vox--2020-07-08--Just 4 states meet these basic criteria to reopen and stay safe

All 50 states have moved to reopen their economies , at least partially , after shutting down businesses and gatherings in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
But a Vox analysis suggests that most states haven ’ t made the preparations needed to contain future waves of the pandemic — putting themselves at risk for a rise in Covid-19 cases and deaths should they continue to reopen , which some states have already seen .
Experts told me states need three things to be ready to reopen .
State leaders , from the governor to the legislature to health departments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no longer spreading unabated .
They need the testing capacity to track and isolate the sick and their contacts .
And they need the hospital capacity to handle a potential surge in Covid-19 cases .
More specifically , states should meet at least five basic criteria .
They should see a two-week drop in coronavirus cases , indicating that the virus is actually abating .
They should have fewer than four daily new cases per 100,000 people per day — to show that cases aren ’ t just dropping , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day , letting them quickly track and contain outbreaks .
They need an overall positive rate for tests below 5 percent — another critical indicator for testing capacity .
And states should have at least 40 percent of their ICU beds free to actually treat an influx of people stricken with Covid-19 should it be necessary .
These metrics line up with a range of expert recommendations , as well as the various policy plans put out by both independent groups and government officials to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metrics doesn ’ t mean that a state is ready to reopen its economy — a process that describes a wide range of local and state actions .
And failing them doesn ’ t mean a state is in immediate danger of a coronavirus outbreak if it starts to reopen ; with Covid-19 , there ’ s always an element of luck and other factors .
But with these metrics , states can gauge if they have repressed the coronavirus while building the capacity to contain future outbreaks should they come .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready states are for the next phase of the fight .
So far , most states are not there .
As of July 8 , just four states — Connecticut , New Hampshire , New Jersey , and New York — met four or five of the goals , which demonstrates strong progress .
Fifteen states and Washington , DC , hit two or three of the benchmarks .
The other 31 achieved zero or one .
Even the states that have made the most progress aren ’ t necessarily ready to fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment , the threat of the coronavirus is still out there .
Especially in states that suffered big outbreaks , such as New York , even a lot of progress doesn ’ t mean all the underlying problems that led to an epidemic are gone .
Nor do the metrics cover everything that states should do before they can safely reopen .
They don ’ t show , for example , if states have the capacity to do contact tracing , in which people who came into contact with someone who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ disease detectives ” and quarantined .
Contact tracing is key to containing an epidemic , but states don ’ t track how many contact tracers they ’ ve hired in a standardized , readily available way .
States also don ’ t have ready data for health care workers ’ access to personal protective equipment , such as masks and gloves — a critical measure of the health care system ’ s readiness that ’ s difficult to track .
But the map gives an idea of how much progress states have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it contained .
States will have to follow these kinds of metrics as they reopen .
If the numbers — especially coronavirus cases — go in the wrong direction again , experts said governments should be ready to bring back restrictions .
If states move too quickly to reopen or respond too slowly to a turn for the worse , they could see a renewed surge in Covid-19 cases .
“ Planning for reclosing is part of planning for reopening , ” Mark McClellan , a health policy expert at Duke , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there will be needs for pauses and going back — hopefully not too much if we do this carefully.
” So this will be a work in progress , at least until we get a Covid-19 vaccine or the pandemic otherwise ends , whether by natural or human means .
But the metrics can at least help give states an idea of how far along they are in finally starting to open back up .
What ’ s the goal ?
A 10 percent drop in daily new coronavirus cases compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent drop in cases compared to one week ago , based on data from the New York Times .
Which states meet the goal ?
New Hampshire — just one state .
Why is this important ?
Guidance from the White House and several independent groups emphasize that states need to see coronavirus cases drop consistently over two weeks before they can say they ’ re ready to begin reopening .
After all , nothing shows you ’ re out of an outbreak like a sustained reduction in infections .
“ The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to have a continued decrease in cases , ” Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist , told me .
“ It ’ s a huge piece.
” A simple reduction in cases compared to two weeks prior isn ’ t enough ; it has to be a significant drop , and it has to be sustained over the two weeks .
So for Vox ’ s map , states need at least a 10 percent drop in daily new cases compared to two weeks prior and at least a 5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reported cases can be a reflection of testing capacity : More testing will pick up more cases , and less testing will pick up fewer .
So it ’ s important that the decrease occur while testing is either growing or already sufficient .
And since states have recently boosted their testing abilities , increases in Covid-19 cases can also reflect improvements in testing .
Even after meeting this benchmark , continued caution is warranted .
If a state meets the goal of a reduction in cases compared to one and two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent days , then perhaps it ’ s not time to reopen just yet .
“ You have to use common sense , ” Cyrus Shahpar , a director at the public health policy group Resolve to Save Lives , told me .
What ’ s the goal ?
Fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the New York Times and Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Connecticut , Hawaii , Maine , Massachusetts , New Hampshire , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — eight states .
Why is this important ?
One of the best ways to know you ’ re getting away from a disease outbreak is to no longer see a high number of daily new infections .
While there ’ s no universally accepted number , experts said that four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people is a decent ceiling .
“ If I go from one to two to three [ coronavirus cases a day ] , it ’ s different than going from 1,000 to 2,000 to 3,000 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same , ” Shahpar said .
“ That ’ s why you have to take into account the overall level , too.
” To put it another way , it ’ s not enough for daily new Covid-19 cases to drop , even for weeks .
Cases also should fall below a certain level before a state can be deemed truly safe .
At the same time , if your state is now below four daily new cases per 100,000 but it ’ s seen a recent uptick in cases , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst-hit states , after all , began with a handful of cases before they saw an exponential surge .
But if your state is below the threshold , it ’ s in a pretty solid place relative to most other states .
What ’ s the goal ?
At least 150 tests per 100,000 people per day , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project and Census Bureau .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Louisiana , Maine , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Montana , Nevada , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Carolina , North Dakota , Oklahoma , Rhode Island , South Carolina , Tennessee , Texas , Utah , Washington , and Wisconsin — for a total of 32 states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
Why is this important ?
Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic , experts have argued that the US needs the capacity for at least 500,000 Covid-19 tests a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adds up to about 150 new tests per 100,000 people per day .
Testing is crucial to getting the coronavirus outbreak under control .
When paired with contact tracing , testing lets officials track the scale of the outbreak , isolate the sick , quarantine those the sick came into contact with , and deploy community-wide efforts as necessary .
Testing and tracing are how other countries , like South Korea and Germany , have managed to control their outbreaks and started to reopen their economies .
The idea , experts said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embers before they turn into full wildfires .
“ States should be shoring up their testing capacity not just for what it looks like right now while everyone ’ s in their homes , but as people start to move more , ” Jen Kates , the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me .
“ As people start doing more movement , you ’ ll have to test more , because people are going to come into contact with each other more.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts have recommended as many as millions of tests nationwide each day .
But 500,000 is the most often-cited goal , and it ’ s , at the very least , a good start .
This goal is supposed to be for diagnostic tests , not antibody tests .
Diagnostic tests gauge whether a person has the virus in their system and is , therefore , sick right at the moment of the test .
Antibody tests check if someone ever developed antibodies to the virus to see if they had ever been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests give a more recent gauge of the level of infection , they ’ re seen as much more reliable for evaluating the current state of the Covid-19 outbreak in a state .
But some states have mixed up numbers for diagnostic and antibody tests , which could skew the data collected by the Covid Tracking Project .
“ The virus isn ’ t going to care whether they were manipulating the numbers or not in order to look more favorable ; it ’ s going to continue to spread , ” Crystal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
“ It ’ s better to really understand what ’ s going on and report that accurately.
” For states honestly reporting these numbers , though , they ’ re a critical measure of their ability to detect , control , and contain coronavirus outbreaks .
What ’ s the goal ?
Below 5 percent of coronavirus tests coming back positive over the past week , based on data from the Covid Tracking Project .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kentucky , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesota , Missouri , Montana , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Dakota , Rhode Island , Vermont , Virginia , and West Virginia — for a total of 22 states .
Washington , DC , did as well .
Why is this important ?
The positive or positivity rate , which tracks how many tests come back positive for Covid-19 , is another way to measure testing capacity .
Generally , a higher positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing happening .
An area with adequate testing should be testing lots and lots of people , many of whom don ’ t have the disease or don ’ t show severe symptoms .
The positive testing rate in South Korea , for example , is below 2 percent .
High positive rates indicate only people with obvious symptoms are getting tested , so there ’ s not quite enough testing to match the scope of an outbreak .
Previously , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) recommended a maximum positive rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more recently recommended 5 percent , which is in line with the rate for countries that have managed to better control their outbreaks , like Germany , New Zealand , and South Korea .
“ Even lower is better , ” Shahpar said .
The positive rate data is subject to the same limitations as the overall testing data from the Covid Tracking Project .
So if a state includes antibody tests in its test count , it could skew the positive rate to look better than it is .
States only risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What ’ s the goal ?
Below 60 percent occupancy of ICU beds in hospitals , based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Which states meet the goal ?
Alaska , Connecticut , Idaho , Illinois , Iowa , Kansas , Massachusetts , Nebraska , New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Dakota , Ohio , Vermont , and Wisconsin — for a total of 16 states .
Why is this important ?
If a pandemic hits , the health care system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most severe cases and potentially save lives .
That ’ s the key goal of “ flattening the curve ” and “ raising the line , ” in which social distancing helps reduce the spread of the disease so the health care system can maintain and grow its capacity to treat an influx of Covid-19 patients .
“ There ’ s this idea that in six weeks we can open more things , ” Amesh Adalja , a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told me .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s all about making sure that the case count isn ’ t too immense for our hospital system to deal with.
” The aim is to avoid the nightmare scenario that Italy went through when it had more Covid-19 cases than its health care system could handle , leading to hospitals turning away even dangerously ill patients .
To gauge this , experts recommended looking at ICU capacity , with states aiming to have at most 60 percent occupancy in their ICUs .
A big limitation in the metric : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of only some hospitals in each state .
So it might not be fully representative of hospital capacity throughout an entire state .
But it ’ s the best , most current data available .
Hitting the benchmarks is the beginning , not the end Vox ’ s map is just one way of tracking success against the coronavirus .
Other groups have come up with their own measures , including Covid Act Now , Covid Exit Strategy , and Test and Trace .
Vox ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of these other examples , while focusing not just on the state of the pandemic but also on states ’ readiness to contain Covid-19 outbreaks in the future .
Very few states hit all the marks recommended by experts .
But even those that do shouldn ’ t consider the pandemic over .
They should continue to improve — for example , getting the positive rate below 1 percent , as in New Zealand — and look at even more granular metrics , such as at the city or county level .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state is better equipped to contain future coronavirus outbreaks as it eases previous restrictions .
Experts emphasized that states have to keep hitting all these goals week after week and day after day — Covid-19 cases must remain low , testing ability needs to stay high , and hospital capacity should be good enough for an influx of patients — until the pandemic is truly over , whether thanks to a vaccine or other means .
Otherwise , a future wave of coronavirus cases , as seen in past pandemics , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to have all the metrics met , ” Popescu said .
“ This needs to be a very incremental , slow process to ensure success.
” And if the numbers do start trending in the wrong direction , states should be ready to shut down at least some parts of the economy again .
Maybe not as much as before , as we learn which places are truly at risk of increasing spread .
But experts caution that future shutdowns will likely be necessary to some extent .
“ I do worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cases and hot spots , ” Watson said .
“ We do need to keep pushing on building those capacities .
… Otherwise , we ’ re just rolling the dice on the spread of the virus .
It ’ s better if we have more control of the spread.
” That ’ s another reason these metrics , along with broader coronavirus surveillance , are so important : They not only help show how far along states are in dealing with their current Covid-19 outbreaks , but will help track progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

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


vox--2020-07-08--The Supreme Court stripped thousands of teachers of their civil rights

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru is a difficult case , which raises profound questions about how much control a religious institution has over the individuals who instruct others in the faith .
But the Court ’ s resolution of Morrissey-Berru is also a fairly maximalist decision .
The upshot of Justice Samuel Alito ’ s opinion for a 7-2 Court is that thousands of teachers at religious schools are no longer protected by anti-discrimination laws .
If one of them is fired for being Black , or gay , or a woman , the law may do nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ ministerial exception ” to civil rights laws .
As a general rule , religious institutions have total control over whom they employ as “ ministers.
” That means that if a church wants to fire its preacher because of that preacher ’ s race or gender , it may do so , even though such discrimination ordinarily is illegal .
As Alito explains , the Constitution protects “ the right of churches and other religious institutions to decide matters ‘ of faith and doctrine ’ without government intrusion.
” Implicit in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect to internal management decisions that are essential to the institution ’ s central mission .
And a component of this autonomy is the selection of the individuals who play certain key roles.
” Yet while the Supreme Court held in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC ( 2012 ) that “ ministers ” are beyond the reach of civil rights laws , it provided only the vaguest guidelines on who qualifies as a “ minister.
” Alito ’ s opinion in Morrissey-Berru adds some meat to those dry bones .
Under his opinion , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith , judicial intervention into disputes between the school and the teacher threatens the school ’ s independence in a way that the First Amendment does not allow.
” Thus , a teacher at a religious school whose duties include religious instruction qualifies as a “ minister , ” and is therefore unprotected by anti-discrimination law .
The plaintiffs in Morrissey-Berru had fairly minimal religious duties One upshot of Morrissey-Berru is that the ministerial exception attaches even to teachers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in secular instruction .
The case concerns two Catholic school teachers , Agnes Morrissey-Berru and Kristen Biel , who claim they were fired for illegitimate reasons .
Morrissey-Berru alleges age discrimination , while Biel ’ s estate claims that she illegally lost her job after she “ requested a leave of absence to obtain treatment for breast cancer ” — she eventually died of the disease .
The schools , meanwhile , claim that both women ’ s contracts were not renewed due to legitimate concerns about their job performance .
But these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the ministerial exception places both women beyond the reach of civil rights laws such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act .
Both women were elementary school teachers at Catholic schools .
Like most elementary school teachers , they taught a broad range of subjects rather than specializing in any one area .
Most of their time was spent on secular topics such as arithmetic or grammar , but both women also spent some time instructing their students in the Catholic faith .
Biel , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion for 200 minutes each week ” and administer a weekly test on religious subjects .
Under Alito ’ s decision , this fairly small amount of religious instruction — a little more than three hours a week — was enough to trigger the ministerial exception .
“ Implicit in our decision in Hosanna-Tabor , ” Alito writes , “ was a recognition that educating young people in their faith , inculcating its teachings , and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unclear how far the ministerial exception will extend to non-teachers One upshot of Hosanna-Tabor is that many teachers — perhaps all teachers in religious schools with good lawyers — are no longer protected from discrimination .
Teachers who already provide religious instruction are now overwhelmingly likely to be classified as “ ministers , ” and religious schools could potentially bring all of their teachers within the ministerial exception ’ s umbrella by assigning them new religious duties .
But what of other employees of religious institutions ?
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of countless coaches , camp counselors , nurses , social-service workers , in-house lawyers , media-relations personnel , and many others who work for religious institutions ” are now uncertain .
Alito ’ s opinion is vague regarding these employees , stating that courts must “ take all relevant circumstances into account and to determine whether each particular position implicated the fundamental purpose of the exception.
” But its heavy focus on individuals who teach religion suggests that the ministerial exception could sweep quite broadly .
Here ’ s a personal example : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a summer job as a junior counselor at a Christian-identified summer camp .
I spent the bulk of my time on entirely secular activities — like playing capture the flag or teaching students to refer to the rear end of a boat as the “ stern.
” But a couple of evenings a week , I would lead a group of children in a 10-minute “ devotion ” and close that devotion with a prayer .
In effect , I spent 20 minutes a week providing religious instruction to these children .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ self as a “ minister ” ?
Morrissey-Berru , with its emphasis on employees tasked with “ educating young people in their faith , ” suggests that I very well may have qualified , as could many other workers with minimal religious duties .
Meanwhile , it is likely that at least some employers will try to game Morrissey-Berru to immunize themselves from liability for discrimination .
Consider , for example , a 2015 manual called Protecting Your Ministry From Sexual Orientation Gender Identity Lawsuits , which was published by the Southern Baptist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That manual advised religious employers to assign religious duties to low-level employees in an attempt to bring them under the ministerial exception : It is still unclear whether a receptionist , who is told to “ answer basic questions about the church ’ s faith ” in a bad-faith attempt to strip that receptionist of their civil rights , would qualify as a minister .
Alito ’ s opinion does instruct courts to “ take all relevant circumstances into account ” when determining “ whether each particular position implicated the fundamental purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very least , Morrissey-Berru is likely to plunge victims of such tactics into months — or even years — of expensive litigation just to determine whether they have any rights at all .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru is a difficult case, which raises profound questions about how much control a religious institution has over the individuals who instruct others in the faith.
But the Court’s resolution of Morrissey-Berru is also a fairly maximalist decision. The upshot of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion for a 7-2 Court is that thousands of teachers at religious schools are no longer protected by anti-discrimination laws. If one of them is fired for being Black, or gay, or a woman, the law may do nothing to intervene.
The case involves the “ministerial exception” to civil rights laws. As a general rule, religious institutions have total control over whom they employ as “ministers.” That means that if a church wants to fire its preacher because of that preacher’s race or gender, it may do so, even though such discrimination ordinarily is illegal.
As Alito explains, the Constitution protects “the right of churches and other religious institutions to decide matters ‘of faith and doctrine’ without government intrusion.” Implicit in this right is a certain “autonomy with respect to internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central mission. And a component of this autonomy is the selection of the individuals who play certain key roles.”
Yet while the Supreme Court held in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (2012) that “ministers” are beyond the reach of civil rights laws, it provided only the vaguest guidelines on who qualifies as a “minister.” Alito’s opinion in Morrissey-Berru adds some meat to those dry bones. Under his opinion, “when a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial intervention into disputes between the school and the teacher threatens the school’s independence in a way that the First Amendment does not allow.”
Thus, a teacher at a religious school whose duties include religious instruction qualifies as a “minister,” and is therefore unprotected by anti-discrimination law.
The plaintiffs in Morrissey-Berru had fairly minimal religious duties
One upshot of Morrissey-Berru is that the ministerial exception attaches even to teachers who spend the bulk of their time engaged in secular instruction. The case concerns two Catholic school teachers, Agnes Morrissey-Berru and Kristen Biel, who claim they were fired for illegitimate reasons.
Morrissey-Berru alleges age discrimination, while Biel’s estate claims that she illegally lost her job after she “requested a leave of absence to obtain treatment for breast cancer” — she eventually died of the disease. The schools, meanwhile, claim that both women’s contracts were not renewed due to legitimate concerns about their job performance.
But these factual disputes will never be resolved, because the ministerial exception places both women beyond the reach of civil rights laws such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Both women were elementary school teachers at Catholic schools. Like most elementary school teachers, they taught a broad range of subjects rather than specializing in any one area. Most of their time was spent on secular topics such as arithmetic or grammar, but both women also spent some time instructing their students in the Catholic faith. Biel, for example, was “required to teach religion for 200 minutes each week” and administer a weekly test on religious subjects.
Under Alito’s decision, this fairly small amount of religious instruction — a little more than three hours a week — was enough to trigger the ministerial exception. “Implicit in our decision in Hosanna-Tabor,” Alito writes, “was a recognition that educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private religious school.”
It’s unclear how far the ministerial exception will extend to non-teachers
One upshot of Hosanna-Tabor is that many teachers — perhaps all teachers in religious schools with good lawyers — are no longer protected from discrimination. Teachers who already provide religious instruction are now overwhelmingly likely to be classified as “ministers,” and religious schools could potentially bring all of their teachers within the ministerial exception’s umbrella by assigning them new religious duties.
But what of other employees of religious institutions? As Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes in dissent, “the rights of countless coaches, camp counselors, nurses, social-service workers, in-house lawyers, media-relations personnel, and many others who work for religious institutions” are now uncertain.
Alito’s opinion is vague regarding these employees, stating that courts must “take all relevant circumstances into account and to determine whether each particular position implicated the fundamental purpose of the exception.” But its heavy focus on individuals who teach religion suggests that the ministerial exception could sweep quite broadly.
Here’s a personal example: Starting when I was 16, I had a summer job as a junior counselor at a Christian-identified summer camp. I spent the bulk of my time on entirely secular activities — like playing capture the flag or teaching students to refer to the rear end of a boat as the “stern.” But a couple of evenings a week, I would lead a group of children in a 10-minute “devotion” and close that devotion with a prayer.
In effect, I spent 20 minutes a week providing religious instruction to these children.
Was that enough to qualify my 16-year-old self as a “minister”? Morrissey-Berru, with its emphasis on employees tasked with “educating young people in their faith,” suggests that I very well may have qualified, as could many other workers with minimal religious duties.
Meanwhile, it is likely that at least some employers will try to game Morrissey-Berru to immunize themselves from liability for discrimination. Consider, for example, a 2015 manual called Protecting Your Ministry From Sexual Orientation Gender Identity Lawsuits, which was published by the Southern Baptist Convention and a leading Christian-right law firm. That manual advised religious employers to assign religious duties to low-level employees in an attempt to bring them under the ministerial exception:
When feasible, a religious organization should assign its employees duties that involve ministerial teaching, or other spiritual qualifications — duties that directly further the religious mission. For example, if a church receptionist answers the phone, the job description might detail how the receptionist is required to answer basic questions about the church’s faith, provide religious resources, or pray with callers. Consider requiring all employees to participate in devotional or prayer time, or to even lead these on occasion.
It is still unclear whether a receptionist, who is told to “answer basic questions about the church’s faith” in a bad-faith attempt to strip that receptionist of their civil rights, would qualify as a minister. Alito’s opinion does instruct courts to “take all relevant circumstances into account” when determining “whether each particular position implicated the fundamental purpose of the exception.”
But, at the very least, Morrissey-Berru is likely to plunge victims of such tactics into months — or even years — of expensive litigation just to determine whether they have any rights at all.


vox--2020-07-08--A rabbi explains how to make sense of suffering

The chaos of the past few months has got me thinking a lot about suffering , what it means , and how we should respond to it .
Against the backdrop of a pandemic , an economic crisis , and racial unrest , I wanted to step back — way , way back — and revisit core questions about our life together and our responsibilities to ourselves and to each other .
As part of Future Perfect ’ s new limited-series podcast , The Way Through , my colleague Sigal Samuel and I are sitting down with theologians and philosophers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big questions and how they can help us navigate this difficult moment .
My first conversation is with David Wolpe , senior rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and the author of many books , including Making Loss Matter : Creating Meaning in Difficult Times .
It was published in 1999 , but it feels relevant for reasons that I hope are clear : These are hard times , we ’ re surrounded by pain and anger , and the way forward is very much uncertain .
There ’ s a natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or to look for ways to rationalize it or explain it away .
In this conversation , we lean into it .
There are plenty of smart people thinking and writing about what we ought to do and how we ought to do it .
This is an attempt to dig into the theology of suffering and ask how it can point us in a fruitful direction .
You can hear our entire conversation in the podcast here .
A transcript of our conversation , edited for length and clarity , follows .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Through on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher or wherever you listen to podcasts .
I should say at the top that I ’ m not a believer , but , like you , I went through a militant atheism phase when I was younger , and while I ’ m still what you ’ d call an agnostic , I ’ ve come to appreciate the richness and complexity of religion — or at least see it as more than a set of truth claims .
Well , thank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did a bunch of public debates with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and others , and I generally found that the real dividing point wasn ’ t so much about proving or disproving intellectual claims .
I tried to keep arguing that religion was so much broader and deeper than their conception of this man in the sky , and I think that , for a lot of people , their religion is less about truth claims than it is about the way they live and they try to get meaning and depth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
That ’ s partly why I wanted to talk to you .
This is obviously a very difficult time and I wonder how it looks from your point of view ?
What do you think is happening in our society right now ?
I think that the spiritual malaise of the society , the sense of the meaningless at the core , is partly a result of the fact that our tools , which make us so much more efficient , also serve to isolate us from one another .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolation , and people ask deep questions about what is this about and what is this for and how can life just change on a dime and how am I supposed to live in the absence of all the things that I used to take for granted and care about ?
In other words , we have been suddenly plunged into an existential crisis , and we ’ re not a society in general that turns to deep questions of life meaning .
We are a society more of doing things and achieving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has forced us back to be reflective , and I think that ’ s an uncomfortable position for a lot of people .
“ Faith is not to allow the fear or the loneliness or the despair to be the final word ” What are we being forced to reflect upon in this moment that we ’ re normally able to avoid ?
When someone suffers a sudden loss , they invariably wonder , “ What is the purpose of life and why is it that I didn ’ t realize how ephemeral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that that ’ s what as a society we ’ re going through .
How is it that it is possible for somebody to bite a bat in Wuhan and the world closes down ?
And it ’ s not just that it ’ s hard to understand , it is impossible to understand .
It ’ s far beyond our ability to process .
And so [ there are ] the deepest questions of what is this all about and how is it that someone can lead a perfectly decent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this bizarre disease , which is like veering off the highway of life in such a radical way , how is that possible to cope with ?
And how do we go on and make meaning in a world in which meaning can be so immediately and devastatingly derailed ?
You wrote in your book , “ Unless we see ourselves as spiritual beings , we shall never truly advance in our understanding of humanity .
In times of grief , we need to deal with the unreasonable and only traditions that speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us through.
” I ’ d love to know what you meant by that .
We need to see ourselves as more than just stuff .
We have to realize that there is , in addition to all the physical needs of human beings , there is a deep hunger in people to believe that they are attached to something greater than themselves .
William James , the philosopher , said , “ The great use of life is to spend it on something that outlasts it.
” And I think for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fully realized , both as individuals and as a society , we have to think beyond ourselves .
And that is a spiritual decision .
It ’ s not a political or a social or physical decision , it ’ s something that you have to place faith in .
The simplest premises of life , like why should I get up in the morning ?
Or is love meaningful ?
Those aren ’ t things that you can chart or prove .
They ’ re the spiritual basis by which we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle with that , to be honest .
My instinct is to look at the political world through a social scientific lens , to look at the concrete structures that underpin our society and identify that as the root of our problems , but I want to take what you ’ re saying seriously , so I ’ ll ask : What is the unreasonable part of this problem that we must deal with ?
And how can we speak to the human soul right now , in this moment , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep us apart ?
The end of your question helps me speak to the beginning of it , because if you see it through social or political lenses , then the divisions are unbridgeable .
In my own congregation , I have people on the right and people on the left , and I mean the far right and the far left .
And one thing that has impressed me over the past many years is that there is no argument and no means of persuasion that either side will accept from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me an article and says , “ Oh , this is a clincher , ” I see that they believe that one argument or another will prove that their point of view is correct .
But what does unite them is at a funeral when someone they both know dies , or when they ’ re all singing together in prayer , and then you don ’ t know who ’ s a Republican or who ’ s a Democrat , or when someone has a joy or a tragedy in their family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deepest levels of ourselves are not political selves and not social selves , they ’ re spiritual selves .
And when you touch that , this is why religion has the potential to be a tremendous uniter .
It ’ s kind of forced multiplier .
It can be a divider too , but it can be a tremendous uniter when people have very different social or political orientations realize that at bottom they ’ re the same .
I haven ’ t experienced any great losses in this moment , but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that people are dying needlessly , I ’ m angry that the least among us are bearing the greatest burden , as they always do , I ’ m angry that so many seem so content with so much malice and so much incompetence , and I guess ultimately I ’ m angry because I feel so small and the problems feel so big and that fills me with a sense of powerlessness .
And I ’ m not sure what to do with that in terms of turning it into something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for inertia .
I write a weekly column that has been up for close to 30 years in the New York Jewish Week .
The column is 200 words or less every week .
And just last week , it was called Against Anger .
And what I said is that feeling anger is inevitable and sometimes important .
Acting out of anger is the trap .
Because when we act out of anger , we don ’ t act .
Most of the time , we don ’ t act the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better .
No single person can reverse the tide , but they can add their voice , they can give aid and comfort to people who are doing good things , because even as that is happening , we also know that there are doctors and other healthcare workers and scientists who are working around the clock and helping them and giving them support .
My synagogue is distributing food to people who need it most , as are many other synagogues and churches .
We can ’ t , you and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would be helpful , but we can do certain things that matter .
We can find out which charities are the most effective and give to them .
We can man soup kitchens .
We can express our solidarity with people who are suffering .
On the side of my synagogue , we put up a very simple banner .
We ’ ve never put up a banner before , except [ when ] school is opening in September , but we put up a very simple banner that said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sisters against racism.
” And we didn ’ t put it up there because we thought it would change the world , but because we thought , and the emails and letters I ’ ve received since demonstrate that people want to feel not alone .
And if you say to them , “ You ’ re not alone .
I at least am hearing you .
I ’ m not in your position , but I hear you , ” that ’ s more than you might think it is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gift to people who don ’ t know if anyone ’ s listening .
You talk a lot about giving into despair as a kind of sin , but I want to challenge you on one point because I think it illuminates an important point .
What if I were to tell you that there is no God and the world isn ’ t so much dark as indifferent ?
And if there is going to be any justice in the world , it will be the work of human hands , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because one problem I ’ ve had with faith over the years , or at least certain manifestations of faith , is that sometimes it leads to an acceptance of the way things are — that ’ s God ’ s will and that there ’ s nothing we can do about that .
And that there ’ s a kind of quietism in that that I think can get in the way of the sort of action we need to move forward .
I agree with virtually everything you just said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of faith for exactly that reason .
I remember once having a debate years ago , with Sadhguru , who is a well-known Indian guru , who came to my congregation .
A wonderful man in many ways .
A really interesting person .
And I ’ ve had other dialogues with him since , but we had a long debate about reincarnation because I said , “ Look , reincarnation means that whatever life you ’ re living now , it ’ s because of what you did in the past life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is miserable now , you deserve it because in a past life , you lived a certain way.
” I said , “ And that negates everything that I believe that this world is essentially unfair and that you have to do what you can to make it fair.
” I think that our task in this world , and I would say our God-given task , is to do everything we can to make the world as good and as fair as we can , but also to accept ultimately that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can do , but to what we can understand .
The same people who understand that the human eye can ’ t see all the colors and the human ear can ’ t hear all the frequencies , somehow seem to believe that the human brain can understand all the dimensions .
The brain was created by evolution , just like the eye and the ear .
There are infinite aspects to this world that we don ’ t begin to understand .
My faith is not about letting God do stuff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is about trusting that God does stuff that I can ’ t do , that no human being can do .
And believing that I can live in such a way as to fulfill the purpose for which I was sent to this world .
Now , sometimes I do , and sometimes I don ’ t .
I know that very well .
In fact , I ’ ll use a biblical reference since surely I should get at least one biblical reference in as a rabbi .
When the Israelites come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crying out to God and God says to Moses , “ Why are you crying out to me ?
Move forward.
” And I think of that as a motto .
If you ’ re praying for something you could do , that ’ s not it .
Let me give you a different image of prayer .
This is from a 17th-century rabbi named Leona Medina .
He said , “ If you were standing by the side of a lake and you saw a man pulling a boat to the shore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were mistaken about mechanics and motion , that he was pulling the shore to the boat , but that ’ s not true .
He ’ s pulling the boat to the shore.
” He said , “ When people pray , they make the same mistake .
They think what they ’ re doing is pulling God to their wishes .
But when you pray successfully , what you ’ re doing is pulling yourself closer to God.
” So I don ’ t see prayer as inviting God to do things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see prayer as motivating me to do things that God wishes me to do .
“ We ’ ve been suddenly plunged into an existential crisis , and we ’ re not a society in general that turns to deep questions of life meaning ” When we lose something — a loved one , a memory , a relationship — people try to fix it for us .
And that ’ s a mistake because we can ’ t get back what ’ s already gone .
And this situation is no different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give back what ’ s been taken generation after generation from so many people .
We can ’ t fix their pain .
We can ’ t bring back those who have fallen ill and passed away .
But we can absolutely do something now to fix it , to fix what ’ s broken .
And I worry that the righteous anger on one side and the denial on the other side is blocking the way to that solution .
Is that what worries you the most ?
It ’ s hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it ’ s certainly dispiriting to see how unable people are to speak to one another .
And by the way , to forgive one another .
There is an almost righteous vengeance against people who at any time in their life said something wrong or did something wrong , but that also blocks our ability to communicate across lines .
Because without forgiveness , there is no reconciliation .
And without the recognition that all human beings are going to do bad things or say something that was wrong or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to be able to listen and forgive .
And we are in a moment which starts at the top and moves all the way down through society of such vitriol and such denigration of the people who disagree with you and I don ’ t know how we pull back from that precipice .
I know that societies can do it , though .
I ’ ve been to South Africa and for all the problems that that society had , what they managed to do because of Mandela , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But I don ’ t see our Mandela whom everybody could listen to on the horizon .
And so I don ’ t know how we ’ re going to get such angry and oppositional sides to come together at this moment What can we draw from faith right now , and I don ’ t just mean your faith but all faiths , that we can ’ t draw from anywhere else ?
I think there are two big things .
The first is that all of the monotheistic faiths , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religions , but I don ’ t want to speak for them , but all of the monotheistic faiths speak about human beings being created in the image of God .
It ’ s the earliest statement about human beings in the Hebrew Bible and Christianity and Islam follow suit .
If you really believe that all human beings are created in the image of God , then every person is precious in that way .
And that means that their essential nature as a child of God is deeper than any political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual , any other kind of overlay of that .
This is the foundation of what everyone is .
And if people took that more seriously , I think that would help a lot .
Then the second is that the essential religious position is that all human beings are a collective and in the same boat .
And you can see that obviously scientifically — we ’ re all on this planet , for example , but if you see the real human predicament as the same everywhere , then you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they seem antagonistic or angry , that there is something deep within them that shares your doubts , your perplexities , your suffering , your worry , your mortality .
The fact that they will face death as you will .
And so , those two statements of commonality are what religious leaders at their best preach to the people who all too often want to hear other messages .
I must say that I have always struggled to stay hopeful , because the fragility of the world means it is always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build , and that means every achievement is like a sand castle waiting to be washed away by the tide .
Listening to you now , and reading your books , you seem to conceive of faith as the ability not to be weighed down by fear of these losses .
Is that how you see it ?
I never thought of it that way , and I thank you for putting it like that .
I think that ’ s true , I think that ’ s what faith is .
Faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loneliness or the despair to be the final word .
To really believe that , ultimately , our trajectory is in the ascendant and that we will overcome this , that as dark as things look , the dawn is coming .
And when I look back in history , the people that we most admire , they ’ re like Rembrandt portraits .
They ’ re the faces that shine back out of the darkness .
Whether you think of Rev .
Martin Luther King or Lincoln or Moses , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were .
They took dark difficult times and they gave people hope .
And in the end , they were right .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

The chaos of the past few months has got me thinking a lot about suffering, what it means, and how we should respond to it.
Against the backdrop of a pandemic, an economic crisis, and racial unrest, I wanted to step back — way, way back — and revisit core questions about our life together and our responsibilities to ourselves and to each other.
As part of Future Perfect’s new limited-series podcast, The Way Through, my colleague Sigal Samuel and I are sitting down with theologians and philosophers and other thinkers to talk about these big questions and how they can help us navigate this difficult moment.
My first conversation is with David Wolpe, senior rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and the author of many books, including Making Loss Matter: Creating Meaning in Difficult Times. It was published in 1999, but it feels relevant for reasons that I hope are clear: These are hard times, we’re surrounded by pain and anger, and the way forward is very much uncertain.
There’s a natural impulse to turn away from suffering, or to look for ways to rationalize it or explain it away. In this conversation, we lean into it. There are plenty of smart people thinking and writing about what we ought to do and how we ought to do it. This is an attempt to dig into the theology of suffering and ask how it can point us in a fruitful direction.
You can hear our entire conversation in the podcast here. A transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows.
Subscribe to Future Perfect: The Way Through on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Sean Illing
I should say at the top that I’m not a believer, but, like you, I went through a militant atheism phase when I was younger, and while I’m still what you’d call an agnostic, I’ve come to appreciate the richness and complexity of religion — or at least see it as more than a set of truth claims.
Rabbi David Wolpe
Well, thank you. I will say that I did a bunch of public debates with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and others, and I generally found that the real dividing point wasn’t so much about proving or disproving intellectual claims. I tried to keep arguing that religion was so much broader and deeper than their conception of this man in the sky, and I think that, for a lot of people, their religion is less about truth claims than it is about the way they live and they try to get meaning and depth and purpose and community out of their lives.
Sean Illing
That’s partly why I wanted to talk to you. This is obviously a very difficult time and I wonder how it looks from your point of view? What do you think is happening in our society right now?
David Wolpe
I think that the spiritual malaise of the society, the sense of the meaningless at the core, is partly a result of the fact that our tools, which make us so much more efficient, also serve to isolate us from one another. Then the pandemic came along and exacerbated that isolation, and people ask deep questions about what is this about and what is this for and how can life just change on a dime and how am I supposed to live in the absence of all the things that I used to take for granted and care about?
In other words, we have been suddenly plunged into an existential crisis, and we’re not a society in general that turns to deep questions of life meaning. We are a society more of doing things and achieving things and less reflective. And this has forced us back to be reflective, and I think that’s an uncomfortable position for a lot of people.
“Faith is not to allow the fear or the loneliness or the despair to be the final word”
Sean Illing
What are we being forced to reflect upon in this moment that we’re normally able to avoid?
David Wolpe
When someone suffers a sudden loss, they invariably wonder, “What is the purpose of life and why is it that I didn’t realize how ephemeral everything is yesterday?” And I think that that’s what as a society we’re going through. How is it that it is possible for somebody to bite a bat in Wuhan and the world closes down? And it’s not just that it’s hard to understand, it is impossible to understand. It’s far beyond our ability to process.
And so [there are] the deepest questions of what is this all about and how is it that someone can lead a perfectly decent and upright life and be struck down by this bizarre disease, which is like veering off the highway of life in such a radical way, how is that possible to cope with? And how do we go on and make meaning in a world in which meaning can be so immediately and devastatingly derailed?
I think that’s the spiritual crisis.
Sean Illing
You wrote in your book, “Unless we see ourselves as spiritual beings, we shall never truly advance in our understanding of humanity. In times of grief, we need to deal with the unreasonable and only traditions that speak directly to the human soul will guide us through.”
I’d love to know what you meant by that.
David Wolpe
We need to see ourselves as more than just stuff. We have to realize that there is, in addition to all the physical needs of human beings, there is a deep hunger in people to believe that they are attached to something greater than themselves. William James, the philosopher, said, “The great use of life is to spend it on something that outlasts it.”
And I think for all of us, we understand that to be fully realized, both as individuals and as a society, we have to think beyond ourselves. And that is a spiritual decision. It’s not a political or a social or physical decision, it’s something that you have to place faith in. The simplest premises of life, like why should I get up in the morning? Or is love meaningful? Those aren’t things that you can chart or prove.
They’re the spiritual basis by which we have to live our lives.
Sean Illing
I struggle with that, to be honest. My instinct is to look at the political world through a social scientific lens, to look at the concrete structures that underpin our society and identify that as the root of our problems, but I want to take what you’re saying seriously, so I’ll ask: What is the unreasonable part of this problem that we must deal with? And how can we speak to the human soul right now, in this moment, in a way that will dissolve the boundaries that keep us apart?
David Wolpe
The end of your question helps me speak to the beginning of it, because if you see it through social or political lenses, then the divisions are unbridgeable. In my own congregation, I have people on the right and people on the left, and I mean the far right and the far left. And one thing that has impressed me over the past many years is that there is no argument and no means of persuasion that either side will accept from the other side. Every time someone sends me an article and says, “Oh, this is a clincher,” I see that they believe that one argument or another will prove that their point of view is correct.
But what does unite them is at a funeral when someone they both know dies, or when they’re all singing together in prayer, and then you don’t know who’s a Republican or who’s a Democrat, or when someone has a joy or a tragedy in their family. And that’s because the deepest levels of ourselves are not political selves and not social selves, they’re spiritual selves. And when you touch that, this is why religion has the potential to be a tremendous uniter. It’s kind of forced multiplier. It can be a divider too, but it can be a tremendous uniter when people have very different social or political orientations realize that at bottom they’re the same.
Sean Illing
I haven’t experienced any great losses in this moment, but I am angry. I’m angry that people are dying needlessly, I’m angry that the least among us are bearing the greatest burden, as they always do, I’m angry that so many seem so content with so much malice and so much incompetence, and I guess ultimately I’m angry because I feel so small and the problems feel so big and that fills me with a sense of powerlessness. And I’m not sure what to do with that in terms of turning it into something that is constructive and not just a cause for inertia.
David Wolpe
I write a weekly column that has been up for close to 30 years in the New York Jewish Week. The column is 200 words or less every week. And just last week, it was called Against Anger. And what I said is that feeling anger is inevitable and sometimes important. Acting out of anger is the trap. Because when we act out of anger, we don’t act. Most of the time, we don’t act the way we should and could to make things better.
No single person can reverse the tide, but they can add their voice, they can give aid and comfort to people who are doing good things, because even as that is happening, we also know that there are doctors and other healthcare workers and scientists who are working around the clock and helping them and giving them support.
My synagogue is distributing food to people who need it most, as are many other synagogues and churches. We can’t, you and I, legislate different policies because we believe they would be helpful, but we can do certain things that matter. We can find out which charities are the most effective and give to them. We can man soup kitchens. We can express our solidarity with people who are suffering.
On the side of my synagogue, we put up a very simple banner. We’ve never put up a banner before, except [when] school is opening in September, but we put up a very simple banner that said, “We stand with our African American brothers and sisters against racism.” And we didn’t put it up there because we thought it would change the world, but because we thought, and the emails and letters I’ve received since demonstrate that people want to feel not alone. And if you say to them, “You’re not alone. I at least am hearing you. I’m not in your position, but I hear you,” that’s more than you might think it is, Sean. That’s a tremendous gift to people who don’t know if anyone’s listening.
Sean Illing
You talk a lot about giving into despair as a kind of sin, but I want to challenge you on one point because I think it illuminates an important point. What if I were to tell you that there is no God and the world isn’t so much dark as indifferent? And if there is going to be any justice in the world, it will be the work of human hands, not God’s.
I say that because one problem I’ve had with faith over the years, or at least certain manifestations of faith, is that sometimes it leads to an acceptance of the way things are — that’s God’s will and that there’s nothing we can do about that. And that there’s a kind of quietism in that that I think can get in the way of the sort of action we need to move forward.
David Wolpe
I agree with virtually everything you just said.
Sean Illing
I gotta be honest, I wasn’t expecting that.
David Wolpe
I have a problem with that variety of faith for exactly that reason. I remember once having a debate years ago, with Sadhguru, who is a well-known Indian guru, who came to my congregation. A wonderful man in many ways. A really interesting person. And I’ve had other dialogues with him since, but we had a long debate about reincarnation because I said, “Look, reincarnation means that whatever life you’re living now, it’s because of what you did in the past life. And that means if your life is miserable now, you deserve it because in a past life, you lived a certain way.” I said, “And that negates everything that I believe that this world is essentially unfair and that you have to do what you can to make it fair.”
I think that our task in this world, and I would say our God-given task, is to do everything we can to make the world as good and as fair as we can, but also to accept ultimately that there are limitations, not only to what we can do, but to what we can understand.
The same people who understand that the human eye can’t see all the colors and the human ear can’t hear all the frequencies, somehow seem to believe that the human brain can understand all the dimensions. The brain was created by evolution, just like the eye and the ear. There are infinite aspects to this world that we don’t begin to understand. My faith is not about letting God do stuff that I can do. My faith is about trusting that God does stuff that I can’t do, that no human being can do. And believing that I can live in such a way as to fulfill the purpose for which I was sent to this world.
Now, sometimes I do, and sometimes I don’t. I know that very well. In fact, I’ll use a biblical reference since surely I should get at least one biblical reference in as a rabbi. When the Israelites come to the Red Sea, Moses starts crying out to God and God says to Moses, “Why are you crying out to me? Move forward.” And I think of that as a motto. If you’re praying for something you could do, that’s not it.
Let me give you a different image of prayer. This is from a 17th-century rabbi named Leona Medina. He said, “If you were standing by the side of a lake and you saw a man pulling a boat to the shore, you might think, if you were mistaken about mechanics and motion, that he was pulling the shore to the boat, but that’s not true. He’s pulling the boat to the shore.” He said, “When people pray, they make the same mistake. They think what they’re doing is pulling God to their wishes. But when you pray successfully, what you’re doing is pulling yourself closer to God.” So I don’t see prayer as inviting God to do things that I should be doing. I see prayer as motivating me to do things that God wishes me to do.
“We’ve been suddenly plunged into an existential crisis, and we’re not a society in general that turns to deep questions of life meaning”
Sean Illing
When we lose something — a loved one, a memory, a relationship — people try to fix it for us. And that’s a mistake because we can’t get back what’s already gone. And this situation is no different. We can’t undo or give back what’s been taken generation after generation from so many people. We can’t fix their pain. We can’t bring back those who have fallen ill and passed away. But we can absolutely do something now to fix it, to fix what’s broken. And I worry that the righteous anger on one side and the denial on the other side is blocking the way to that solution.
Is that what worries you the most?
David Wolpe
It’s hard to say what worries me the most, but it’s certainly dispiriting to see how unable people are to speak to one another. And by the way, to forgive one another. There is an almost righteous vengeance against people who at any time in their life said something wrong or did something wrong, but that also blocks our ability to communicate across lines. Because without forgiveness, there is no reconciliation. And without the recognition that all human beings are going to do bad things or say something that was wrong or unintended or hasty or even cruel, you have to be able to listen and forgive. And we are in a moment which starts at the top and moves all the way down through society of such vitriol and such denigration of the people who disagree with you and I don’t know how we pull back from that precipice.
I know that societies can do it, though. I’ve been to South Africa and for all the problems that that society had, what they managed to do because of Mandela, because there was a Mandela, was astonishing. But I don’t see our Mandela whom everybody could listen to on the horizon. And so I don’t know how we’re going to get such angry and oppositional sides to come together at this moment
Sean Illing
What can we draw from faith right now, and I don’t just mean your faith but all faiths, that we can’t draw from anywhere else?
David Wolpe
I think there are two big things. The first is that all of the monotheistic faiths, and there are equivalents in the Eastern religions, but I don’t want to speak for them, but all of the monotheistic faiths speak about human beings being created in the image of God. It’s the earliest statement about human beings in the Hebrew Bible and Christianity and Islam follow suit. If you really believe that all human beings are created in the image of God, then every person is precious in that way. And that means that their essential nature as a child of God is deeper than any political, social, racial, ethnic, sexual, any other kind of overlay of that. This is the foundation of what everyone is. And if people took that more seriously, I think that would help a lot.
Then the second is that the essential religious position is that all human beings are a collective and in the same boat. And you can see that obviously scientifically — we’re all on this planet, for example, but if you see the real human predicament as the same everywhere, then you can understand that other human beings, even when they seem antagonistic or angry, that there is something deep within them that shares your doubts, your perplexities, your suffering, your worry, your mortality. The fact that they will face death as you will. And so, those two statements of commonality are what religious leaders at their best preach to the people who all too often want to hear other messages.
Sean Illing
I must say that I have always struggled to stay hopeful, because the fragility of the world means it is always so much easier to break than to build, and that means every achievement is like a sand castle waiting to be washed away by the tide. Listening to you now, and reading your books, you seem to conceive of faith as the ability not to be weighed down by fear of these losses.
Is that how you see it?
David Wolpe
I never thought of it that way, and I thank you for putting it like that. I think that’s true, I think that’s what faith is. Faith is not to allow the fear or the loneliness or the despair to be the final word. To really believe that, ultimately, our trajectory is in the ascendant and that we will overcome this, that as dark as things look, the dawn is coming. And when I look back in history, the people that we most admire, they’re like Rembrandt portraits. They’re the faces that shine back out of the darkness. Whether you think of Rev. Martin Luther King or Lincoln or Moses, I think that that’s what they were. They took dark difficult times and they gave people hope.
And in the end, they were right.