vox--2020-06-19--The 3 best new movies out this weekend

The 3 best new movies out this weekend

The strangest summer movie season in a long time continues apace , with a handful of theaters tentatively reopening in some places , drive-ins making a comeback , and many people choosing to exercise caution in returning to public places due to the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic .
But film releases haven ’ t slowed down .
Each weekend , on streaming services and through “ virtual theatrical ” releases , new and newly available movies arrive to delight cinephiles of all stripes .
This weekend , three movies are well worth your notice .
One is a darkly funny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she faces tragedy .
One is a documentary about a notorious historical figure .
And one is a beautifully understated drama about mothers and daughters and trying to find hope in a world set against you .
( Most of the films that were newly released in recent weeks are also still available to watch . )
Here are the three best movies that premiered this week and are available to watch at home , for subscribers on streaming platforms or a few bucks on digital services .
Movies about teen romance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dime a dozen , but Shannon Murphy ’ s Babyteeth is something special .
Milla ( Little Women and Sharp Objects ’ Eliza Scanlen ) is 16 and facing a cancer diagnosis .
Her parents ( Ben Mendelsohn and Essie Davis ) love each other , but are starting to spin out of control from the stress .
One day Milla meets Moses ( Toby Wallace ) , a 23-year-old tattooed drug addict with a winning smile and a childlike affect , and ends up falling for him .
A story like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Babyteeth ( adapted by Rita Kalnejais from her own play ) unspools like a series of ( often very funny ) vignettes that treat the tragedy and joy of life with similar weight .
( Tonally , it reminded me at times of the 2017 comedy series The End of the F***ing World . )
Death and friendship , addiction and love , and the immense gallows humor that comes with just living are all knocking around inside Babyteeth , and the result is fresh , hilarious , and heartbreaking .
How to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ select theaters and on-demand services such as iTunes and Amazon .
You can see the full listing at the movie ’ s website .
At this point , Roy Cohn — the infamous Joseph McCarthy lackey-turned-unscrupulous attorney to everyone from the mob to Donald Trump — needs very little introduction .
Aside from his real-life reputation , he ’ s a character in Tony Kushner ’ s play Angels in America and pops up in many films , including the 2019 documentary Where ’ s My Roy Cohn ?
( named for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Coward .
Victim : The Story of Roy Cohn is another portrait of the man , but with a different twist : Director Ivy Meeropol is the granddaughter of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg , who were executed in 1953 after being convicted of espionage .
Cohn claimed responsibility for their death sentence .
Using archival footage and photos as well as interviews with her own family and others ( such as Kushner and Nathan Lane , who played Cohn in the 2018 revival of Angels on Broadway ) , Meeropol paints a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was nonetheless very complicated .
How to watch it : Bully .
Coward .
Victim : The Story of Roy Cohn premiered on HBO on Thursday , June 18 , and is streaming on HBO and HBO Max .
The Miss Juneteenth pageant commemorates June 19 , 1865 , the day that enslaved Texans found out they had been freed .
Turquoise ( Nicole Beharie ) won the pageant in 2004 , but her life has been a series of setbacks since then as she works to support herself and her daughter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now Kai is old enough to enter the pageant , and Turquoise is determined she ’ ll do just that — but Kai is much more interested in the dance competition at her school .
Miss Juneteenth is not a typical “ pageant mom ” movie ; in the hands of Channing Godfrey Peoples ( who previously wrote two episodes of Queen Sugar ) , the story unfolds carefully , without leaning on easy clichés .
It ’ s a moving , sensitive drama about growing up , dealing with disappointment , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to watch it : Miss Juneteenth is available on select on-demand and digital platforms , including iTunes , Amazon , and Google Play .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

The strangest summer movie season in a long time continues apace, with a handful of theaters tentatively reopening in some places, drive-ins making a comeback, and many people choosing to exercise caution in returning to public places due to the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic.
But film releases haven’t slowed down. Each weekend, on streaming services and through “virtual theatrical” releases, new and newly available movies arrive to delight cinephiles of all stripes.
This weekend, three movies are well worth your notice. One is a darkly funny drama about a teenager in love as she faces tragedy. One is a documentary about a notorious historical figure. And one is a beautifully understated drama about mothers and daughters and trying to find hope in a world set against you. (Most of the films that were newly released in recent weeks are also still available to watch.)
Here are the three best movies that premiered this week and are available to watch at home, for subscribers on streaming platforms or a few bucks on digital services.
Babyteeth
Movies about teen romance, disaffected youths, and dysfunctional families are a dime a dozen, but Shannon Murphy’s Babyteeth is something special. Milla (Little Women and Sharp Objects’ Eliza Scanlen) is 16 and facing a cancer diagnosis. Her parents (Ben Mendelsohn and Essie Davis) love each other, but are starting to spin out of control from the stress. One day Milla meets Moses (Toby Wallace), a 23-year-old tattooed drug addict with a winning smile and a childlike affect, and ends up falling for him. A story like this can easily turn maudlin, but Babyteeth (adapted by Rita Kalnejais from her own play) unspools like a series of (often very funny) vignettes that treat the tragedy and joy of life with similar weight. (Tonally, it reminded me at times of the 2017 comedy series The End of the F***ing World.) Death and friendship, addiction and love, and the immense gallows humor that comes with just living are all knocking around inside Babyteeth, and the result is fresh, hilarious, and heartbreaking.
How to watch it: Babyteeth is playing in select theaters and on-demand services such as iTunes and Amazon. You can see the full listing at the movie’s website.
Bully. Coward. Victim: The Story of Roy Cohn
At this point, Roy Cohn — the infamous Joseph McCarthy lackey-turned-unscrupulous attorney to everyone from the mob to Donald Trump — needs very little introduction. Aside from his real-life reputation, he’s a character in Tony Kushner’s play Angels in America and pops up in many films, including the 2019 documentary Where’s My Roy Cohn? (named for a query from Donald Trump). Bully. Coward. Victim: The Story of Roy Cohn is another portrait of the man, but with a different twist: Director Ivy Meeropol is the granddaughter of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed in 1953 after being convicted of espionage. Cohn claimed responsibility for their death sentence.
Using archival footage and photos as well as interviews with her own family and others (such as Kushner and Nathan Lane, who played Cohn in the 2018 revival of Angels on Broadway), Meeropol paints a portrait of Cohn as a despicable liar who was nonetheless very complicated.
How to watch it: Bully. Coward. Victim: The Story of Roy Cohn premiered on HBO on Thursday, June 18, and is streaming on HBO and HBO Max.
Miss Juneteenth
The Miss Juneteenth pageant commemorates June 19, 1865, the day that enslaved Texans found out they had been freed. Turquoise (Nicole Beharie) won the pageant in 2004, but her life has been a series of setbacks since then as she works to support herself and her daughter, Kai (Alexis Chikaeze). Now Kai is old enough to enter the pageant, and Turquoise is determined she’ll do just that — but Kai is much more interested in the dance competition at her school. Miss Juneteenth is not a typical “pageant mom” movie; in the hands of Channing Godfrey Peoples (who previously wrote two episodes of Queen Sugar), the story unfolds carefully, without leaning on easy clichés. It’s a moving, sensitive drama about growing up, dealing with disappointment, and cultivating hope for the future.
How to watch it: Miss Juneteenth is available on select on-demand and digital platforms, including iTunes, Amazon, and Google Play.


vox--2020-06-19--Racial justice groups have never had so much cash. It’s actually hard to spend it.

In the wake of George Floyd ’ s killing , Americans eager to support protests against police brutality have flooded racial justice groups with donations .
The groups are , of course , grateful .
But they ’ re also not used to receiving so many millions of dollars at once .
Some are struggling to figure out how to handle the unprecedented influx of cash .
And now they ’ re facing another problem : angry donors .
Much of the backlash is aimed at the Minnesota Freedom Fund ( MFF ) .
The charitable organization , which pays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t afford them , has received more than $ 30 million since Floyd , a black man , was killed by a white Minneapolis police officer , igniting protests in the city that soon spread worldwide .
That ’ s 300 times the organization ’ s annual budget — a truly staggering increase .
MFF proved popular as people sought out organizations that would bail out protesters who ’ d been arrested .
But some donors have learned that so far , only a tiny fraction of that money — $ 200,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters , and they ’ re not happy about it ( even though MFF has already bailed out all of the jailed protesters in the Twin Cities ) .
Some of the money , donors have discovered , is going to causes they didn ’ t intend to fund : MFF says it ’ ll spend some of it paying long-term legal costs for people who were caught and released during the protests , bailing out people in jail for things other than protesting , and paying bonds to free immigrants detained by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Feeling scammed , some of these donors took to social media this week to accuse MFF of “ stealing ” and “ hoarding , ” and to demand transparency , saying , “ Show us the receipts.
” Other groups that received a deluge of donations in a short period of time , like the Black Visions Collective and Reclaim the Block in Minneapolis , have been transformed overnight from shoestring operations into well-funded organizations .
They ’ re facing similar questions now , too .
The trust issues aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really have taken money that wasn ’ t meant for them .
A Venmo account claiming to be affiliated with MFF , for instance , turned out to be a fake .
Separately , people donated millions to the Black Lives Matter Foundation , only to find out later that it ’ s not at all the same as the Black Lives Matter movement .
But the insinuations against local nonprofits like MFF are off the mark .
There are legitimate reasons why a small group that had no national profile a month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars right away .
Besides , as early as May 29 , MFF was already telling people to donate elsewhere , as it already had more than enough .
“ To demand that groups immediately solve problems that were systematically constructed over so many years is unreasonable and does not advance the cause of liberation , ” said Chloe Cockburn , a program officer who directs criminal justice reform grantmaking at Open Philanthropy .
“ It ’ s often not possible for a small group with minimal staff to immediately deploy millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people were wrong to give the money , or that they should stop giving.
” It is , however , an opportunity for us all to learn more about how our donations are spent and how to be strategic when we donate .
Using this moment as an object lesson in effective giving can help guide our future decisions — and prevent future misperceptions about where the money we give goes .
Why small racial justice groups can ’ t spend all our donations right away The first thing we need to consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s use MFF as our example , since it ’ s received the most attention .
This tiny group has only one full-time and two part-time staff members , plus seven volunteer board members .
Before the recent flood of donations , it didn ’ t even have a single full-time paid staffer .
It ’ s now working to rapidly increase its capacity by hiring for a bunch of positions , including an executive director , but finding the right people to fill those positions will take time .
Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history could have prepared it for the sudden flood of donations it has received .
“ This is definitely the first and maybe the last time we ’ ll see this much money , ” said Octavia Smith , president of the MFF board .
“ It ’ s a crazy time right now.
” Smith pointed out that while people are upset the group has spent only $ 200,000 in the past two weeks , that ’ s double what the group normally has to spend in an entire year .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an annual income of $ 110,000 . )
What seems like a paltry amount from the outside actually represents a rapid scaling-up of activity from the group ’ s point of view .
Perhaps most importantly , MFF has already bailed out everyone who was jailed because of the protests in the Twin Cities .
More than 400 people were arrested there , but only about 40 were actually jailed , so it didn ’ t take millions to bail them out .
Even if MFF hadn ’ t run out of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just not possible to responsibly spend tens of millions of dollars on bail in two weeks .
The cash bail system requires people to pore over paperwork to find those being held , then walk the cash over to the relevant jail , making sure they have the exact right amount of money on hand , down to the penny .
This can create safety issues for a group like MFF , which has experienced doxxing .
The group has to ensure staffers won ’ t be targeted with many thousands of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If we could wave a magical wand and release $ 35 million into the ecosystem to bail folks out today , we would , ” Smith said .
Again , it ’ s important to note that MFF actually begged people to donate elsewhere once it realized it had more money than it needed .
By May 29 , the MFF Facebook page was directing people to other charities ; by May 30 , its website was doing the same .
This is also true of other Minnesota-based groups that received a glut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collective to Reclaim the Block to Northstar Health Collective .
Such groups can ’ t necessarily redirect funds they receive to other groups , either .
On Twitter , many have called for MFF to give some of the surplus money to black people without homes or to black-owned businesses .
But MFF can ’ t legally do that .
It is bound by bylaws and articles of incorporation , which specify that MFF ’ s mission is to pay criminal bail and immigration bonds .
Smith said that because MFF “ blew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to be audited by the IRS , making it that much more important to stick to the letter of the law .
( That said , the MFF is actually working with lawyers right now to figure out what ’ s permissible and what isn ’ t in terms of re-granting , Smith noted . )
She added that while some donors are upset because they wanted their money to go only to black people and didn ’ t realize it could be used to free immigrants in ICE detention , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s mission and clearly articulated on its website .
( Smith also pointed out that many of those in ICE detention in Minnesota are African immigrants . )
So she thinks the complaint is misguided , though she also said the anger among these black donors is coming from a valid place .
“ They ’ ve often seen funds for their cause , for their pain , being exploited .
There ’ s a very real history of organizations exploiting the money that ’ s supposed to be used to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Smith explained .
That said , she doesn ’ t want black and brown and indigenous people to see their struggles as separate and zero-sum .
“ I try really hard not to get enmeshed in that Oppression Olympics narrative , ” she said .
“ That internal fighting moves away from the fact that these systems were built to keep us at arm ’ s length ... to keep us pissed at each other for what we have and don ’ t have.
” “ Room for more funding ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During a national crisis , so many people feel moved to give , and that ’ s great .
But it ’ s best if we don ’ t all heap money on the same charity .
After a certain point , a nonprofit runs out of “ room for more funding , ” meaning it has enough money to fund all of the work it ’ s good at doing , so more donations may not be used effectively .
That ’ s generally a useful factor to consider when making donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is donating to charities devoted to serving one place ( say , Minneapolis ) , it can sometimes make sense to donate to the same cause in other places , where our dollars may make more of a difference .
In other words , look out for more neglected charities in more neglected cities .
It ’ s also worthwhile to think hard about which causes are being neglected .
If bail funds suddenly become hot , do more research into adjacent or underlying issues .
Donating to a group that advocates for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as MFF does ) might actually become a more appealing option .
That ’ s a broader , more systemic change than bailing out a few dozen protesters right now , but it may well do more good in the long term .
Another useful question to ask is whether an organization is set up to re-grant dollars to other groups or to chapters in other regions , should it have a surplus .
The Black Lives Matter Organizing Fund has received millions of dollars since Floyd ’ s killing ( it declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and didn ’ t respond to Vox ’ s request for comment ) .
Last week , it announced it would give $ 6.5 million of that money to various chapters , which can each apply for funding of up to $ 500,000 in multiyear grants .
All that said , Smith doesn ’ t think the problem is that MFF has been overfunded .
“ I think the money can for sure be used to go to our mission , which is mass liberation for people experiencing mass incarceration , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than just the jail cell.
” Cockburn agreed : “ The money that ’ s pouring in now should be understood as filling gaps that have long existed , and that will continue to exist after this surge of attention has passed , ” she said .
“ It can and should be used over time to build the capacity of groups to fight for major victories over the next five to 10 years , which would require bringing on more staff , doing strategic planning , paying for training and communications support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a bus tour ) , among other things .
If people can be a bit patient and allow this wave of money to settle and be put to work , we will start to see the fruits of that investment growing over the coming few years.
” Cockburn also said she does not think that work in Minneapolis has been overfunded .
At the same time , there are also major needs in communities across the country , from Los Angeles to Louisville .
People looking to donate can consult her list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside this list , Cockburn generally advises staying local and focusing on organizing , particularly by young people of color .
Although it ’ s ideal to find out if a group has room for more funding before you donate , that can be hard to figure out , and it ’ s not always practical .
“ I think there is a middle ground , where donors can pick places that have been less on the national radar and give to local organizing groups there , ” Cockburn said .
“ They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the groups are doing great work or have room for funding , and that is okay .
High-impact giving in the policy advocacy space often requires making decisions without perfect information , and taking risks that some gifts will fail to achieve their desired purpose , if the potential upside is large enough.
” Open Philanthropy , where Cockburn works , calls this “ hits-based giving.
” The organization notes that some of the greatest victories in philanthropic history were long-term , long-shot initiatives that were not guaranteed to succeed — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not achieved overnight does not mean an organization has failed or that donations were made in vain .
It takes time to build power and momentum , ” Cockburn said .
MFF plans to apply this long-game thinking to its work going forward .
It ’ ll use its $ 30 million to push for systemic change , including abolishing money bail and overhauling immigration detention .
That was always its mission , stated on its website for all to see .
The complaint among some donors that this mission isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than anything , the importance of doing due diligence before donating and adopting a rigorous approach to giving .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribution to Vox today .

In the wake of George Floyd’s killing, Americans eager to support protests against police brutality have flooded racial justice groups with donations. The groups are, of course, grateful. But they’re also not used to receiving so many millions of dollars at once. Some are struggling to figure out how to handle the unprecedented influx of cash.
And now they’re facing another problem: angry donors.
Much of the backlash is aimed at the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF). The charitable organization, which pays bail and bonds for people who can’t afford them, has received more than $30 million since Floyd, a black man, was killed by a white Minneapolis police officer, igniting protests in the city that soon spread worldwide. That’s 300 times the organization’s annual budget — a truly staggering increase.
MFF proved popular as people sought out organizations that would bail out protesters who’d been arrested. But some donors have learned that so far, only a tiny fraction of that money — $200,000 — has been used to bail out protesters, and they’re not happy about it (even though MFF has already bailed out all of the jailed protesters in the Twin Cities).
Some of the money, donors have discovered, is going to causes they didn’t intend to fund: MFF says it’ll spend some of it paying long-term legal costs for people who were caught and released during the protests, bailing out people in jail for things other than protesting, and paying bonds to free immigrants detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Feeling scammed, some of these donors took to social media this week to accuse MFF of “stealing” and “hoarding,” and to demand transparency, saying, “Show us the receipts.”
Other groups that received a deluge of donations in a short period of time, like the Black Visions Collective and Reclaim the Block in Minneapolis, have been transformed overnight from shoestring operations into well-funded organizations. They’re facing similar questions now, too.
The trust issues aren’t helped by the fact that certain people really have taken money that wasn’t meant for them. A Venmo account claiming to be affiliated with MFF, for instance, turned out to be a fake. Separately, people donated millions to the Black Lives Matter Foundation, only to find out later that it’s not at all the same as the Black Lives Matter movement.
But the insinuations against local nonprofits like MFF are off the mark. There are legitimate reasons why a small group that had no national profile a month ago can’t spend millions of dollars right away. Besides, as early as May 29, MFF was already telling people to donate elsewhere, as it already had more than enough.
“To demand that groups immediately solve problems that were systematically constructed over so many years is unreasonable and does not advance the cause of liberation,” said Chloe Cockburn, a program officer who directs criminal justice reform grantmaking at Open Philanthropy. “It’s often not possible for a small group with minimal staff to immediately deploy millions of dollars. That does not mean that people were wrong to give the money, or that they should stop giving.”
It is, however, an opportunity for us all to learn more about how our donations are spent and how to be strategic when we donate. Using this moment as an object lesson in effective giving can help guide our future decisions — and prevent future misperceptions about where the money we give goes.
Why small racial justice groups can’t spend all our donations right away
The first thing we need to consider is the capacity of these groups. Let’s use MFF as our example, since it’s received the most attention.
This tiny group has only one full-time and two part-time staff members, plus seven volunteer board members. Before the recent flood of donations, it didn’t even have a single full-time paid staffer. It’s now working to rapidly increase its capacity by hiring for a bunch of positions, including an executive director, but finding the right people to fill those positions will take time.
Second, nothing in MFF’s four-year history could have prepared it for the sudden flood of donations it has received. “This is definitely the first and maybe the last time we’ll see this much money,” said Octavia Smith, president of the MFF board. “It’s a crazy time right now.”
Smith pointed out that while people are upset the group has spent only $200,000 in the past two weeks, that’s double what the group normally has to spend in an entire year. (Before all this, it operated with an annual income of $110,000.) What seems like a paltry amount from the outside actually represents a rapid scaling-up of activity from the group’s point of view.
Perhaps most importantly, MFF has already bailed out everyone who was jailed because of the protests in the Twin Cities. More than 400 people were arrested there, but only about 40 were actually jailed, so it didn’t take millions to bail them out.
Even if MFF hadn’t run out of people to bail out, it’s just not possible to responsibly spend tens of millions of dollars on bail in two weeks. The cash bail system requires people to pore over paperwork to find those being held, then walk the cash over to the relevant jail, making sure they have the exact right amount of money on hand, down to the penny. This can create safety issues for a group like MFF, which has experienced doxxing. The group has to ensure staffers won’t be targeted with many thousands of dollars on their person at once.
“If we could wave a magical wand and release $35 million into the ecosystem to bail folks out today, we would,” Smith said.
Again, it’s important to note that MFF actually begged people to donate elsewhere once it realized it had more money than it needed. By May 29, the MFF Facebook page was directing people to other charities; by May 30, its website was doing the same. This is also true of other Minnesota-based groups that received a glut of donations, from the Black Visions Collective to Reclaim the Block to Northstar Health Collective.
Such groups can’t necessarily redirect funds they receive to other groups, either. On Twitter, many have called for MFF to give some of the surplus money to black people without homes or to black-owned businesses.
But MFF can’t legally do that. It is bound by bylaws and articles of incorporation, which specify that MFF’s mission is to pay criminal bail and immigration bonds. Smith said that because MFF “blew up overnight,” she fully expects it to be audited by the IRS, making it that much more important to stick to the letter of the law. (That said, the MFF is actually working with lawyers right now to figure out what’s permissible and what isn’t in terms of re-granting, Smith noted.)
She added that while some donors are upset because they wanted their money to go only to black people and didn’t realize it could be used to free immigrants in ICE detention, that goal has always been squarely within MFF’s mission and clearly articulated on its website. (Smith also pointed out that many of those in ICE detention in Minnesota are African immigrants.) So she thinks the complaint is misguided, though she also said the anger among these black donors is coming from a valid place.
“They’ve often seen funds for their cause, for their pain, being exploited. There’s a very real history of organizations exploiting the money that’s supposed to be used to help people on the ground for different purposes,” Smith explained. That said, she doesn’t want black and brown and indigenous people to see their struggles as separate and zero-sum.
“I try really hard not to get enmeshed in that Oppression Olympics narrative,” she said. “That internal fighting moves away from the fact that these systems were built to keep us at arm’s length ... to keep us pissed at each other for what we have and don’t have.”
“Room for more funding” and other factors to consider when donating
During a national crisis, so many people feel moved to give, and that’s great. But it’s best if we don’t all heap money on the same charity. After a certain point, a nonprofit runs out of “room for more funding,” meaning it has enough money to fund all of the work it’s good at doing, so more donations may not be used effectively.
That’s generally a useful factor to consider when making donations. So is geography: If everyone is donating to charities devoted to serving one place (say, Minneapolis), it can sometimes make sense to donate to the same cause in other places, where our dollars may make more of a difference. In other words, look out for more neglected charities in more neglected cities.
It’s also worthwhile to think hard about which causes are being neglected. If bail funds suddenly become hot, do more research into adjacent or underlying issues. Donating to a group that advocates for ending the cash bail system altogether (as MFF does) might actually become a more appealing option. That’s a broader, more systemic change than bailing out a few dozen protesters right now, but it may well do more good in the long term.
Another useful question to ask is whether an organization is set up to re-grant dollars to other groups or to chapters in other regions, should it have a surplus. The Black Lives Matter Organizing Fund has received millions of dollars since Floyd’s killing (it declined to specify exactly how many millions, and didn’t respond to Vox’s request for comment). Last week, it announced it would give $6.5 million of that money to various chapters, which can each apply for funding of up to $500,000 in multiyear grants.
All that said, Smith doesn’t think the problem is that MFF has been overfunded. “I think the money can for sure be used to go to our mission, which is mass liberation for people experiencing mass incarceration,” she said. “That has farther-reaching implications than just the jail cell.”
Cockburn agreed: “The money that’s pouring in now should be understood as filling gaps that have long existed, and that will continue to exist after this surge of attention has passed,” she said. “It can and should be used over time to build the capacity of groups to fight for major victories over the next five to 10 years, which would require bringing on more staff, doing strategic planning, paying for training and communications support, and deploying more expensive tactics (like a bus tour), among other things. If people can be a bit patient and allow this wave of money to settle and be put to work, we will start to see the fruits of that investment growing over the coming few years.”
Cockburn also said she does not think that work in Minneapolis has been overfunded. At the same time, there are also major needs in communities across the country, from Los Angeles to Louisville. People looking to donate can consult her list of recommended charities; if making picks outside this list, Cockburn generally advises staying local and focusing on organizing, particularly by young people of color.
Although it’s ideal to find out if a group has room for more funding before you donate, that can be hard to figure out, and it’s not always practical.
“I think there is a middle ground, where donors can pick places that have been less on the national radar and give to local organizing groups there,” Cockburn said. “They probably won’t know for sure if the groups are doing great work or have room for funding, and that is okay. High-impact giving in the policy advocacy space often requires making decisions without perfect information, and taking risks that some gifts will fail to achieve their desired purpose, if the potential upside is large enough.”
Open Philanthropy, where Cockburn works, calls this “hits-based giving.” The organization notes that some of the greatest victories in philanthropic history were long-term, long-shot initiatives that were not guaranteed to succeed — but did.
“Just because victory is not achieved overnight does not mean an organization has failed or that donations were made in vain. It takes time to build power and momentum,” Cockburn said.
MFF plans to apply this long-game thinking to its work going forward. It’ll use its $30 million to push for systemic change, including abolishing money bail and overhauling immigration detention. That was always its mission, stated on its website for all to see. The complaint among some donors that this mission isn’t what they signed up for highlights, more than anything, the importance of doing due diligence before donating and adopting a rigorous approach to giving.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-06-19--The Supreme Court kept DACA alive — for now. DREAMers still face a long road ahead.

The Supreme Court ’ s decision to keep the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program alive for now is a victory for hundreds of thousands of unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children .
But it ’ s a temporary victory — far from the permanent protections they have awaited for nearly two decades .
The unexpected decision may have assured DACA recipients that they can continue to live and work in the US free of fear of deportation for another day .
But their victory is , legally speaking , quite narrow , and it gives Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terminating the program , which has protected some 670,000 DREAMers .
The justices wrote in their opinion that Trump would have to articulate a more robust rationale for terminating the program .
He ’ s already claiming on Twitter that he still wants to end DACA , but it ’ s not likely that he could do so before the presidential election or even Inauguration Day in 2021 .
But if Trump wins a second term , time would be on his side .
And even if he leaves office , the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have long waited for a chance to apply for DACA , can get assurance of their right to remain in the US is if Congress intervenes .
Given that DACA has been the subject of contentious legislative debate for the better part of a decade , policy experts aren ’ t hopeful that the next few months leading up to the presidential election will be the time to get it done .
“ DACA recipients ’ status remains subject to the whims of the executive branch , ” Theresa Cardinal Brown , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration and cross-border policy .
“ It has been that way since 2012 .
It ’ s past time.
” Trump can still try to end DACA Trump suggested Thursday in a tweet that he would not abandon his efforts to end the program : It ’ s not clear what “ start this process all over again ” might mean .
One option is for the administration to try again on ending the program the same way it did in 2017 : The Department of Homeland Security could issue another memo .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ terminating DACA .
But either method would likely be challenged and blocked swiftly in federal court , said Stephen Yale-Loehr , a professor at Cornell Law School .
Whether , and how quickly , the administration could defend its policy on appeal remains an open question .
The justices wrote in their opinion that if they wanted their decision to survive in the courts , the administration would have to address why it decided not to partially roll back protections for DACA recipients — such as taking away their work authorization but still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not clear whether the Trump administration has any interest in more narrowly revoking their protections , but even so , it would be devastating for DREAMers to lose their ability to work in the US .
The administration would also have to address why the interests of DACA recipients , who have relied on the program since 2012 , do not outweigh the administration ’ s interests in terminating the program .
DACA recipients have been settled in the US for years — some arriving before they were old enough to remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ careers and families here .
The Trump administration , on the other hand , has expressed concern that DACA could face litigation because it alleges the program was created illegally via executive action .
Alternatively , the administration could try terminating DACA via the regulatory process , which would put termination on stronger legal footing .
But the entire process could last months , if not years , requiring that officials draft and issue a proposed rule , solicit comments from the public , and address those comments before publishing a final rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terminate the DACA program before the presidential election in November , ” Yale-Loehr said .
“ This makes the election even more important than before .
If President Trump wins reelection , he will have another four years to try to terminate the DACA program.
” Former Vice President Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic nominee for president , has said that , if he is elected , he would reinstate DACA and send a bill to Congress offering a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers .
The big question now : Will the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
About 66,000 people have become eligible for DACA since 2017 , when the Trump administration stopped accepting new applications for the program amid ongoing court challenges .
Those young immigrants have been waiting for their chance to apply for the program , but it ’ s not clear whether the Trump administration will resume accepting new applications now that the Supreme Court has ruled .
US Citizenship and Immigration Services , the agency that handles DACA applications and renewals , will have to issue guidance as to how it intends to implement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The agency declined to comment on its intentions Thursday .
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra , who helped argue the DACA case before the Supreme Court last fall , told the Washington Post that “ anyone who qualifies as a DREAMer under DACA should be allowed to be in the program.
” In the meantime , immigration attorneys are nevertheless advising that people who are eligible for DACA — namely , those born after 1981 who arrived in the US before they turned 16 , do not have a disqualifying criminal conviction , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military or who have graduated from high school — submit their applications .
There is pressure on Congress to act , but the ball is in Trump ’ s court Democrats have long fought for permanent protections for DREAMers , dating back to the first version of the DREAM Act introduced in 2001 .
Such measures remain widely popular on a bipartisan basis ; even 69 percent of Trump voters support protections for DREAMers , according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll .
But time and time again , related bills have reached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clean bill offering DREAMers protections while Republicans demand stricter border security measures in return .
Trump ’ s next move will likely dictate the urgency of the ongoing policy debate in Congress .
“ If the administration sits on this , Congress wouldn ’ t have impetus to act because the program will continue to exist , ” Cardinal Brown said .
“ If he starts the process of ending DACA all over again , then that does put some pressure on Congress , particularly if majorities in Congress want to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not clear yet what Trump might demand in return for permanent protections for DACA .
Since he announced his decision to terminate the program in 2017 , he has already brought to fruition many of his policy priorities on immigration , including funding for the border wall , restrictions on legal immigration , and a near-complete shutdown of asylum on the southern border .
Additional restrictions on immigration might be a tough pill for Democrats to swallow .
Democrats might also be tempted to wait until after the presidential election to return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting on DACA , Cardinal Brown said .
If Biden wins the presidency , more palatable opportunities to bargain with Republicans may open up in the lame-duck session .
Senator Dick Durbin , a Democrat and longtime advocate for DREAMers , didn ’ t appear hopeful that Congress could pass permanent protections for DREAMers in the coming months , urging Trump on the Senate floor Thursday to give Congress time “ to do our part.
” “ I ’ m calling on the president and those around him — I beg them — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ till the end of this year ... till after the election , ” he said .
In the meantime , Democratic leaders are pushing preexisting proposals to help DREAMers .
“ We ’ re celebrating today , but tomorrow we ’ ll keep fighting for permanent protections for Dreamers , ” Joaquin Castro , chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus ( CHC ) , said in a statement Thursday .
“ The Supreme Court ruling is a wake-up call for congressional action by the Senate .
... President Trump broke his promise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his administration to enact more cruelty.
” The Dream and Promise Act , which the Democrat-controlled House passed in June 2019 , is chief among Democrats ’ priorities .
It offers a pathway to citizenship for about 2.5 million DREAMers and other immigrants with temporary legal status ( the original DREAM Act was narrower , covering about 1.5 million people ) .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he is unlikely to allow a vote in the Republican-controlled chamber .
The CHC is also asking the Senate to vote on the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heroes Act , which would provide an automatic extension for DACA recipients ’ work permits .
Many DACA recipients have been deemed essential workers , with 27,000 of them treating patients on the front lines of the pandemic as health care practitioners or medical support staff .
But these proposals have little hope of passing in the Republican-led Senate right now .
“ I ’ m still very nervous for these DACA recipients because it ’ s not over , ” Cardinal Brown said .
“ I think that Congress always breathes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political issue is punted , but it ’ s not buying them that much time.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program alive for now is a victory for hundreds of thousands of unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children. But it’s a temporary victory — far from the permanent protections they have awaited for nearly two decades.
The unexpected decision may have assured DACA recipients that they can continue to live and work in the US free of fear of deportation for another day. But their victory is, legally speaking, quite narrow, and it gives Trump plenty of leeway to move forward with terminating the program, which has protected some 670,000 DREAMers.
The justices wrote in their opinion that Trump would have to articulate a more robust rationale for terminating the program. He’s already claiming on Twitter that he still wants to end DACA, but it’s not likely that he could do so before the presidential election or even Inauguration Day in 2021.
But if Trump wins a second term, time would be on his side. And even if he leaves office, the only way that DREAMers, including those who have long waited for a chance to apply for DACA, can get assurance of their right to remain in the US is if Congress intervenes.
Given that DACA has been the subject of contentious legislative debate for the better part of a decade, policy experts aren’t hopeful that the next few months leading up to the presidential election will be the time to get it done.
“DACA recipients’ status remains subject to the whims of the executive branch,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, the Bipartisan Policy Institute’s director of immigration and cross-border policy. “It has been that way since 2012. It’s past time.”
Trump can still try to end DACA
Trump suggested Thursday in a tweet that he would not abandon his efforts to end the program:
As President of the United States, I am asking for a legal solution on DACA, not a political one, consistent with the rule of law. The Supreme Court is not willing to give us one, so now we have to start this process all over again. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2020
It’s not clear what “start this process all over again” might mean.
One option is for the administration to try again on ending the program the same way it did in 2017: The Department of Homeland Security could issue another memo. Trump could also issue an executive order terminating DACA. But either method would likely be challenged and blocked swiftly in federal court, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School. Whether, and how quickly, the administration could defend its policy on appeal remains an open question.
The justices wrote in their opinion that if they wanted their decision to survive in the courts, the administration would have to address why it decided not to partially roll back protections for DACA recipients — such as taking away their work authorization but still shielding them from deportation. It’s not clear whether the Trump administration has any interest in more narrowly revoking their protections, but even so, it would be devastating for DREAMers to lose their ability to work in the US.
The administration would also have to address why the interests of DACA recipients, who have relied on the program since 2012, do not outweigh the administration’s interests in terminating the program. DACA recipients have been settled in the US for years — some arriving before they were old enough to remember — and have earned degrees and established careers and families here. The Trump administration, on the other hand, has expressed concern that DACA could face litigation because it alleges the program was created illegally via executive action.
Alternatively, the administration could try terminating DACA via the regulatory process, which would put termination on stronger legal footing. But the entire process could last months, if not years, requiring that officials draft and issue a proposed rule, solicit comments from the public, and address those comments before publishing a final rule.
“Neither alternative is likely to terminate the DACA program before the presidential election in November,” Yale-Loehr said. “This makes the election even more important than before. If President Trump wins reelection, he will have another four years to try to terminate the DACA program.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has said that, if he is elected, he would reinstate DACA and send a bill to Congress offering a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers.
The big question now: Will the Trump administration start accepting new DACA applications?
About 66,000 people have become eligible for DACA since 2017, when the Trump administration stopped accepting new applications for the program amid ongoing court challenges. Those young immigrants have been waiting for their chance to apply for the program, but it’s not clear whether the Trump administration will resume accepting new applications now that the Supreme Court has ruled.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that handles DACA applications and renewals, will have to issue guidance as to how it intends to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling. The agency declined to comment on its intentions Thursday.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who helped argue the DACA case before the Supreme Court last fall, told the Washington Post that “anyone who qualifies as a DREAMer under DACA should be allowed to be in the program.”
In the meantime, immigration attorneys are nevertheless advising that people who are eligible for DACA — namely, those born after 1981 who arrived in the US before they turned 16, do not have a disqualifying criminal conviction, and are either in school or the military or who have graduated from high school — submit their applications.
There is pressure on Congress to act, but the ball is in Trump’s court
Democrats have long fought for permanent protections for DREAMers, dating back to the first version of the DREAM Act introduced in 2001. Such measures remain widely popular on a bipartisan basis; even 69 percent of Trump voters support protections for DREAMers, according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll. But time and time again, related bills have reached a familiar impasse: Democrats insist on a clean bill offering DREAMers protections while Republicans demand stricter border security measures in return.
Trump’s next move will likely dictate the urgency of the ongoing policy debate in Congress.
“If the administration sits on this, Congress wouldn’t have impetus to act because the program will continue to exist,” Cardinal Brown said. “If he starts the process of ending DACA all over again, then that does put some pressure on Congress, particularly if majorities in Congress want to see DACA recipients maintain status.”
It’s not clear yet what Trump might demand in return for permanent protections for DACA. Since he announced his decision to terminate the program in 2017, he has already brought to fruition many of his policy priorities on immigration, including funding for the border wall, restrictions on legal immigration, and a near-complete shutdown of asylum on the southern border. Additional restrictions on immigration might be a tough pill for Democrats to swallow.
Democrats might also be tempted to wait until after the presidential election to return to the negotiating table if Trump delays acting on DACA, Cardinal Brown said. If Biden wins the presidency, more palatable opportunities to bargain with Republicans may open up in the lame-duck session.
Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat and longtime advocate for DREAMers, didn’t appear hopeful that Congress could pass permanent protections for DREAMers in the coming months, urging Trump on the Senate floor Thursday to give Congress time “to do our part.”
“I’m calling on the president and those around him — I beg them — let’s give these DACA protectees till the end of this year ... till after the election,” he said.
In the meantime, Democratic leaders are pushing preexisting proposals to help DREAMers.
“We’re celebrating today, but tomorrow we’ll keep fighting for permanent protections for Dreamers,” Joaquin Castro, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), said in a statement Thursday. “The Supreme Court ruling is a wake-up call for congressional action by the Senate. ... President Trump broke his promise to protect Dreamers, and I fully expect his administration to enact more cruelty.”
The Dream and Promise Act, which the Democrat-controlled House passed in June 2019, is chief among Democrats’ priorities. It offers a pathway to citizenship for about 2.5 million DREAMers and other immigrants with temporary legal status (the original DREAM Act was narrower, covering about 1.5 million people). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he is unlikely to allow a vote in the Republican-controlled chamber.
The CHC is also asking the Senate to vote on the latest coronavirus relief package, known as the Heroes Act, which would provide an automatic extension for DACA recipients’ work permits. Many DACA recipients have been deemed essential workers, with 27,000 of them treating patients on the front lines of the pandemic as health care practitioners or medical support staff.
But these proposals have little hope of passing in the Republican-led Senate right now.
“I’m still very nervous for these DACA recipients because it’s not over,” Cardinal Brown said. “I think that Congress always breathes a sigh of relief when a hot potato political issue is punted, but it’s not buying them that much time.”


vox--2020-06-19--How superspreading is fueling the pandemic — and how we can stop it

How superspreading is fueling the pandemic — and how we can stop it Share All sharing options for : How superspreading is fueling the pandemic — and how we can stop it This Saturday , thousands of people are expected to gather inside the BOK Center in Tulsa , Oklahoma , a city where Covid-19 cases have risen steeply since May 31 , at a rally for President Donald Trump ’ s reelection campaign .
There may not be room for physical distancing in the arena , which can hold 19,000 people .
Each person who registered has signed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump if they get sick with Covid-19 .
The city ’ s top health department official has warned that a large indoor gathering like this in the midst of a pandemic is unsafe .
The organizers have promised to hand out masks , but people aren ’ t required to wear them .
They plan to screen people for fevers at the door , but that will likely miss asymptomatic people who are infected but not feeling sick .
Given that this coronavirus tends to spread when people are in close , indoor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very real risk this rally will turn into a massive “ superspreading event , ” where many attendees — and people they later come into contact with — will be infected .
On average , people with the coronavirus infect about two other people ; most pass the virus to just one other person , or to no one else at all .
But some people go on to infect many more — often before they even get symptoms .
Many of these transmission chains begin with superspreading events , where one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space ) passes the virus to dozens of others .
Early contact tracing studies suggest these events have been a large driver of transmission around the world .
By some estimates , 10 percent of people have been causing 80 percent of new infections .
Some of the largest superspreading events have happened aboard ships , including Navy carriers and cruise ships .
But they are also happening on the ground in smaller settings , including at a church in Arkansas .
In early March , a 57-year-old pastor and his wife , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of church events over three days , and the pastor returned for an additional Bible study group a few days later .
Soon after , they each started developing symptoms and eventually tested positive for the coronavirus .
But it had already spread .
At least 33 of the other 92 event attendees later tested positive for Covid-19 , and three of them died .
These cases then spawned more than two dozen other illnesses — and another death — in the community .
A recent preliminary Centers for Disease Control and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed Covid-19 cases in Japan through the beginning of April .
The researchers found that 61 percent of cases could be definitively traced to clusters of spread outside the household , such as at restaurants , bars , event venues , and workplaces .
And this is likely an undercount due to limitations in contact tracing .
What causes these superspreading clusters , and why are they such a key driver of this pandemic ?
Is it something about the people themselves who start them ?
Or is it more about the settings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a combination ?
Thankfully , we are learning more about superspreading events , and this insight can help dramatically slow the spread of the coronavirus , and save lives — all while potentially allowing more people to return to less risky activities .
That is , if policymakers implement the guidance , and people follow it .
“ If you could reduce superspreading , you could have a massive impact on the pandemic , ” Elizabeth McGraw , director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at The Pennsylvania State University , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s walk through it .
Why is the coronavirus so good at superspreading ?
To understand what might kick off a superspreading event , let ’ s review some basics about how this virus , SARS-CoV-2 , spreads .
Researchers have found that it often spreads through microscopic droplets created when an infected person coughs or sneezes — or even speaks — and another person breathes them in .
These disease-containing droplets are a large part of the reasoning behind staying at least 6 feet away from people and wearing a mask in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus likely also spreads through even tinier , longer-lasting particles from breathing or speaking ( or flushing a toilet ) called aerosols .
These are so small they can linger in the air after an infectious person has left — and may contain infectious virus particles for up to three hours .
And they may be a key element to superspreading events : An infected person could seed a poorly ventilated indoor space with virus without even getting physically close to all the people they end up infecting .
Superspreading also appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people typically have the highest level of the virus in their system ( making them infectious ) right before they develop symptoms .
( This is very different from other severe coronaviruses like SARS and MERS , where people were most infectious seven to 10 days after they started feeling sick , when they were more likely to be in isolation or in medical care . )
So thousands of people with active Covid-19 infections continue to go about their lives not knowing that they could be spreading the disease .
This has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a preprint , “ most transmissions are front-loaded ” toward the beginning of the illness .
As another team of researchers who analyzed cases and contacts in Taiwan noted in JAMA , people actually had a much lower risk of spreading the virus after five days of symptoms .
This might be in part because sick people are less likely to go out , whether because they don ’ t want to spread their illness or because they simply don ’ t feel up to it .
But it also has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral load ” — an amount that actually tends to go down as symptoms wear on .
A May study of samples collected from patients , published in Clinical Infectious Disease , suggests that people who had symptoms for more than eight days might not actually be very infectious .
“ I think the virus ’ s biggest weapon has been that it can be spread by asymptomatic or presymptomatic people ” All of this makes it so much more likely for people to be spreading the virus — sometimes to very large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think the virus ’ s biggest weapon has been that it can be spread by asymptomatic or presymptomatic people , ” McGraw says .
“ This , in combination with insufficient testing of people in the community , has meant that it can move from one host to the next while we are unaware.
” This coronavirus ’ s uneven spread is calculated by its “ dispersion factor ” ( sometimes abbreviated as “ k ” ) : what proportion of cases cause the bulk of transmissions .
An even dispersion rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of secondary infections .
We still don ’ t have an entirely firm k factor for Covid-19 , and a lot of the research is still in the prepublication phase and has not been peer-reviewed .
But preliminary estimates , such as one co-authored by Adam Kucharski , an infectious disease dynamics expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , suggest that about 10 percent of infected people cause about 80 percent of the virus ’ s spread .
Another early , non-peer-reviewed study from Israel put the local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of infected people causing 80 percent of new infections .
And a preliminary analysis of superspreading events in Hong Kong put their estimates at around 20 percent of infections causing 80 percent of local transmission .
All of this shows how important superspreading events have been in the virus ’ s spread .
But it doesn ’ t fully explain why they are happening — or how to stop them .
Are certain people more likely to be superspreaders ?
Scientists are learning that a person ’ s likelihood of kicking off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit on biology and a lot on behavior .
Some individuals seem to develop higher amounts of the virus in their system , upping their odds of transmitting it to others .
And given that the amount of virus in the body tends to shift over the duration of infection — rising until around the onset of symptoms , then declining — the chance that someone is a likely superspreader changes over time .
Finding out whether some people are predisposed to be superspreaders will take more time and research , McGraw says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is how individuals ’ behavior could increase the chance they spread the virus to many others — or not .
“ We do know that wearing masks , keeping up physical distancing , avoiding crowds , and isolating upon becoming sick or testing positive can prevent superspreading , ” she says .
The new CDC report out of Japan found 22 people who likely started clusters of cases .
( Half of them were 20 to 39 years old . )
And for 16 people , the research team could figure out when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it showed that 41 percent of them didn ’ t have any symptoms when they spread the virus .
In fact , of the superspreaders , only one had a cough when they infected others .
This points to an important nuance in thinking about how some individuals might be sickening a disproportionate number of others .
“ We should not think about superspreaders as villains , ” McGraw says .
“ Any one of us could unknowingly be a superspreader ” — especially given what we know about how much it spreads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that means we can probably also avoid becoming a superspreader .
How ?
By doing things we already know can limit the spread of the virus : “ Wear a mask .
Wash your hands .
Keep your distance , and respect the physical space of others , ” McGraw says .
As the pandemic has worn on and become increasingly politicized , many people in the US are now resisting continued precautions , leading to mask rebellions , large gatherings — and much greater chances of new superspreading events .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just the latest and largest example .
As the top public health official there said in a press conference Wednesday , “ I know so many people are over Covid , but Covid is not over.
” And indeed , according to Covid Exit Strategy , Oklahoma ’ s new daily cases are up 125 percent over the past 14 days .
“ I see an increasing number of people not wearing masks in public as restrictions ease , ” McGraw says .
“ I find it disappointing .
I worry that our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rather than being more community-minded , is going to prolong the outbreak and lead to more deaths than necessary.
” Why superspreading is more common at concerts than in libraries Although we know that individuals ’ behavior plays a role in superspreading , what might be even more important for these events is where they happen .
Researchers have been tracking many superspreading events around the globe , and there seem to be recurring locations no matter what the country .
In addition to those we have heard most about , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elder care facilities , there have also been numerous large superspreading events at bars , churches , offices , gyms , and shopping centers .
These are also places , though , that are now reopening around the country and likely contributing to the upward swing of cases in many states .
As Kucharski notes , “ Identifying and reducing risky events and environments could make a substantial dent in transmission.
” Not reducing these events has the opposite effect on the number of cases .
For example , as South Korea started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected person who attended five nightclubs caused at least 50 new infections .
And a preliminary study of infection clusters in Hong Kong found that the largest one documented so far , which resulted in 106 Covid-19 cases , was linked back to exposures from staff and musicians at a series of bars .
Seventy-three of the people in this cluster caught the virus at the bars ( including 39 who were customers ) , who then spread it to others in the community .
A team of researchers at the London School @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collecting data on these superspreading events in a public database .
The largest ones — including two that resulted in more than 1,000 cases each — happened aboard ships .
Hundreds of cases also have originated from single individuals in close contact with others in worker dormitories , food processing plants , prisons , and elder care facilities .
But next on the list are an outbreak tied to a single person at an indoor-outdoor shopping market in Peru who likely infected 163 other people ; an indoor-outdoor religious service in India where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an indoor-outdoor wedding in New Zealand where a single case sparked 98 more .
Only one of the 22 cluster location types the team analyzed in a preliminary study was an outdoor setting ( building sites in Singapore ; four clusters were linked to these sites , causing a total of 95 infections acquired directly from the sites ) .
These findings line up with other preliminary research that calculated closed environments to be almost 20 times more likely to spur additional coronavirus infections than open-air ones .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are other reasons certain venues are more prone to superspreading .
As we ’ ve learned from studying events , like the infamous March church choir practice in Skagit County , Washington , during which one person infected an estimated 52 of 61 people ( two of whom died ) , loud talking and singing “ can spread more virus than talking at a normal volume , ” McGraw says .
Indeed , the recent analysis out of Japan found that “ many Covid-19 clusters were associated with heavy breathing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ karaoke parties , cheering at clubs , having conversations in bars , and exercising in gymnasiums.
” Even looking more closely at cases from these locations can give us clues about what makes superspreading more likely .
A CDC report from South Korea detailed 112 new Covid-19 infections that came from aerobic dance classes ( like Zumba ) in one city .
Interestingly , an instructor who infected dance class participants also taught yoga and Pilates classes , but none of those participants got ill. “ We hypothesize that the lower intensity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same transmission effects as those more intense fitness dance classes , ” the authors noted .
“ The moist , warm atmosphere in a sports facility coupled with turbulent air flow generated by intense physical exercise can cause more dense transmission of isolated droplets , ” thereby making the virus more likely to spread .
These hubs of contagion also are helping us learn what activities might be safer , like seeing small groups of people , from a distance , outdoors .
“ There ’ s increasing evidence that certain environments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other people , are far less risky than crowded , close-knit interactions , like large gatherings indoors , ” says Kucharski , who is also the author of a forthcoming book called The Rules of Contagion .
What should we be doing to limit superspreading ?
Superspreading can be both a curse and a potential blessing in a disease outbreak .
It means that having everyone on full lockdown is not necessarily essential to keep the disease in check when it is not already circulating widely in a community — if ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) we can determine the highest risks for superspreading and prevent them .
That ’ s the blessing .
The curse , Kucharski says , is “ if risky situations are missed or undetected , it means transmission could persist.
” Not only that , but there is also the danger that , as the authors of the one early report note , “ If a superspreader is infected , the disease may spread to other superspreaders.
” This seems entirely possible , especially given that people surrounding an original superspreader were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attending a crowded public location ) that would make them more likely to be a superspreader , too .
Superspreading events also can strain other systems in place , like contact tracing , to contain the virus , increasing the odds that further infections will continue to spiral in the community .
Just as a sudden spike in cases can surpass the capacity of health care systems , a big jump can also surpass local capacity to track and notify contacts of the infected to isolate and get tested .
But now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we could theoretically prevent future ones .
The good news is that the science suggests we can .
But it depends on government , businesses , and individuals to put these lessons into practice .
For example , in addition to physical distancing measures , limits on capacity , and requiring mask-wearing , governments and businesses could also take into account other details we are learning about superspreading events , like loud environments that encourage more droplet-filled speech .
For example , as Colorado shifts to allow bars to open and indoor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could establish guidelines to limit noise levels ( by , for example , not allowing loud music ) so that people don ’ t need to yell or talk loudly .
Some current efforts to prevent superspreading — like taking people ’ s temperature before they enter a building — are not failproof , however .
Even if a business , day care , or large-scale event checks everyone ’ s temperature before they enter , “ it won ’ t necessarily pick up everyone who is infectious , ” Kucharski says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ is really only going to catch a subset of people ” who have the virus .
For example , some infected individuals never develop a fever , or “ their fever rises and falls over a single day ” or changes through the illness , she says .
One company that has tested more than 30,000 people for Covid-19 recently reported that just 12 percent of people with positive tests had a fever of 100 degrees or higher .
And only 37 percent even had a cough .
One thing that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracing and testing .
These tools would also help us learn more about the nuances of superspreading and prevent more of it in the future .
If those 10 or 20 percent of people who would have sparked 80 percent of the new infections instead only passed the illness on to one or two other people , we could be in a much different place , and soon .
A first step is following the lead of infectious disease experts , who know well what potential superspreading situations to avoid .
McGraw says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not go to a gym , an indoor restaurant , or big , crowded events like rallies , concerts , nightclubs , etc.
” What would she feel comfortable doing ?
“ I might dine outside , if the tables were spaced apart , and I felt like the customers and restaurant staff were taking precautions.
” Just this past week , she went camping with her family , but she chose campgrounds following CDC guidelines .
“ For other places , like parks and beaches , my advice is to be prepared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can not safely distance , ” she says .
For his part , Kucharski cites the simple guidelines Japan has put out : avoid , when at all possible , the “ 3 Cs ” — closed environments , crowded places , and close-contact settings .
And it ’ s a reminder that large , entirely optional indoor events , like political campaign rallies ( for any candidate ) , seem exceptionally dangerous right now — not just for those who attend , but also for those they might come into contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a freelance science journalist and author of Cultured and Octopus !
Find her on Twitter at @ KHCourage .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

How superspreading is fueling the pandemic — and how we can stop it
Share All sharing options for: How superspreading is fueling the pandemic — and how we can stop it
We now know that, on average, most people with the novel coronavirus pass the virus to just one other person, or to no one else at all.
But some go on to infect many, many more, often before they even experience symptoms. Many of these transmission chains begin with “superspreading” events, where one person (usually in a crowded indoor space) passes the virus to dozens of others. Early contact tracing studies suggest these events have been a large driver of transmission around the world. By some estimates, 10 percent of people have been causing 80 percent of new infections.
This is one of the reasons experts worry about large indoor gatherings — more so than outdoor ones — causing large spikes in case numbers.
With Friday’s news that at least 12 people who work in the White House or have recently attended events there, including President Donald Trump, have tested positive for the coronavirus, there are questions about whether the maskless indoor receptions on September 26 to celebrate Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court kicked off a superspreading event.
The Amy Coney Barrett Rose Garden announcement was a superspreader event, despite being outdoors.
Single risk reduction measures are not enough. Multiple measures are needed:
Masks AND distancing AND avoid crowds AND hygiene AND avoid prolonged contact.https://t.co/gqO23wjsHk — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) October 3, 2020
To date, some of the largest superspreading events have happened aboard ships, including Navy carriers and cruise ships. But they are also happening in smaller settings, including at a church in Arkansas.
In early March, a 57-year-old pastor and his wife, who both felt fine, attended a series of church events over three days, and the pastor returned for an additional Bible study group a few days later. Soon after, they each started developing symptoms and eventually tested positive for the coronavirus. But it had already spread. At least 33 of the other 92 event attendees later tested positive for Covid-19, and three of them died. These cases then spawned more than two dozen other illnesses — and another death — in the community.
One preliminary Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report analyzed all of the 3,184 confirmed Covid-19 cases in Japan through the beginning of April. The researchers found that 61 percent of cases could be definitively traced to clusters of spread outside the household, such as at restaurants, bars, event venues, and workplaces. And this is likely an undercount due to limitations in contact tracing.
Superspreading events can lead to potentially thousands of cases in the community, as an August 25 preprint that hasn’t yet been peer reviewed suggests. The authors sequenced the full viral genome in 772 Covid-19 cases in the Boston region, including 28 early cases that were linked to a late-February conference for the biotech company Biogen. By finding a specific genetic mutation in the conference infections, they could then trace the chain of transmission. This one variant was found in about one in three later cases in their Boston area study (and about 2.7 percent of all of the analyzed US cases), suggesting that the Biogen conference led to an estimated 20,000 Covid-19 cases in total.
What causes these superspreading clusters, and why are they such a key driver of this pandemic? Is it something about the people themselves who start them? Or is it more about the settings where these events take place? Or a combination?
Thankfully, we are learning more about superspreading events, and this insight can help dramatically slow the spread of the coronavirus and save lives — all while potentially allowing more people to return to less risky activities. That is, if policymakers implement the guidance, and people follow it. “If you could reduce superspreading, you could have a massive impact on the pandemic,” Elizabeth McGraw, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University, told Vox in an email. Let’s walk through it.
Why is the coronavirus so good at superspreading?
To understand what might kick off a superspreading event, let’s review some basics about how this virus, SARS-CoV-2, spreads. Researchers have found that it often spreads through microscopic droplets created when an infected person coughs or sneezes — or even speaks — and another person breathes them in. These disease-containing droplets are a large part of the reasoning behind staying at least 6 feet away from people and wearing a mask in public.
But scientists are finding that the virus likely also spreads through even tinier, longer-lasting aerosols particles from breathing or speaking (or flushing a toilet). These are so small they can linger in the air after an infectious person has left — and may contain infectious virus particles for up to three hours. And they may be a key element to superspreading events: An infected person could seed a poorly ventilated indoor space with virus without even getting physically close to all the people they end up infecting.
Superspreading also appears to be more likely with SARS-CoV-2 because people typically have the highest level of the virus in their system (making them infectious) right before they develop symptoms. (This is very different from other severe coronaviruses like SARS and MERS, where people were most infectious seven to 10 days after they started feeling sick, when they were more likely to be in isolation or in medical care.) So thousands of people with active Covid-19 infections continue to go about their lives not knowing that they could be spreading the disease.
This has meant that, as some researchers noted in a preprint, “most transmissions are front-loaded” toward the beginning of the illness. As another team of researchers who analyzed cases and contacts in Taiwan noted in JAMA, people actually had a much lower risk of spreading the virus after five days of symptoms. This might be in part because sick people are less likely to go out, whether because they don’t want to spread their illness or because they simply don’t feel up to it.
But it also has to do with a person’s “viral load” — an amount that actually tends to go down as symptoms wear on. A May study of samples collected from patients, published in Clinical Infectious Disease, suggests that people who had symptoms for more than eight days might not actually be very infectious.
“I think the virus’s biggest weapon has been that it can be spread by asymptomatic or presymptomatic people”
All of this makes it so much more likely for people to be spreading the virus — sometimes to very large groups of people — unwittingly.
“I think the virus’s biggest weapon has been that it can be spread by asymptomatic or presymptomatic people,” McGraw says. “This, in combination with insufficient testing of people in the community, has meant that it can move from one host to the next while we are unaware.”
This coronavirus’s uneven spread is calculated by its “dispersion factor” (sometimes abbreviated as “k”): what proportion of cases cause the bulk of transmissions. An even dispersion rate would mean most people cause the same number of secondary infections.
We still don’t have an entirely firm k factor for Covid-19, and a lot of the research is still in the prepublication phase and has not been peer-reviewed. But preliminary estimates, such as one co-authored by Adam Kucharski, an infectious disease dynamics expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, suggest that about 10 percent of infected people cause about 80 percent of the virus’s spread.
Another early, non-peer-reviewed study from Israel put the local k factor at between 1 and 10 percent of infected people causing 80 percent of new infections. And a preliminary analysis of superspreading events in Hong Kong put their estimates at around 20 percent of infections causing 80 percent of local transmission.
All of this shows how important superspreading events have been in the virus’s spread. But it doesn’t fully explain why they are happening — or how to stop them.
Are certain people more likely to be superspreaders?
Scientists are learning that a person’s likelihood of kicking off a superspreading event probably depends a little bit on biology and a lot on behavior.
Some individuals seem to develop higher amounts of the virus in their system, upping their odds of transmitting it to others.
And given that the amount of virus in the body tends to shift over the duration of infection — rising until around the onset of symptoms, then declining — the chance that someone is a likely superspreader changes over time.
Another preprint posted on August 7 developed a model to better understand how these dynamics might be playing out for SARS-CoV-2. The research suggests that people carrying this virus are potentially infectious for about two and a half days — and rise to a “moderate probability of transmission per contact” for “less than half a day,” the researchers write.
This means that it would likely take someone having contact with a large number of people during the window when they had fairly large amounts of the virus (more than 10 million RNA copies) to spark a superspreading event infecting more than 50 people (whereas someone with 100,000 viral RNA copies was unlikely to infect others).
This helps us understand how superspreading can happen by chance, on a population level. Finding out whether some people are predisposed to be superspreaders will take more time and research, McGraw says.
But what we have been learning is how individuals’ behavior could increase the chance they spread the virus to many others — or not. “We do know that wearing masks, keeping up physical distancing, avoiding crowds, and isolating upon becoming sick or testing positive can prevent superspreading,” she says.
The CDC report out of Japan found 22 people who likely started clusters of cases. (Half of them were 20 to 39 years old.) And for 16 people, the research team could figure out when transmission occurred, which is important because it showed that 41 percent of them didn’t have any symptoms when they spread the virus. In fact, of the superspreaders, only one had a cough when they infected others.
And as the authors of the August 7 preprint found, about 62 percent of superspreading transmissions happened when the spreader was presymptomatic.
This points to an important nuance in thinking about how some individuals might be sickening a disproportionate number of others. “We should not think about superspreaders as villains,” McGraw says. “Any one of us could unknowingly be a superspreader” — especially given what we know about how much it spreads when people are feeling just fine.
But that means we can probably also avoid becoming a superspreader by doing things we already know can limit the spread of the virus: “Wear a mask. Wash your hands. Keep your distance, and respect the physical space of others,” McGraw says.
As the pandemic has worn on and become increasingly politicized, however, many people in the US are now resisting continued precautions, leading to mask rebellions, large gatherings — and much greater chances of new superspreading events.
“I see an increasing number of people not wearing masks in public as restrictions ease,” McGraw says. “I find it disappointing. I worry that our focus on personal freedoms in the US, rather than being more community-minded, is going to prolong the outbreak and lead to more deaths than necessary.”
Why superspreading is more common at concerts than in libraries
Although we know that individuals’ behavior plays a role in superspreading, what might be even more important for these events is where they happen.
Researchers have been tracking many superspreading events around the globe, and there seem to be recurring locations no matter what the country. In addition to those we have heard most about, like prisons, food processing plants, and elder care facilities, there have also been numerous large superspreading events at bars, churches, offices, gyms, and shopping centers.
These are also places, though, that are now reopening around the country and likely contributing to the upward swing of cases in many states. As Kucharski wrote in an email to Vox, “Identifying and reducing risky events and environments could make a substantial dent in transmission.” Not reducing these events has the opposite effect on the number of cases.
For example, as South Korea started to reopen in early May, one infected person who attended five nightclubs caused at least 50 new infections.
And a preliminary study of infection clusters in Hong Kong found that the largest one documented so far, which resulted in 106 Covid-19 cases, was linked back to exposures from staff and musicians at a series of bars. Seventy-three of the people in this cluster caught the virus at the bars (including 39 who were customers), who then spread it to others in the community.
A team of researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has been collecting data on these superspreading events in a public database. The largest ones — including two that resulted in more than 1,000 cases each — happened aboard ships. Hundreds of cases also have originated from single individuals in close contact with others in worker dormitories, food processing plants, prisons, and elder care facilities.
But next on the list are an outbreak tied to a single person at an indoor-outdoor shopping market in Peru who likely infected 163 other people; an indoor-outdoor religious service in India where one person likely sickened 130 others; and an indoor-outdoor wedding in New Zealand where a single case sparked 98 more.
Only one of the 22 cluster location types the team analyzed in a preliminary study was an outdoor setting (building sites in Singapore; four clusters were linked to these sites, causing a total of 95 infections acquired directly from the sites).
These findings line up with other preliminary research that calculated closed environments to be almost 20 times more likely to spur additional coronavirus infections than open-air ones.
There was concern that the massive protests across the US, which started in late May after the killing of George Floyd, would become superspreading events. So far the data suggests that wasn’t the case, with no large surge in cases in cities that had the largest demonstrations.
This lines up with the science. “Outdoor events like the protests are inherently less risky than indoor events, given greater airflow,” McGraw says. “It is also easier to spread out and maintain physical distancing.” And photographs of the protests have shown that a large number of people have been wearing masks. Still, no massive gathering is guaranteed to stay Covid-19-free. “There will still be increased risk of transmission given the large number of people present,” she says.
It also appears that not all indoor venues and events are equally risky when it comes to starting a large cluster of new cases.
As we’ve learned from studying events, like the infamous March church choir practice in Skagit County, Washington, during which one person infected an estimated 52 of 61 people (two of whom died), loud talking and singing “can spread more virus than talking at a normal volume,” McGraw says.
Indeed, the recent analysis out of Japan found that “many Covid-19 clusters were associated with heavy breathing in close proximity, such as singing at karaoke parties, cheering at clubs, having conversations in bars, and exercising in gymnasiums.”
Even looking more closely at cases from these locations can give us clues about what makes superspreading more likely. A CDC report from South Korea detailed 112 Covid-19 infections that came from aerobic dance classes (like Zumba) in one city. Interestingly, an instructor who infected dance class participants also taught yoga and Pilates classes, but none of those participants got ill.
“We hypothesize that the lower intensity of pilates and yoga did not cause the same transmission effects as those more intense fitness dance classes,” the authors noted. “The moist, warm atmosphere in a sports facility coupled with turbulent air flow generated by intense physical exercise can cause more dense transmission of isolated droplets,” thereby making the virus more likely to spread.
These hubs of contagion also are helping us learn what activities might be safer, like seeing small groups of people, from a distance, outdoors.
“There’s increasing evidence that certain environments, like socially distanced picnics with a few other people, are far less risky than crowded, close-knit interactions, like large gatherings indoors,” says Kucharski, who is also the author of The Rules of Contagion.
What should we be doing to limit superspreading?
Superspreading can be both a curse and a potential blessing in a disease outbreak. It means that having everyone on full lockdown is not necessarily essential to keep the disease in check when it is not already circulating widely in a community — if (and that’s an important “if”) we can determine the highest risks for superspreading and prevent them. That’s the blessing. The curse, Kucharski says, is “if risky situations are missed or undetected, it means transmission could persist.”
Not only that, but there is also the danger that, as the authors of one early report note, “If a superspreader is infected, the disease may spread to other superspreaders.” This seems entirely possible, especially given that people surrounding an original superspreader were probably already engaging in behavior (like attending a crowded public location) that would make them more likely to be a superspreader, too.
Superspreading events also can strain other systems in place, like contact tracing, to contain the virus, increasing the odds that further infections will continue to spiral in the community. Just as a sudden spike in cases can surpass the capacity of health care systems, a big jump can also surpass local capacity to track and notify contacts of the infected to isolate and get tested.
But now that we have data from recent superspreading events, we could theoretically prevent future ones. For example, the preprint modeling superspreading dynamics suggests that just reducing exposure opportunities, such as events with 20 or more possible people, could get the virus’s spread under control.
The good news is that the science on this is growing. But it depends on government, businesses, and individuals to put these lessons into practice.
For example, in addition to physical distancing measures, limits on capacity, and requiring mask-wearing, governments and businesses could also take into account other details we are learning about superspreading events, like loud environments that encourage more droplet-filled speech.
One thing that will help reduce these events is more contact tracing, isolation, and testing. If those 10 or 20 percent of people who would have sparked 80 percent of the new infections instead only passed the illness on to one or two other people, we could be in a much different place, and soon.
A first step is following the lead of infectious disease experts, who know well what potential superspreading situations to avoid. McGraw says, “I might dine outside, if the tables were spaced apart, and I felt like the customers and restaurant staff were taking precautions.” Earlier this summer, she went camping with her family, but she chose campgrounds following CDC guidelines. “For other places, like parks and beaches, my advice is to be prepared to leave if they get crowded and you cannot safely distance,” she says.
For his part, Kucharski cites the simple guidelines Japan has put out: avoid, when at all possible, the “3 Cs” — closed environments, crowded places, and close-contact settings.
Katherine Harmon Courage is a freelance science journalist and author of Cultured and Octopus! Find her on Twitter at @KHCourage.
New goal: 25,000
In the spring, we launched a program asking readers for financial contributions to help keep Vox free for everyone, and last week, we set a goal of reaching 20,000 contributors. Well, you helped us blow past that. Today, we are extending that goal to 25,000. Millions turn to Vox each month to understand an increasingly chaotic world — from what is happening with the USPS to the coronavirus crisis to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work — and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. Contribute today from as little as $3.