroquine , an anti-malaria drug , than those treated with standard care .
Researchers reported finding no benefit to its use , reinforcing previous warnings from doctors that hydroxychloroquine can result in drug-induced cardiac arrest for a small subset of the population .
The study of VA patients , which the NIH posted to its website on Tuesday and is the largest of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authors concluded more rigorous studies are needed .
But while it isn ’ t the final word , the new study represented a major setback to Trumpworld ’ s efforts to portray hydroxychloroquine as a magic bullet that could end the coronavirus crisis .
During press briefings earlier this month , Trump described hydroxychloroquine as a “ game-changer ” and said of doctors , “ I hope they use it because I ’ ll tell you what , what do you have to lose ?
” On April 7 , Trump told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the hydroxychloroquine , we have millions of doses that I bought .
I bought millions of doses .
You know , for the country.
” Indeed , HHS recently acquired millions of doses of the drug , and late last month the Food and Drug Administration authorized its emergency use for coronavirus .
Trump ’ s infatuation with hydroxychloroquine can be traced back to a controversial French study released in March on a small number of Covid-19 patients that found hydroxychloroquine could lessen the duration of infection .
Media Matters for America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar anecdotal evidence from China were covered by Fox News , amplified by Trump , with Trump ’ s amplification in turn being covered by Fox — a perfect illustration of the Fox-to-Trump feedback loop .
As it became clear that the United States was going to be especially hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic , Trump became insistent that the drug could be a savior — despite warnings from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci that clinical trials were needed and it was too soon to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efficaciousness of the drug .
On Tuesday , however , Trump ’ s tone suddenly changed .
Asked about the results of the VA study during that evening ’ s White House press briefing , Trump dodged , saying , “ I don ’ t know of the report , ” and then tried to distance himself from the drug .
“ We ’ ll be looking at it , we ’ ll have a comment on it at some point , ” he said .
While those comments put Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line with public health experts , Bright ’ s letter indicates there is still a great deal of discord happening behind the scenes .
“ I am speaking out because to combat this deadly virus , science — not politics or cronyism — has to lead the way , ” he wrote .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 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 .

In a scathing letter, the former director of the federal agency overseeing the development of a coronavirus vaccine claims he was removed from his post following clashes with Trump administration officials over their pushing of unproven and potentially dangerous coronavirus treatments.
“Specifically, and contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack scientific merit,” writes Dr. Rick Bright in the letter, which was released through the law firm representing him.
Bright was alluding to efforts President Donald Trump and a number of his supporters in government and the media have made in recent weeks to promote hydroxychloroquine as a potential coronavirus miracle drug.
Related Trump and Fox News want to send their hydroxychloroquine hype down the memory hole
“While I am prepared to look at all options and to think ‘outside the box’ for effective treatments, I rightly resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public,” Bright continued. “I insisted that these drugs be provided only to hospitalized patients with confirmed Covid-19 while under the supervision of a physician.”
Bright led the Department of Health and Human Services’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the agency leading the push for vaccines and treatments for Covid-19, until he was demoted Tuesday into a lesser role within the National Institutes of Health.
In the letter, first reported by the New York Times, Bright demanded the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General investigate whether his demotion to a lesser role with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stemmed from political or financial motives instead of public health ones. (Trump has a small investment in a company that manufactures Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine, and numerous wealthy Republican donors who are close with Trump have larger financial stakes in hydroxychloroquine drugs.)
“These drugs have potentially serious risks associated with them, including increased mortality observed in some recent studies in patients with Covid-19,” Bright writes. “Sidelining me in the middle of this pandemic and placing politics and cronyism ahead of science puts lives at risk and stunts national efforts to safely and effectively address this urgent public health crisis.”
Here is Dr. Rick Bright's full statement, just emailed out by the law firm Katz, Marshall & Banks which will be representing him as he files a whistleblower complaint.
(First reported by @maggieNYT) pic.twitter.com/oQ3j9Z17SK — Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) April 22, 2020
Unnamed HHS sources quoted by Politico pushed back on Bright’s explosive account by characterizing his departure as “more than a year in the making” and following clashes between him and other officials.
Later Wednesday, another Politico report cited “three people with with knowledge of HHS’s recent acquisition” of hydroxychloroquine who claimed Bright actually praised the purchases in internal email exchanges.
In a statement sent to Vox, an HHS spokesperson echoed that report, claiming “it was Dr. Bright who requested an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for donations of chloroquine that Bayer and Sandoz recently made to the Strategic National Stockpile for use on COVID-19 patients. The EUA is what made the donated product available for use in combating COVID-19.”
Trump, for what it’s worth, claimed to have never heard of Bright during Wednesday’s press briefing.
Trump says he has never heard of Dr. Rick Bright, the HHS coronavirus official who says he was pushed out because of his resistance to Trump's hydroxychloroquine push pic.twitter.com/Ep7uBk9BHP — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 22, 2020
Trump hyped hydroxychloroquine for weeks
Bright’s demotion came just ahead of publication of a study of coronavirus patients in Veterans Affairs hospitals that found more deaths among those treated with hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug, than those treated with standard care. Researchers reported finding no benefit to its use, reinforcing previous warnings from doctors that hydroxychloroquine can result in drug-induced cardiac arrest for a small subset of the population.
The study of VA patients, which the NIH posted to its website on Tuesday and is the largest of its kind, was not peer-reviewed, and the authors concluded more rigorous studies are needed.
But while it isn’t the final word, the new study represented a major setback to Trumpworld’s efforts to portray hydroxychloroquine as a magic bullet that could end the coronavirus crisis. During press briefings earlier this month, Trump described hydroxychloroquine as a “game-changer” and said of doctors, “I hope they use it because I’ll tell you what, what do you have to lose?”
On April 7, Trump told Sean Hannity, “by the way, the hydroxychloroquine, we have millions of doses that I bought. I bought millions of doses. You know, for the country.” Indeed, HHS recently acquired millions of doses of the drug, and late last month the Food and Drug Administration authorized its emergency use for coronavirus.
Trump’s infatuation with hydroxychloroquine can be traced back to a controversial French study released in March on a small number of Covid-19 patients that found hydroxychloroquine could lessen the duration of infection. Media Matters for America has detailed how the French study and similar anecdotal evidence from China were covered by Fox News, amplified by Trump, with Trump’s amplification in turn being covered by Fox — a perfect illustration of the Fox-to-Trump feedback loop.
As it became clear that the United States was going to be especially hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic, Trump became insistent that the drug could be a savior — despite warnings from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci that clinical trials were needed and it was too soon to “make any definitive statement” about the efficaciousness of the drug.
"I answered this 15 times. You don't have to answer." -- Trump prevents Dr Fauci from answering a question about hydroxychloroquine pic.twitter.com/8R1K1hDsaX — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 6, 2020
On Tuesday, however, Trump’s tone suddenly changed. Asked about the results of the VA study during that evening’s White House press briefing, Trump dodged, saying, “I don’t know of the report,” and then tried to distance himself from the drug.
“We’ll be looking at it, we’ll have a comment on it at some point,” he said.
JON KARL: Are you concerned about this VA study showing that hydroxychloroquine can be fatal?
TRUMP: "I don't know of the report."
KARL: Are you concerned that the NIH is recommending against treatments you recommended?
TRUMP: "We'll take a look at that." pic.twitter.com/PhYSBMZLzS — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 21, 2020
While those comments put Trump’s position on the unproven drug more in line with public health experts, Bright’s letter indicates there is still a great deal of discord happening behind the scenes.
“I am speaking out because to combat this deadly virus, science — not politics or cronyism — has to lead the way,” he wrote.


vox--2020-04-22--The debate around remote voting in the House, explained

A push for proxy voting in the US House of Representatives during the age of coronavirus has been postponed — for now .
After an outcry from Republicans , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi canceled a planned Thursday vote on a resolution to allow remote voting-by-proxy proposed by House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern .
Had the resolution passed , it would have been an unprecedented change — House rules say that members shall be present to vote — in keeping with the unprecedented challenges of the novel coronavirus outbreak .
Instead , Pelosi announced Wednesday on a caucus phone call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do remote voting and committee work , to allow Congress to social distance during the pandemic .
Proxy voting is the act of allowing members of Congress to cast votes on behalf of those who can ’ t be there in person , in this case because of Covid-19 concerns .
While initially reluctant to entertain remote voting , Pelosi recently signaled openness to proxy voting in the midst of the pandemic .
But after a letter from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) asking for “ a clear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Pelosi decided to wait longer for bipartisan consensus on a plan .
The House wasn ’ t planning to use proxy voting to pass an interim funding bill containing billions of dollars for small businesses slated for Thursday .
While leadership is encouraging every member who can safely vote present to return to the Capitol Hill , they were initially hoping to separately pass the proxy-voting resolution as a contingency plan for future votes .
“ We are asking every Member to return who can return .
And we hope that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ( D-MD ) told reporters on Tuesday , adding over half of its members are expected to be present for the vote .
“ We ’ re not ordering members to come back .
We do expect sufficient members to come back so we can have a quorum.
” Pelosi had previously said proxy voting should only be used in a limited fashion , related to coronavirus legislation , before Congress can return to normal .
“ It ’ s not just about us .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the press , it ’ s about the security , it ’ s about those who run the buildings , ” Pelosi told reporters Tuesday .
It ’ s not just Republicans in the House who have registered their displeasure with the idea .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) blocked a motion from Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) to allow temporary remote voting on future bills in the Senate .
“ We ’ re not going to move on another bill related to this subject until we all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politico ’ s Burgess Everett in an interview .
What proxy voting might look like in the future On Wednesday , the House Rules Committee released its plan for proxy voting , which it was set to debate in committee on Wednesday evening .
The Rules Committee resolution would establish proxy voting during times of a pandemic , and it would happen in consultation with both the House Sergeant at Arms and Attending Physician .
The resolution spells out that proxy voting would be temporary and would end after 60 days unless leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be another 60-day extension if a pandemic were to continue .
The period of time for proxy voting could also be terminated early by the House Speaker .
The resolution also spells out the process of how proxy voting will occur ; the member who can not physically be present will submit a signed letter ( which can also be submitted electronically ) to the House clerk designating who their proxy is .
The proxy would then enter their colleague ’ s vote into the record during voting , whether done electronically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The proxy for a member will indicate they are voting on behalf of another colleague during voting and is expressly not allowed to change their colleague ’ s vote .
What the resolution did not allow is remote voting being done by Zoom , FaceTime , or any other type of video-conferencing service .
Pelosi has stated her opposition to this in the past , even though Hoyer , the No .
2 Democrat in the House endorsed the idea on Tuesday .
“ I have maintained from the beginning of this discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like FaceTime , Zoom , Teams — there are a number of different technologies available — millions of people are using those regularly , ” Hoyer told reporters .
“ Frankly , if I ’ m in my den here in Saint Mary ’ s County and the clerk is looking at me over FaceTime and I say ‘ aye ’ and the clerk recognizes me , they mark me as ‘ aye.
’ I ’ m not asking anybody else to cast my vote for me ; I ’ m casting it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their displeasure with the idea , with several lawmakers insisting members should be physically present to conduct the House ’ s business , Democrats had enough votes to pass the changes along party lines .
But because such a historic proposed change to House rules would impact lawmakers on both sides of the aisle , Pelosi ultimately decided to take more time and allow Republicans to weigh in before voting on such a change .
The Senate is more skeptical of proxy voting Meanwhile , McConnell has been relatively firm about bringing senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work on the next stimulus package .
In addition to Paul , other lawmakers , including Sens .
Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) and Rob Portman ( R-OH ) , have offered their own proposals for how remote voting could work .
Their measure , if passed , would grant McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer the authority to declare the need for a 30-day period of remote voting during a national crisis .
“ Remote voting would then be allowed for up to 30 days , and the Senate would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every 30-day period afterward , ” they write in a Washington Post op-ed .
“ This limitation will ensure that voting remotely can not become the norm without a consensus around the continuity of an emergency.
” Thus far , McConnell hasn ’ t signaled any interest in backing this resolution , though Democrats could use the leverage they have in the upper chamber to put pressure on him .
Since every bill in the Senate requires 60 votes to pass , for example , Democrats could potentially withhold their support on future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consideration of remote voting .
Prior to leaving for recess , McConnell had said that lawmakers would use other means , like trying to stagger when they vote , to maintain social distancing in the Capitol .
“ The current plan is to go back in session on May the 4th , ” McConnell said on The Hugh Hewitt Show this week .
“ I haven ’ t seen anything that would discourage me from doing that.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making a contribution to Vox today .

A push for proxy voting in the US House of Representatives during the age of coronavirus has been postponed — for now.
After an outcry from Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi canceled a planned Thursday vote on a resolution to allow remote voting-by-proxy proposed by House Rules Committee Chair Jim McGovern. Had the resolution passed, it would have been an unprecedented change — House rules say that members shall be present to vote — in keeping with the unprecedented challenges of the novel coronavirus outbreak.
Instead, Pelosi announced Wednesday on a caucus phone call that a bipartisan group will consider ways to do remote voting and committee work, to allow Congress to social distance during the pandemic.
Proxy voting is the act of allowing members of Congress to cast votes on behalf of those who can’t be there in person, in this case because of Covid-19 concerns. While initially reluctant to entertain remote voting, Pelosi recently signaled openness to proxy voting in the midst of the pandemic.
But after a letter from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) asking for “a clear, safe and effective plan for reopening Congress,” Pelosi decided to wait longer for bipartisan consensus on a plan.
The House wasn’t planning to use proxy voting to pass an interim funding bill containing billions of dollars for small businesses slated for Thursday. While leadership is encouraging every member who can safely vote present to return to the Capitol Hill, they were initially hoping to separately pass the proxy-voting resolution as a contingency plan for future votes.
“We are asking every Member to return who can return. And we hope that that is a large number,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told reporters on Tuesday, adding that more than half of its members are expected to be present for the vote. “We’re not ordering members to come back. We do expect sufficient members to come back so we can have a quorum.”
Pelosi had previously said proxy voting should only be used in a limited fashion, related to coronavirus legislation, before Congress can return to normal.
“It’s not just about us. It’s about the staff, it’s about the press, it’s about the security, it’s about those who run the buildings,” Pelosi told reporters Tuesday.
It’s not just Republicans in the House who have registered their displeasure with the idea. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked a motion from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to allow temporary remote voting on future bills in the Senate.
“We’re not going to move on another bill related to this subject until we all get back here,” McConnell told Politico’s Burgess Everett in an interview.
What proxy voting might look like in the future
On Wednesday, the House Rules Committee released its plan for proxy voting, which it was set to debate in committee on Wednesday evening.
The Rules Committee resolution would establish proxy voting during times of a pandemic, and it would happen in consultation with both the House sergeant at arms and the attending physician.
The resolution spells out that proxy voting would be temporary and would end after 60 days unless leadership and the sergeant at arms decided there should be another 60-day extension if a pandemic were to continue. The period of time for proxy voting could also be terminated early by the House speaker.
The resolution also spells out the process of how proxy voting will occur; the member who cannot physically be present will submit a signed letter (which can also be submitted electronically) to the House clerk designating who their proxy is.
The proxy would then enter their colleague’s vote into the record during voting, whether done electronically or through a roll call vote. The proxy for a member will indicate they are voting on behalf of another colleague during voting and is expressly not allowed to change their colleague’s vote.
What the resolution did not allow is remote voting being done by Zoom, FaceTime, or any other type of videoconferencing service. Pelosi has stated her opposition to this in the past, even though Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, endorsed the idea on Tuesday.
“I have maintained from the beginning of this discussion that the electronics that we use, like FaceTime, Zoom, Teams — there are a number of different technologies available — millions of people are using those regularly,” Hoyer told reporters. “Frankly, if I’m in my den here in Saint Mary’s County and the clerk is looking at me over FaceTime and I say ‘aye’ and the clerk recognizes me, they mark me as ‘aye.’ I’m not asking anybody else to cast my vote for me; I’m casting it personally.”
While House Republicans have registered their displeasure with the idea, with several lawmakers insisting members should be physically present to conduct the House’s business, Democrats had enough votes to pass the changes along party lines.
But because such a historic proposed change to House rules would impact lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Pelosi ultimately decided to take more time and allow Republicans to weigh in before voting on such a change.
The Senate is more skeptical of proxy voting
Meanwhile, McConnell has been relatively firm about bringing senators back to the Capitol in order to work on the next stimulus package.
In addition to Paul, other lawmakers, including Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rob Portman (R-OH), have offered their own proposals for how remote voting could work. Their measure, if passed, would grant McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer the authority to declare the need for a 30-day period of remote voting during a national crisis.
“Remote voting would then be allowed for up to 30 days, and the Senate would have to vote to renew remote voting after every 30-day period afterward,” they write in a Washington Post op-ed. “This limitation will ensure that voting remotely cannot become the norm without a consensus around the continuity of an emergency.”
Thus far, McConnell hasn’t signaled interest in backing this resolution, though Democrats could use the leverage they have in the upper chamber to put pressure on him. Since every bill in the Senate requires 60 votes to pass, for example, Democrats could potentially withhold their support on future packages in an effort to force the consideration of remote voting.
Before leaving for recess, McConnell had said that lawmakers would use other means, like trying to stagger when they vote, to maintain social distancing in the Capitol.
“The current plan is to go back in session on May the 4th,” McConnell said on The Hugh Hewitt Show this week. “I haven’t seen anything that would discourage me from doing that.”


vox--2020-04-22--How people without symptoms can still spread the coronavirus

We know that not everyone who comes into contact with the novel coronavirus ends up getting sick .
But just how many people out there have the virus and are feeling fine — and are perhaps unknowingly spreading it to others ?
New data suggests it could be a lot .
For example , 60 percent of personnel aboard the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt who tested positive for the coronavirus appeared healthy at the time , Reuters reported .
Other data — from Iceland and elsewhere — have uncovered similar patterns .
With testing capacity still limited , most governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing symptoms of Covid-19 so that they can be isolated .
This is important for slowing the virus ’ s spread .
But it also means that globally , we have lagged in finding people who are carrying the virus but aren ’ t currently sick — and might be spreading it .
So the big question everyone — including infectious disease experts — has is : How big of a role are these “ silent spreaders ” playing in this pandemic ?
It ’ s certainly significant .
People who feel fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , public health officials have focused on the advice that people who have symptoms of Covid-19 should self-isolate .
This is crucial , to be sure .
But it is also becoming “ increasingly clear that there are people who are either asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic who can transmit ” the virus , Carlos del Rio , chair of the Department of Global Health at Emory University , told Vox .
In fact , people can start transmitting the virus 24 to 48 hours before they start showing symptoms , he said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America .
This timing detail is no small matter .
And new research on presymptomatic transmission in people who did eventually experience symptoms underscores why .
People were most infectious right before they started to show symptoms A study in Nature Medicine of 94 confirmed Covid-19 patients found that people were most infectious right before they started to show symptoms .
The researchers obtained data about people who had gotten Covid-19 as well as those who had been around them before and after they got sick .
Based on this , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught the virus from the study ’ s participants had gotten it from people who felt healthy at the time .
They also found that someone who is mildly sick could have been just as contagious as someone with more severe symptoms .
Maybe they aren ’ t coughing as much as someone feeling more seriously ill , but the virus can still spread through talking , sneezing , and coughing .
And what about people who are carrying the virus but don ’ t ever get sick — the true asymptomatic carriers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
We simply don ’ t know yet .
Hopefully , further studies will figure this out , because it could lead to more informed decisions about how to eventually end the pandemic .
How many people are carrying the coronavirus and don ’ t know it ?
A new study out of Iceland , published in the New England Journal of Medicine , offers important insight about how prevalent asymptomatic carriers may be .
Iceland has tested 6 percent of the entire island nation ’ s population — the most testing per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Part of the study tested those ill with Covid-19 symptoms , but another part involved testing a substantial sample of the general population feeling well — or at least with no greater symptoms than a mild common cold .
Of those who tested positive for the virus , 43 percent were asymptomatic .
So it ’ s possible that , at least in Iceland at that point in time , almost half of the people who had coronavirus didn ’ t know it .
This percentage likely varies from place to place , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current outbreak .
For example , two New York City hospitals recently tested more than 99 percent of women who delivered babies in their wards over the course of two weeks .
Of the 215 women , about 2 percent had Covid-19 symptoms ( all of them tested positive for the virus ) .
And about 14 percent of the symptom-free women also tested positive .
This means that about 88 percent of people who had the virus in this group had no symptoms at the time of testing .
So one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and delivery wards — who seemed healthy — nevertheless was carrying the virus .
Although these studies looked at specific populations at specific points in time , they can provide a general idea of what might be going on elsewhere .
How many people catch the coronavirus and never get sick at all ?
We know that people who get Covid-19 start feeling sick anywhere from two to 14 days after they first catch the virus .
But there also seems to be a subset of people who test positive for it but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t that unusual .
Other viruses often have many people carrying them who don ’ t get sick .
For example , a study in the UK found that about 77 percent of people who had had the current flu strain never got sick ( some studies have pointed to lower rates , which also shows how little we know even about common illnesses ) .
For the norovirus , a common stomach bug , about a third of people who get it don ’ t become ill — but can still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number is even higher for other viruses , like polio , which only causes illness in some 5 to 10 percent of infections — but the asymptomatic carriers can still spread it to others , who might get the full-blown disease .
For SARS-CoV-2 , the World Health Organization cited the statistic that about 75 percent of people who seem asymptomatic when they test positive for the virus eventually go on to develop symptoms of Covid-19 .
And a series of recent reports have backed that up .
One study , which examined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on in the coronavirus outbreak , found that more than half of residents who tested positive ( 57 percent ) had no signs of the illness .
One week later , however , more than three-quarters of them had developed symptoms .
The mean time for them to have started feeling sick was just three days after they had gotten tested .
This shows just how narrow of a window one-shot testing can be .
Another study , which looked at passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship , also tried to account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed that of the 634 people on board who tested positive for the coronavirus , slightly more than half were asymptomatic at the time .
But researchers were able to follow up with these people ( after many did eventually get sick ) and , based on that data , estimated that the actual rate of asymptomatic infections was about 18 percent .
And 18 percent is still a large number , especially when expanded to a broader population during an outbreak .
That ’ s roughly one in five people .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one in four .
Researchers still don ’ t know if — and how much — these truly asymptomatic carriers might be contributing to the spread of the virus .
But with such large numbers , answering that question ( and taking precautionary actions in the meantime ) will be essential to understanding how to most effectively slow down this pandemic .
Given that roughly three-quarters of people who don ’ t show symptoms at the time of testing will probably get ill ( and that those people are perhaps most infectious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and given that we still don ’ t know how much asymptomatic individuals are infecting others , limiting the spread of the virus by seemingly healthy people is crucial .
That is one of the reasons large-scale testing is so powerful .
For example , in the Iceland study , public health officials were able to identify about 525 people — in a country of just 364,000 — who were carrying the virus but appeared healthy otherwise ( that would be the equivalent of finding about 473,000 asymptomatic or presymptomatic carriers in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
This information allowed Icelandic officials to take action .
After positive test results , people were required to self-isolate until they tested negative — “ and all contacts of these participants were [ also ] required to self-quarantine for 2 weeks , ” the authors noted .
This sort of broad testing and targeted isolation strategy could help curb the spread of the virus and allow more people to continue with less severe social distancing restrictions .
We ’ ll need more widespread antibody testing to better understand what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these numbers is that they are snapshots in time .
And detailed follow-up , like what happened in the Diamond Princess study , is resource-intensive .
This is one of the reasons testing for the presence of the coronavirus is not — and can not — give us a clear picture of its true prevalence .
Just as it might catch someone before the onset of their symptoms , it might miss someone who has already fought the virus off , whether they knew it or not .
That ’ s why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone has had the virus in the past will be key in determining the actual proportion of the population that has had the virus .
( Most current testing is a different method that looks for the presence of the virus during an active infection . )
With that number , experts will also be able to start modeling how many asymptomatic people are contributing to the overall spread of the virus .
This will be “ critically important ” for ascertaining if they “ may be sustaining viral transmission , ” del @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of asymptomatic carriers and their potential to infect others could impact everything from public health guidelines to how soon we can begin to safely resume more normal activities .
The National Institutes of Health is launching a large-scale study to look at this now .
It is enrolling up to 10,000 volunteers from anywhere in the US to be tested for antibodies to the coronavirus .
“ These crucial data will help us measure the impact of our public health efforts now and guide our Covid-19 response moving forward , ” Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said in a statement .
You can learn more about enrolling here .
In the meantime , all of these mounting data support continued social distancing practices , mask-wearing , and other preventative measures for everyone — no matter how healthy they feel .
Correction , April 22 : An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of asymptomatic people in an Iceland study who tested positive for Covid-19 .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making a contribution to Vox today .

We know that not everyone who comes into contact with the novel coronavirus ends up getting sick. But just how many people out there have the virus and are feeling fine — and are perhaps unknowingly spreading it to others?
New data suggests it could be a lot.
For example, 60 percent of personnel aboard the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt who tested positive for the coronavirus appeared healthy at the time, Reuters reported. Other data — from Iceland and elsewhere — have uncovered similar patterns.
With testing capacity still limited, most governments continue to focus on people who are showing symptoms of Covid-19 so that they can be isolated. This is important for slowing the virus’s spread. But it also means that globally, we have lagged in finding people who are carrying the virus but aren’t currently sick — and might be spreading it.
Related What to do if you have symptoms of the new coronavirus
(The early evidence that seemingly healthy people can still infect others with the coronavirus is one of the main reasons behind the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation that everyone wear a mask in public: so that people who don’t know they have the virus don’t accidentally infect others with it.)
So the big question everyone — including infectious disease experts — has is: How big of a role are these “silent spreaders” playing in this pandemic? It’s certainly significant.
People who feel fine are spreading the coronavirus
Throughout the pandemic, public health officials have focused on the advice that people who have symptoms of Covid-19 should self-isolate. This is crucial, to be sure. But it is also becoming “increasingly clear that there are people who are either asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic who can transmit” the virus, Carlos del Rio, chair of the Department of Global Health at Emory University, told Vox.
In fact, people can start transmitting the virus 24 to 48 hours before they start showing symptoms, he said in a briefing for the Infectious Disease Society of America.
This timing detail is no small matter. And new research on presymptomatic transmission in people who did eventually experience symptoms underscores why.
People were most infectious right before they started to show symptoms
A study in Nature Medicine of 94 confirmed Covid-19 patients found that people were most infectious right before they started to show symptoms. The researchers obtained data about people who had gotten Covid-19 as well as those who had been around them before and after they got sick. Based on this, they estimated that 44 percent of people who caught the virus from the study’s participants had gotten it from people who felt healthy at the time.
They also found that someone who is mildly sick could have been just as contagious as someone with more severe symptoms. Maybe they aren’t coughing as much as someone feeling more seriously ill, but the virus can still spread through talking, sneezing, and coughing.
And what about people who are carrying the virus but don’t ever get sick — the true asymptomatic carriers? Can they spread it, too?
We simply don’t know yet. Hopefully, further studies will figure this out, because it could lead to more informed decisions about how to eventually end the pandemic.
How many people are carrying the coronavirus and don’t know it?
A new study out of Iceland, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, offers important insight about how prevalent asymptomatic carriers may be. Iceland has tested 6 percent of the entire island nation’s population — the most testing per capita of any country so far.
Part of the study tested those ill with Covid-19 symptoms, but another part involved testing a substantial sample of the general population feeling well — or at least with no greater symptoms than a mild common cold. Of those who tested positive for the virus, 43 percent were asymptomatic. So it’s possible that, at least in Iceland at that point in time, almost half of the people who had coronavirus didn’t know it.
This percentage likely varies from place to place, depending on the timing and severity of the current outbreak.
For example, two New York City hospitals recently tested more than 99 percent of women who delivered babies in their wards over the course of two weeks. Of the 215 women, about 2 percent had Covid-19 symptoms (all of them tested positive for the virus). And about 14 percent of the symptom-free women also tested positive. This means that about 88 percent of people who had the virus in this group had no symptoms at the time of testing.
So one in eight women admitted to the labor and delivery wards — who seemed healthy — nevertheless was carrying the virus.
Although these studies looked at specific populations at specific points in time, they can provide a general idea of what might be going on elsewhere.
How many people catch the coronavirus and never get sick at all?
We know that people who get Covid-19 start feeling sick anywhere from two to 14 days after they first catch the virus. But there also seems to be a subset of people who test positive for it but never develop any symptoms.
This isn’t that unusual. Other viruses often have many people carrying them who don’t get sick. For example, a study in the UK found that about 77 percent of people who had had the current flu strain never got sick (some studies have pointed to lower rates, which also shows how little we know even about common illnesses).
For the norovirus, a common stomach bug, about a third of people who get it don’t become ill — but can still transmit it to others.
And that number is even higher for other viruses, like polio, which only causes illness in some 5 to 10 percent of infections — but the asymptomatic carriers can still spread it to others, who might get the full-blown disease.
For SARS-CoV-2, the World Health Organization cited the statistic that about 75 percent of people who seem asymptomatic when they test positive for the virus eventually go on to develop symptoms of Covid-19. And a series of recent reports have backed that up.
One study, which examined a nursing home in Washington state early on in the coronavirus outbreak, found that more than half of residents who tested positive (57 percent) had no signs of the illness. One week later, however, more than three-quarters of them had developed symptoms.
The mean time for them to have started feeling sick was just three days after they had gotten tested. This shows just how narrow of a window one-shot testing can be.
Another study, which looked at passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, also tried to account for this timing issue. Initial data showed that of the 634 people on board who tested positive for the coronavirus, slightly more than half were asymptomatic at the time. But researchers were able to follow up with these people (after many did eventually get sick) and, based on that data, estimated that the actual rate of asymptomatic infections was about 18 percent.
And 18 percent is still a large number, especially when expanded to a broader population during an outbreak. That’s roughly one in five people. And based on the WHO numbers, it is one in four.
Researchers still don’t know if — and how much — these truly asymptomatic carriers might be contributing to the spread of the virus. But with such large numbers, answering that question (and taking precautionary actions in the meantime) will be essential to understanding how to most effectively slow down this pandemic.
Identifying silent spreaders is essential
Given that roughly three-quarters of people who don’t show symptoms at the time of testing will probably get ill (and that those people are perhaps most infectious just before they start feeling sick) and given that we still don’t know how much asymptomatic individuals are infecting others, limiting the spread of the virus by seemingly healthy people is crucial.
That is one of the reasons large-scale testing is so powerful. For example, in the Iceland study, public health officials were able to identify about 525 people — in a country of just 364,000 — who were carrying the virus but appeared healthy otherwise (that would be the equivalent of finding about 473,000 asymptomatic or presymptomatic carriers in a small sampling in the US, population-wise).
This information allowed Icelandic officials to take action. After positive test results, people were required to self-isolate until they tested negative — “and all contacts of these participants were [also] required to self-quarantine for 2 weeks,” the authors noted. This sort of broad testing and targeted isolation strategy could help curb the spread of the virus and allow more people to continue with less severe social distancing restrictions.
We’ll need more widespread antibody testing to better understand what’s going on
The trouble with so many of these numbers is that they are snapshots in time. And detailed follow-up, like what happened in the Diamond Princess study, is resource-intensive.
This is one of the reasons testing for the presence of the coronavirus is not — and cannot — give us a clear picture of its true prevalence. Just as it might catch someone before the onset of their symptoms, it might miss someone who has already fought the virus off, whether they knew it or not.
That’s why more widespread antibody testing to see if someone has had the virus in the past will be key in determining the actual proportion of the population that has had the virus. (Most current testing is a different method that looks for the presence of the virus during an active infection.)
With that number, experts will also be able to start modeling how many asymptomatic people are contributing to the overall spread of the virus. This will be “critically important” for ascertaining if they “may be sustaining viral transmission,” del Rio said.
(But this will need to be done thoughtfully. There has been substantial debate over, for example, a recent estimate, based on antibody testing, that the prevalence of the virus in Santa Clara County, California, might be 50-85 times higher than the number of rapid test-confirmed cases.)
Better understanding the true number of asymptomatic carriers and their potential to infect others could impact everything from public health guidelines to how soon we can begin to safely resume more normal activities.
The National Institutes of Health is launching a large-scale study to look at this now. It is enrolling up to 10,000 volunteers from anywhere in the US to be tested for antibodies to the coronavirus.
“These crucial data will help us measure the impact of our public health efforts now and guide our Covid-19 response moving forward,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a statement. You can learn more about enrolling here.
In the meantime, all of these mounting data support continued social distancing practices, mask-wearing, and other preventative measures for everyone — no matter how healthy they feel.
Correction, April 22: An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of asymptomatic people in an Iceland study who tested positive for Covid-19.


vox--2020-04-22--Why major food and hotel chains are getting stimulus money meant for small businesses

As the $ 349 billion for a federal small-business loan program has run out , an alarming pattern has emerged : Much of this money hasn ’ t been going to small businesses at all .
According to public filings , corporations including Ruth Chris ’ s Steak House , Potbelly , and Shake Shack have obtained millions in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program , a new effort intended to help small businesses that are struggling to weather the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic .
( Shake Shack has received $ 10 million from the program , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wake of the backlash . )
Millions more have also gone to large , publicly traded companies whose financial troubles have nothing to do with the coronavirus economic crash , the AP reports .
Small-business owner Sara Core , meanwhile , hasn ’ t been able to get the comparatively paltry $ 58,000 she ’ s asking for to cover payroll and other operational expenses for the Millennium Family Entertainment Center she runs in Yuba City , California .
“ Our business is completely shut down right now , ” Core told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a position where I don ’ t even know if we ’ ll make it.
” Core applied to the program on April 3 , the first day it opened , but was told her bank — Golden Pacific Bank — had already reached its limit on the number of loans that it could give out .
She ’ s since applied through other lenders , including PayPal , but money for the program was depleted before she ever got an update , and she ’ s been forced to furlough her 21 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s experience underscores the financial pressure that many small businesses are currently facing : According to MarketWatch , 43 percent of small businesses have said they could close permanently within six months if they don ’ t receive financial help .
Hundreds of thousands of small-business owners are still waiting to even hear back about the status of their applications , not to mention access funds .
The program ’ s distribution of funds is a direct result of the way the law — which explicitly enables large chain restaurants and hotels to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Given how much small businesses are relying on the funds in these loans , the amount of money that large corporations have been able to pick up is staggering — and , to many people , infuriating .
“ I am outraged the PPP money has gone to publicly traded companies with fancy bankers , lobbyists , and lawyers who pushed them through , ” said Beret Kirkeby , the owner of an orthopedic massage clinic in New York City , who hasn ’ t been able to receive any funds from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give corporations access What ’ s particularly stunning about corporations ’ efforts to capitalize on this program is that the law is designed to let them do it .
As written in the legislation , any business that ’ s classified as an accommodation or food service that has 500 or fewer employees at its individual locations , is eligible .
It ’ s a loophole that , in theory , was meant to help franchisees and independent owners — think a local McDonald ’ s store owner — but as Bloomberg notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clarify whether individual locations must apply for the aid or whether corporate headquarters could start vacuuming up millions in relief funds.
” Although Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) has called out some applicants for abusing PPP , he ’ s emphasized that larger restaurants and hotel chains were intentionally included in the bill , because these industries have been so severely affected by recent economic declines .
In fact , industry groups lobbied to make sure they could qualify for PPP , according to the Wall Street Journal .
Rubio argues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operated by individual owners , so the funding would be aimed at helping franchisees and others — rather than the corporate parent company .
“ These hotels , they may say Marriott or Hyatt or Hilton , but it ’ s actually owned by an individual .
It ’ s just a flag that ’ s on it .
And the same can happen with restaurants and franchises , ” Rubio told the Hill .
Larger corporations ’ use of the program isn ’ t quite in line with these purported intentions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his newsletter Popular Information , Ruth ’ s Chris Steak House — which had more than $ 441 million in revenue in 2019 — was able to secure $ 20 million in forgivable loans , while appearing to furlough much of its workforce .
The funds that the company has obtained were received by the parent company and not its independent franchisees , according to the Wall Street Journal .
Large companies are obtaining these loans at the expense of small businesses Because of how limited the funds for PPP have been , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies means that smaller businesses are missing out on money they desperately need .
According to the Small Business Administration , the average loan that was approved under PPP was $ 206,000 .
It ’ s a number that skews high , which suggests that larger companies are snagging a lot of these loans , said Awesta Sarkash , the government affairs manager at Small Business Majority , an advocacy group focused on advancing the needs of small businesses .
Based on data from the Federal Reserve , the majority of small businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100,000 or less when they take out loans .
“ Half of the allocated funding for the PPP has run out because all of these loans are on the larger size and going to larger businesses , ” Sarkash said .
CNN noted that 9 percent of the funds that were allocated went to just 0.3 percent of the businesses .
Not only do many of these corporations have a leg up over small businesses when it comes to the accounting expertise they have on hand to complete the application for the program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial institutions have an incentive to approve larger loans .
Because of the fees associated with processing different loans , a bank could more quickly pick up fees by processing one massive loan , compared to multiple smaller loans , Sarkash said .
The “ first come , first serve ” nature of the program — and its broad eligibility requirements — have resulted in an uneven distribution of funds : Even as 75 publicly traded companies have been able to obtain loans through PPP — according to a report from the Associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses ’ applications remain in limbo .
Kathy Thorpe , a small business owner who runs Denver Paw School , a dog training program in Denver , Colorado , is still waiting to hear back on the status of her application after applying for both PPP and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan .
“ We ’ re used to ... finding a way to plan through chaos , ” she said , regarding the uncertainty she ’ s facing .
“ But this is something else.
” Meanwhile , Kristi Risk , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candy and confectionery store based in Spencer , Indiana , said her PPP loan was rejected because her payroll costs didn ’ t reach a threshold that her banker deemed sufficient .
Risk estimates that the business ’ s revenue is down 60 percent compared to this same point last year and adds that she ’ s dipping into her own savings to tide the business over .
“ We ’ ve got leases , we ’ ve got utilities , we ’ ve got no customers because we ’ re shut down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re covering it with our own income and 401 ( k ) .
” The new small business funding doesn ’ t include many additional restrictions Congress is poised to approve roughly $ 320 billion in new funding for the PPP this week , but it ’ s not adding many additional restrictions on how this money can be doled out .
There is one key condition that ’ s been addressed : $ 60 billion will be allocated through small and medium-sized community-based lenders .
It ’ s a carveout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small businesses — including minority-owned and rural firms — obtain the money , since they are less likely to have existing relationships with larger banks like Bank of America , which were more likely to receive funds from the first wave .
But the eligibility for the program is staying pretty much the same .
Restaurants and hotels that have individual locations with 500 or fewer people are still able to apply to the program , for example , spurring fears that corporations could try to benefit once more .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tap the funds out again , ” says Sarkash .
During a White House briefing on Tuesday , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and President Donald Trump said they disapproved of big business attempting to take advantage of these small business loans .
Mnuchin noted that the Treasury Department would provide guidance to clarify the requirements needed to qualify for them .
Whether that threat and the $ 60 billion carveout will be enough to make sure these funds actually get to those who need it most , however , is far from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 it will enable our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As the $349 billion for a federal small-business loan program has run out, an alarming pattern has emerged: Much of this money hasn’t been going to small businesses at all.
According to public filings, corporations including Ruth’s Chris Steak House, Potbelly, and Shake Shack have obtained millions in loans from the Paycheck Protection Program, a new effort intended to help small businesses that are struggling to weather the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. (Shake Shack and Ruth’s Chris have since returned their loans in the wake of massive backlash.) Millions more have also gone to large, publicly traded companies whose financial troubles have nothing to do with the coronavirus economic crash, the AP reports.
Small-business owner Sara Core, meanwhile, hasn’t been able to get the comparatively paltry $58,000 she’s asking for to cover payroll and other operational expenses for the Millennium Family Entertainment Center she runs in Yuba City, California.
“Our business is completely shut down right now,” Core told Vox. “I’m in a position where I don’t even know if we’ll make it.”
Core applied to the program on April 3, the first day it opened, but was told her bank — Golden Pacific Bank — had already reached its limit on the number of loans that it could give out. She’s since applied through other lenders, including PayPal, but money for the program was depleted before she ever got an update, and she’s been forced to furlough her 21 employees in the meantime.
Core’s experience underscores the financial pressure that many small businesses are currently facing: According to MarketWatch, 43 percent of small businesses have said they could close permanently within six months if they don’t receive financial help. Hundreds of thousands of small-business owners are still waiting to even hear back about the status of their applications, not to mention access funds.
The program’s distribution of funds is a direct result of the way the law — which explicitly enables large chain restaurants and hotels to participate in the program — was designed. Given how much small businesses are relying on the funds in these loans, the amount of money that large corporations have been able to pick up is staggering — and, to many people, infuriating.
“I am outraged the PPP money has gone to publicly traded companies with fancy bankers, lobbyists, and lawyers who pushed them through,” said Beret Kirkeby, the owner of an orthopedic massage clinic in New York City, who hasn’t been able to receive any funds from PPP.
The program was designed to give corporations access
What’s particularly stunning about corporations’ efforts to capitalize on this program is that the law is designed to let them do it.
As written in the legislation, any business that’s classified as an accommodation or food service that has 500 or fewer employees at its individual locations, is eligible. It’s a loophole that, in theory, was meant to help franchisees and independent owners — think a local McDonald’s store owner — but as Bloomberg notes, the “language didn’t clarify whether individual locations must apply for the aid or whether corporate headquarters could start vacuuming up millions in relief funds.”
Although Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has called out some applicants for abusing PPP, he’s emphasized that larger restaurants and hotel chains were intentionally included in the bill, because these industries have been so severely affected by recent economic declines. In fact, industry groups lobbied to make sure they could qualify for PPP, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Rubio argues that some of these chains’ locations are operated by individual owners, so the funding would be aimed at helping franchisees and others — rather than the corporate parent company.
“These hotels, they may say Marriott or Hyatt or Hilton, but it’s actually owned by an individual. It’s just a flag that’s on it. And the same can happen with restaurants and franchises,” Rubio told the Hill.
Larger corporations’ use of the program isn’t quite in line with these purported intentions, however.
As Judd Legum writes in his newsletter Popular Information, Ruth’s Chris Steak House — which had more than $441 million in revenue in 2019 — was able to secure $20 million in forgivable loans, while appearing to furlough much of its workforce. Although it’s since returned the money, the company had initially obtained funds via its parent company and not its independent franchisees, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Large companies are getting these loans at the expense of small businesses
Because of how limited the funds for PPP have been, the disproportionate allocation of them to larger companies means that smaller businesses are missing out on money they desperately need.
According to the Small Business Administration, the average loan that was approved under PPP was $206,000. It’s a number that skews high, which suggests that larger companies are snagging a lot of these loans, said Awesta Sarkash, the government affairs manager at Small Business Majority, an advocacy group focused on advancing the needs of small businesses. Based on data from the Federal Reserve, the majority of small businesses — 59 percent — typically seek $100,000 or less when they take out loans.
“Half of the allocated funding for the PPP has run out because all of these loans are on the larger size and going to larger businesses,” Sarkash said. CNN noted that 9 percent of the funds that were allocated went to just 0.3 percent of the businesses.
Not only do many of these corporations have a leg up over small businesses when it comes to the accounting expertise they have on hand to complete the application for the program along with existing relationships with banks, financial institutions have an incentive to approve larger loans. Because of the fees associated with processing different loans, a bank could more quickly pick up fees by processing one massive loan, compared to multiple smaller loans, Sarkash said.
The “first come, first serve” nature of the program — and its broad eligibility requirements — have resulted in an uneven distribution of funds: Even as 75 publicly traded companies have been able to obtain loans through PPP — according to a report from the Associated Press — hundreds of thousands of small businesses’ applications remain in limbo.
Kathy Thorpe, a small business owner who runs Denver Paw School, a dog training program in Denver, Colorado, is still waiting to hear back on the status of her application after applying for both PPP and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan. “We’re used to ... finding a way to plan through chaos,” she said, regarding the uncertainty she’s facing. “But this is something else.”
Meanwhile, Kristi Risk, the owner of Diamond K Sweets, a candy and confectionery store based in Spencer, Indiana, said her PPP loan was rejected because her payroll costs didn’t reach a threshold that her banker deemed sufficient.
Risk estimates that the business’s revenue is down 60 percent compared to this same point last year and adds that she’s dipping into her own savings to tide the business over. “We’ve got leases, we’ve got utilities, we’ve got no customers because we’re shut down,” she told Vox. “We’re covering it with our own income and 401(k).”
The new small business funding doesn’t include many additional restrictions
Congress is poised to approve roughly $320 billion in new funding for the PPP this week, but it’s not adding many additional restrictions on how this money can be doled out.
There is one key condition that’s been addressed: $60 billion will be allocated through small and medium-sized community-based lenders. It’s a carveout that’s meant to help more small businesses — including minority-owned and rural firms — obtain the money, since they are less likely to have existing relationships with larger banks like Bank of America, which were more likely to receive funds from the first wave.
But the eligibility for the program is staying pretty much the same.
Restaurants and hotels that have individual locations with 500 or fewer people are still able to apply to the program, for example, spurring fears that corporations could try to benefit once more.
“We’re concerned about larger businesses being able to tap the funds out again,” says Sarkash.
During a White House briefing on Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and President Donald Trump said they disapproved of big business attempting to take advantage of these small business loans. Mnuchin noted that the Treasury Department would provide guidance to clarify the requirements needed to qualify for them.
Whether that threat and the $60 billion carveout will be enough to make sure these funds actually get to those who need it most, however, is far from certain.


vox--2020-04-22--Amazon has been frustrating during the pandemic, but Prime is more popular than ever

“ Ordinarily I would NEVER use Amazon , ” the El Cerrito , California , resident wrote to Recode in an email .
“ I hate giving that kind of octopus company my $ $ and my valuable personal information.
” But the coronavirus pandemic , which has killed more than 45,000 people in the US and prompted widespread stay-at-home orders , changed all that .
Last month , Kallan gave in and signed up for the company ’ s Prime membership program .
“ I ’ m 70 , got [ a ] couple of health issues that make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she said to explain her decision .
“ I thought I ’ d never have a reason to join .
Sadly , it ’ s all different now.
” Kallan is one of around 100 readers who responded to a Recode survey about what ’ s changed in their Amazon shopping experience since the pandemic started .
Dozens of them reported that practical challenges have turned the company ’ s usually reliable service into a frustrating and uncertain process , with delayed shipping dates , limited supplies and services , and confusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are delivered sooner than essential ones like toilet paper .
Others expressed serious reservations about the company ’ s business and labor practices .
While Kallan says she plans to eventually cancel her membership , most survey respondents say they aren ’ t going anywhere : Amazon is still their best option — and as Recode has previously reported , that ’ s probably going to be the case whenever the pandemic ends .
“ [ U ] nfortunately , nothing beats Amazon ’ s range of products and quick delivery , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Plano , Texas , told Recode in a survey response .
“ Regardless of how I feel about them as a company , I rely too much on their service.
” Responses to Recode ’ s survey also correspond with new data from two external research firms that shows that Amazon Prime membership sales rose significantly as the coronavirus pandemic spread .
Sales of Amazon Prime memberships in the US increased 10 percent year over year for the weeks of March 16 and March 23 , according to estimates from the research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began to force shutdowns in big metro areas around the country .
Those weekly Prime membership increases are the largest for Amazon since early November , a time of year in which the company typically sees a holiday season bump in signups .
At the same time , results from a Consumer Intelligence Research Partners ( CIRP ) survey show that the rate at which Amazon shoppers converted from a free Amazon Prime trial into a paid Prime member in the first quarter of 2020 was the highest it ’ s been in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the quickest shipping … and in times when consumers are concerned about getting the supplies they need , knowing that their order is going through the most efficient shipping channel is probably appealing , ” said Josh Lowitz of CIRP .
An Amazon spokesperson would not directly comment on the data from the research firms , but highlighted in a statement that Prime offers many perks beyond fast shipping , such as unlimited streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows .
It ’ s not surprising that the Amazon shopping experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime shipping promises — have bent under the weight of pandemic-induced shopping demand .
Even retailers with decades more experience like Walmart and Target have had serious trouble keeping high-demand products in stock and are warning customers about significant delays .
Lockdowns have shuttered many of Amazon ’ s brick-and-mortar competitors that sell nonessential items like apparel , and many consumers would rather order essential items like cleaning supplies and canned food from home rather than visit grocery stores that remain open .
The company didn ’ t have much time to prepare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Amazon ’ s warehouse network has also been disrupted by high rates of absence and new safety measures that can decrease efficiency .
Other types of problems have arisen as Amazon has prioritized shipment of its most in-demand items .
For several days in late March , Amazon hid faster delivery options on some nonessential items sold by its own sellers in what the company told Recode was an “ unintended ” error after I pointed out the issue .
That meant Amazon was featuring product listings for certain items in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when marketplace sellers were offering the same products at the same price with earlier delivery promises .
In the week that followed the fix , sellers told Recode that Amazon was now displaying artificially late delivery dates for items sellers were shipping themselves , which was scaring off some shoppers .
After Recode alerted Amazon , the company called it an “ error ” and said it fixed the issue .
These errors not only made it more confusing to shop on Amazon , but they also harmed some marketplace sellers who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own facilities while their inventory in Amazon warehouses wasn ’ t getting shipped out because the items were deemed nonessential .
“ That was catastrophic for five days , ” said Matt Altschul , CEO of Smartish , a maker of cellphone cases and other accessories .
Smartish ’ s weekly sales on Amazon were down 50 percent in mid-April from the average weekly total in the eight weeks leading up to mid-March .
“ Nobody was buying the products .
Conversion rates dropped in half.
” Today , Amazon accounts for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales , and the Prime program is perhaps the biggest reason why .
Prime members shop more frequently and spend more annually than non-Prime members do , and they often price-compare across other websites less .
Jeff Bezos said in January that Amazon has more than 150 million paying Prime members worldwide , and CIRP estimates there are now 118 million Prime members in the US alone , where most customers pay $ 119 a year for an annual membership or $ 12.99 a month .
Yet , the most utilized perk that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shipping on tens of millions of products for no extra fee — hasn ’ t been offered for many Amazon products during the pandemic .
For 35-year-old Steve Sanchez of Fresno , California , these shipping delays and other frustrations negated his reason for paying for a Prime membership , so he canceled .
“ I understand the Covid-19 pandemic is causing the delays , but for Amazon to still charge full price for their Prime service is ridiculous , ” he wrote in a message to Recode .
“ I am surprised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fee .
It would have been a good PR move on their part .
All over Twitter I see people posting about the Prime delays .
I ’ m not the only one who is unhappy.
” But Sanchez seems to be in the minority of Prime members who cancel the service , according to Recode ’ s survey .
Tiffany Lopinsky , a 26-year-old from Boston , Massachusetts , said Amazon and Prime shipping has still been the best option for ordering online during the pandemic .
“ I already shop for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Amazon has been the most reliable of any retailer I ’ ve ordered from during the coronavirus outbreak , ” she told Recode in a survey response .
“ I ’ ve had Target , Walmart , and Chewy online orders canceled or significantly delayed .
Amazon has met or exceeded their shipping timeline on every order I ’ ve placed .
Other retailers have overpromised on shipping in order to capture my order , then underdelivered , which I find manipulative and frustrating !
” Lee Hwang , a 52-year-old resident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a host of confusion on Amazon over the past month , but still doesn ’ t see herself “ canceling my Prime membership immediately.
” “ For some reason , identical items can have very different delivery dates , ” she wrote to Recode .
“ For example , I wanted a set of polyurethane casters for my office chair .
Most of them had delivery dates three weeks out .
Some had delivery dates within three days and were only a few dollars more expensive .
Pipe wrenches had delivery dates three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 45 set of three .
Why ?
I don ’ t know.
” This confusion has prompted Hwang to shop more on Etsy and eBay during the crisis “ because availability and pricing at Amazon is so variable and because I wonder about the safety of the company ’ s warehouse workers.
” Some other survey respondents echoed Hwang ’ s behavior shift ; they are sticking with Prime but also shopping from other shopping sites that they wouldn ’ t have before , to fill in the gaps .
If that behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some other e-commerce sites besides Amazon will also benefit as more overall shopping transfers to digital storefronts .
But if the shipping delays and other issues connected to the pandemic can ’ t knock most people off of the Prime bandwagon , it ’ s hard to imagine something that will .
Open Sourced is made possible by 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox today .

Sim Kallan has long opposed shopping on Amazon.
“Ordinarily I would NEVER use Amazon,” the El Cerrito, California, resident wrote to Recode in an email. “I hate giving that kind of octopus company my $$ and my valuable personal information.”
But the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 45,000 people in the US and prompted widespread stay-at-home orders, changed all that. Last month, Kallan gave in and signed up for the company’s Prime membership program.
“I’m 70, got [a] couple of health issues that make me terribly vulnerable to the virus,” she said to explain her decision. “I thought I’d never have a reason to join. Sadly, it’s all different now.”
Kallan is one of around 100 readers who responded to a Recode survey about what’s changed in their Amazon shopping experience since the pandemic started. Dozens of them reported that practical challenges have turned the company’s usually reliable service into a frustrating and uncertain process, with delayed shipping dates, limited supplies and services, and confusion as nonessential items like Harry Potter books are delivered sooner than essential ones like toilet paper. Others expressed serious reservations about the company’s business and labor practices. While Kallan says she plans to eventually cancel her membership, most survey respondents say they aren’t going anywhere: Amazon is still their best option — and as Recode has previously reported, that’s probably going to be the case whenever the pandemic ends.
“[U]nfortunately, nothing beats Amazon’s range of products and quick delivery,” Sarah Durham, a 41-year-old Prime member from Plano, Texas, told Recode in a survey response. “Regardless of how I feel about them as a company, I rely too much on their service.”
Responses to Recode’s survey also correspond with new data from two external research firms that shows that Amazon Prime membership sales rose significantly as the coronavirus pandemic spread. Sales of Amazon Prime memberships in the US increased 10 percent year over year for the weeks of March 16 and March 23, according to estimates from the research firm Second Measure, as the virus began to force shutdowns in big metro areas around the country. Those weekly Prime membership increases are the largest for Amazon since early November, a time of year in which the company typically sees a holiday season bump in signups.
At the same time, results from a Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP) survey show that the rate at which Amazon shoppers converted from a free Amazon Prime trial into a paid Prime member in the first quarter of 2020 was the highest it’s been in two years.
“Prime members do get the quickest shipping … and in times when consumers are concerned about getting the supplies they need, knowing that their order is going through the most efficient shipping channel is probably appealing,” said Josh Lowitz of CIRP.
An Amazon spokesperson would not directly comment on the data from the research firms, but highlighted in a statement that Prime offers many perks beyond fast shipping, such as unlimited streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows.
It’s not surprising that the Amazon shopping experience — and its normal one- and two-day Prime shipping promises — have bent under the weight of pandemic-induced shopping demand. Even retailers with decades more experience like Walmart and Target have had serious trouble keeping high-demand products in stock and are warning customers about significant delays. Lockdowns have shuttered many of Amazon’s brick-and-mortar competitors that sell nonessential items like apparel, and many consumers would rather order essential items like cleaning supplies and canned food from home rather than visit grocery stores that remain open. The company didn’t have much time to prepare for this sky-high demand, and meanwhile, Amazon’s warehouse network has also been disrupted by high rates of absence and new safety measures that can decrease efficiency.
Other types of problems have arisen as Amazon has prioritized shipment of its most in-demand items. For several days in late March, Amazon hid faster delivery options on some nonessential items sold by its own sellers in what the company told Recode was an “unintended” error after I pointed out the issue. That meant Amazon was featuring product listings for certain items in its warehouses that had far-off delivery dates even when marketplace sellers were offering the same products at the same price with earlier delivery promises. In the week that followed the fix, sellers told Recode that Amazon was now displaying artificially late delivery dates for items sellers were shipping themselves, which was scaring off some shoppers. After Recode alerted Amazon, the company called it an “error” and said it fixed the issue.
These errors not only made it more confusing to shop on Amazon, but they also harmed some marketplace sellers who had overhauled their operations to ship items from their own facilities while their inventory in Amazon warehouses wasn’t getting shipped out because the items were deemed nonessential.
“That was catastrophic for five days,” said Matt Altschul, CEO of Smartish, a maker of cellphone cases and other accessories. Smartish’s weekly sales on Amazon were down 50 percent in mid-April from the average weekly total in the eight weeks leading up to mid-March. “Nobody was buying the products. Conversion rates dropped in half.”
Today, Amazon accounts for nearly 40 percent of all US e-commerce sales, and the Prime program is perhaps the biggest reason why. Prime members shop more frequently and spend more annually than non-Prime members do, and they often price-compare across other websites less. Jeff Bezos said in January that Amazon has more than 150 million paying Prime members worldwide, and CIRP estimates there are now 118 million Prime members in the US alone, where most customers pay $119 a year for an annual membership or $12.99 a month.
Yet, the most utilized perk that comes with Prime — two-day and one-day shipping on tens of millions of products for no extra fee — hasn’t been offered for many Amazon products during the pandemic.
For 35-year-old Steve Sanchez of Fresno, California, these shipping delays and other frustrations negated his reason for paying for a Prime membership, so he canceled.
“I understand the Covid-19 pandemic is causing the delays, but for Amazon to still charge full price for their Prime service is ridiculous,” he wrote in a message to Recode. “I am surprised they didn’t waive the monthly fee. It would have been a good PR move on their part. All over Twitter I see people posting about the Prime delays. I’m not the only one who is unhappy.”
But Sanchez seems to be in the minority of Prime members who cancel the service, according to Recode’s survey.
Tiffany Lopinsky, a 26-year-old from Boston, Massachusetts, said Amazon and Prime shipping has still been the best option for ordering online during the pandemic.
“I already shop for 95% of my stuff online, but Amazon has been the most reliable of any retailer I’ve ordered from during the coronavirus outbreak,” she told Recode in a survey response. “I’ve had Target, Walmart, and Chewy online orders canceled or significantly delayed. Amazon has met or exceeded their shipping timeline on every order I’ve placed. Other retailers have overpromised on shipping in order to capture my order, then underdelivered, which I find manipulative and frustrating!”
Lee Hwang, a 52-year-old resident of Berkeley, California, has encountered a host of confusion on Amazon over the past month, but still doesn’t see herself “canceling my Prime membership immediately.”
“For some reason, identical items can have very different delivery dates,” she wrote to Recode. “For example, I wanted a set of polyurethane casters for my office chair. Most of them had delivery dates three weeks out. Some had delivery dates within three days and were only a few dollars more expensive. Pipe wrenches had delivery dates three weeks out, except for a $45 set of three. Why? I don’t know.”
This confusion has prompted Hwang to shop more on Etsy and eBay during the crisis “because availability and pricing at Amazon is so variable and because I wonder about the safety of the company’s warehouse workers.”
Some other survey respondents echoed Hwang’s behavior shift; they are sticking with Prime but also shopping from other shopping sites that they wouldn’t have before, to fill in the gaps. If that behavior becomes widespread, it is possible that some other e-commerce sites besides Amazon will also benefit as more overall shopping transfers to digital storefronts.
But if the shipping delays and other issues connected to the pandemic can’t knock most people off of the Prime bandwagon, it’s hard to imagine something that will.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.