vox--2020-06-04--The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t.

The police want your phone data .
Here ’ s what they can get — and what they can ’ t .
Share All sharing options for : The police want your phone data .
Here ’ s what they can get — and what they can ’ t .
Our lives are on our phones , making them a likely source of evidence if police suspect you ’ ve committed a crime .
That ’ s something to keep in mind as protests over the killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers sweep the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using civil unrest to ramp up their surveillance of the public .
This surveillance happens not only to participants of peaceful protests but also to anyone else the police believe may have committed a crime .
There are myriad ways that law enforcement can obtain data from your phone from external sources .
While there are a few good primers online that cover the steps you can take to minimize your phone ’ s exposure to them , there ’ s no way to completely guarantee your privacy .
When it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to your phone , what law enforcement can actually get varies depending on how you lock it down , where you live , and the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency that is investigating you ( local police versus the FBI , for instance ) .
Here are some of the main ways the government can get information from your phone , including why they ’ re allowed to and how they ’ d do it .
Law enforcement wants access to third-party data on your phone .
What can it get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( with the right court order ) .
Long answer : Depending on what law enforcement is looking for , it may not need physical possession of your device at all .
A lot of information on your phone is also stored elsewhere .
For example , if you back up your iPhone to Apple ’ s iCloud , the government can get it from Apple .
If it needs to see whose DMs you slid into , law enforcement can contact Twitter .
As long as they go through the proper and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cops can get their hands on pretty much anything you ’ ve stored outside of your device .
You do have some rights here .
The Fourth Amendment protects you from illegal search and seizure , and a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ( ECPA ) dictates what law enforcement must obtain in order to get the information .
It might be a subpoena , court order , or warrant , depending on what it ’ s looking for .
( WhatsApp actually does a good job of explaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ section of the ECPA , known as the Stored Communications Act , says that service providers must have those orders before they can give the requested information to law enforcement .
But , assuming the government has the right paperwork , your information is very obtainable .
“ Basically , anything that a provider has that it can decode , law enforcement is getting it , ” Jennifer Granick , surveillance and cybersecurity counsel for the ACLU ’ s speech , privacy , and technology project , told Recode .
Note that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement wants to get WhatsApp messages you exchanged with a friend from your friend ’ s phone , it doesn ’ t need a warrant as long as your friend is willing to hand the information over .
“ You don ’ t have a Fourth Amendment interest in messages that have been received by someone else , ” Andrew Crocker , a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation , told Recode .
If your friend refuses to willingly hand over what the police want , they can still get it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrant first .
Law enforcement wants access to personal data on your phone .
Can they do that ?
Short answer : If your phone is protected by a passcode or biometric unlocking features , there ’ s a chance cops can ’ t gain access to your personal data .
But that ’ s not guaranteed .
Long answer : In addition to data hosted by a third party , there ’ s a lot of information that can only be gained from access to your phone .
For example , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent as the last time you uploaded it and it only includes what you choose to give it — assuming you back your phone up at all .
Encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp don ’ t store messages on their servers or keep track of who is sending them to whom , so the only way for police to access them is through either the sender or receiver ’ s devices .
And as we ’ ve explained above , the government can get WhatsApp messages from the person you ’ re communicating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only if they know who it is in the first place .
So how exactly would someone other than you — cops , for instance — get access to that data ?
If your phone doesn ’ t have a password or law enforcement is able to access it using specialized passcode cracking tools like Cellebrite or GrayKey — and they have the necessary search warrant to do so — then it ’ s all theirs .
But if your phone is locked with a passcode and law enforcement can ’ t hack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be your friend .
Essentially , the Fifth Amendment says you can ’ t be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony .
( This amendment is perhaps known best to you as that dramatic moment on Law & Order when the person on the stand says , “ I plead the Fifth.
” ) Testimony , in this case , is defined as revealing the contents of your own mind .
Therefore , civil rights advocates say , the government can ’ t force you to tell them your phone ’ s password .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that ’ s not always enough .
There is what is known as the foregone conclusion exception .
That is , a defendant ’ s testimony is not self-incriminating if it reveals something the government already knew , and the government can prove that prior knowledge .
In this case , the defendant ’ s testimony is a foregone conclusion — a predictable outcome .
So , for phone passwords , the government can and does argue that revealing the password only shows that the phone belongs to the defendant .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish the phone ’ s ownership , that ’ s a foregone conclusion that the defendant would also know its password .
Some courts have interpreted this to require the government also to show it has knowledge of the specific pieces of evidence that it expects to find on the device .
This exception comes from a 1976 US Supreme Court ruling .
In Fisher v. United States , someone being investigated for tax fraud gave documents prepared by his accountant to his lawyer .
The IRS wanted those documents ; the defendant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and therefore was protected by the Fifth Amendment .
The Supreme Court sided with the IRS , ruling that since the existence and location of the tax documents was a “ foregone conclusion , ” the act of producing them didn ’ t tell the government anything it didn ’ t already know .
Obviously , a 44-year-old decision over tax papers doesn ’ t take into account how information can be stored today , nor how much .
“ The EFF ’ s position is that the foregone conclusion exception is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passcode cases , ” Crocker said .
But without further guidance from the Supreme Court , it ’ s largely been left up to interpretation by lower courts , with state courts considering their state constitution ’ s provisions as well as the federal .
The result , Crocker says , is “ a total patchwork of [ decisions from ] state Supreme Courts and federal courts.
” For example , in 2019 , Massachusetts ’ highest court forced a defendant to reveal his phone ’ s passcode while Pennsylvania ’ s highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be compelled to unlock his computer .
Indiana ’ s and New Jersey ’ s highest courts are both considering compelled passcode disclosure cases .
On the federal side , the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a defendant could be compelled to unlock multiple password-protected devices , even though the defendant claimed he couldn ’ t remember his passwords .
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals , on the other hand , ruled the other way in a different case .
“ It ’ s very much in flux , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US Supreme Court could get involved and resolve this.
” There are other ways to protect your phone .
Some phones can use fingerprints , facial recognition , and iris scanners to unlock instead of passwords .
Law enforcement is allowed to use people ’ s bodies as evidence against them , for instance by compelling them to participate in suspect lineups or provide their DNA .
So , if the police can take your fingerprints , can ’ t they use them to unlock your phone ?
Again , courts are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The issue with biometrics is , is it testimonial ?
” Granick said .
“ The courts have not entirely decided that , but there have been a couple courts recently that said biometrics is basically the modern technological equivalent of your passcode.
” Crocker says courts should consider that the evidence police can get from your fingerprint is much more restricted and known than what they can get when your fingerprint unlocks a phone .
So far , though , he says , courts have been more likely to rule that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than they are that it applies to passcodes .
Yet another factor to consider here is that , while it ’ s impossible for police to read your mind and get your passcode , they can hold a phone up to your face or press your finger on it to bypass the biometric lock .
And while your lawyer can ( and should ) argue that any evidence found this way was illegally obtained and should be suppressed , there ’ s no guarantee they ’ ll win .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s rights not to turn over evidence is stronger than trying to have the evidence suppressed after the fact , ” Crocker said .
So , all things considered , if you ’ re worried about law enforcement getting access to your phone , your safest bet is to just use a passcode .
Sadly , I have died .
Law enforcement wants to unlock my phone but they can ’ t get my password due to my aforementioned death .
What happens now ?
Short answer : Your Fourth and Fifth Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But other parties have rights , too , and those might be enough to keep the government out of your phone .
Long answer : This isn ’ t about your Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights anymore ; for the most part , you lost those when you died .
( That said , law enforcement might have to get the right paperwork if they were looking for evidence against someone else on your phone — after all , their Fourth Amendment rights are still intact ) .
If law enforcement can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own , it may well be the phone ’ s manufacturer ’ s rights that come into question .
Attorney General Bill Barr has made no secret of his disdain for Apple over its refusal to grant law enforcement access to locked and encrypted devices .
In May , he called for a “ legislative solution ” that would force tech companies to cooperate with his demands .
Barr also claimed in January that the only way the FBI could access dead suspected terrorist Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani ’ s iPhones is if Apple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this argument before .
In 2016 , the United States tried to use the All Writs Act , which dates back to 1789 , to force Apple to create a “ back door ” that would give the FBI access to the San Bernardino shooter ’ s locked phone .
Apple refused , saying the government could not force it to create “ a crippled and insecure product ” that it would not have built otherwise .
So far , there ’ s been no legal resolution : In both cases , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through other means before a court could rule on it .
You may have noticed by now that , while many of the cases concerning phones and passcodes are recent — some are even still making their way through the legal system — the cases cited to make legal arguments are decades or even centuries old .
The wheels of justice turn slowly , and judges are often forced to use decisions about access to pieces of paper to inform their rulings about access to devices that hold tremendous amounts of personal information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and about what ; where we were yesterday , last month , or three years ago ; what we spent money on or got money for ; our calendars , photos , emails , and contacts .
These devices hold tens or even hundreds of gigabytes of data on almost everything about us .
You may not be able to control what law enforcement can get from someone else or what they do with your phone once you ’ re dead .
But , with so much uncertainty surrounding what the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you ’ re alive , it ’ s a good idea to check out your legal options before handing over that passcode .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t.
Share All sharing options for: The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t.
Our lives are on our phones, making them a likely source of evidence if police suspect you’ve committed a crime. And there are myriad ways law enforcement can obtain that data, both externally and from the phone itself.
Companies that specialize in cracking phone passcodes and exploiting vulnerabilities are getting better and better at undermining them. And although Apple has tried especially hard to make its phones impossible to break into, more and more law enforcement agencies are using those tools to gain access to devices, even when someone is accused of relatively petty crimes.
While there are a few good primers online that cover the steps you can take to minimize your phone’s exposure to law enforcement surveillance, there’s no way to completely guarantee your privacy.
When it comes to data that can only be obtained from access to your phone, what law enforcement can actually get varies depending on how you lock it down, where you live, and the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency that is investigating you (local police versus the FBI, for instance). Here are some of the main ways the government can get information from your phone, including why it’s allowed to and how it would do so.
Law enforcement wants access to third-party data on my phone. What can it get?
Short answer: Whatever it wants (with the right court order).
Long answer: Depending on what law enforcement is looking for, it may not need physical possession of your device at all. A lot of information on your phone is also stored elsewhere. For example, if you back up your iPhone to Apple’s iCloud, the government can get it from Apple. If it needs to see whose DMs you slid into, law enforcement can contact Twitter. As long as they go through the proper and established legal channels to get it, police can get their hands on pretty much anything you’ve stored outside of your device.
You do have some rights here. The Fourth Amendment protects you from illegal search and seizure, and a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) dictates what law enforcement must obtain in order to get the information. It might be a subpoena, court order, or warrant, depending on what it’s looking for. (WhatsApp actually does a good job of explaining this in its FAQ.) A section of the ECPA, known as the Stored Communications Act, says that service providers must have those orders before they can give the requested information to law enforcement.
But, assuming the government has the right paperwork, your information is very obtainable.
“Basically, anything that a provider has that it can decode, law enforcement is getting it,” Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel for the ACLU’s speech, privacy, and technology project, told Recode.
Note that this only covers service providers. If law enforcement wants to get WhatsApp messages you exchanged with a friend from your friend’s phone, it doesn’t need a warrant as long as your friend is willing to hand over the information.
“You don’t have a Fourth Amendment interest in messages that have been received by someone else,” Andrew Crocker, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Recode.
If your friend refuses to willingly hand over what the police want, they can still get it — they just have to get a warrant first.
Law enforcement wants access to personal data on my phone. Can they do that?
Short answer: If your phone is protected by a passcode or biometric unlocking features, there’s a chance police can’t gain access to your personal data. But that’s not guaranteed.
Long answer: In addition to data hosted by a third party, there’s a lot of information that can only be gained from access to your phone. For example, the data in iCloud backups is only as recent as the last time you uploaded it, and it only includes what you choose to give it — assuming you back up your phone at all. Encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp don’t store messages on their servers or keep track of who is sending them to whom, so the only way for police to access them is through the sender’s or the receiver’s device. And as we’ve explained above, the government can get WhatsApp messages from the person you’re communicating with, but only if it knows who it is in the first place.
So how exactly would someone other than you — police, for instance — get access to that data? If your phone doesn’t have a password or law enforcement is able to access it using specialized passcode cracking tools like Cellebrite or GrayKey — and they have the necessary search warrant to do so — then it’s all theirs. A recent report from the technology and justice advocacy group Upturn showed that law enforcement use of these phone-cracking tools is more prevalent than previously known, and there is little oversight governing how and when those tools may be used, or what information they’re limited to accessing. But if your phone is locked with a passcode and law enforcement can’t hack into it, the Fifth Amendment may be your friend.
Essentially, the Fifth Amendment says you can’t be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony. (This amendment is perhaps known best to you as that dramatic moment on Law & Order when the person on the stand says, “I plead the Fifth.”) Testimony, in this case, is defined as revealing the contents of your own mind. Therefore, civil rights advocates say, the government can’t force you to tell them your phone’s password.
Most courts seem to agree with this, but that’s not always enough. There is what is known as the foregone conclusion exception. That is, a defendant’s testimony is not self-incriminating if it reveals something the government already knew, and the government can prove that prior knowledge. In this case, the defendant’s testimony is a foregone conclusion — a predictable outcome.
So, for phone passwords, the government can and does argue that revealing the password only shows that the phone belongs to the defendant. If the government has enough proof to establish the phone’s ownership, that’s a foregone conclusion that the defendant would also know its password. Some courts have interpreted this to require the government also to show it has knowledge of the specific pieces of evidence it expects to find on the device.
This exception comes from a 1976 US Supreme Court ruling. In Fisher v. United States, someone being investigated for tax fraud gave documents prepared by his accountant to his lawyer. The IRS wanted those documents; the defendant said that producing them would be self-incriminating and therefore was protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court sided with the IRS, ruling that since the existence and location of the tax documents was a “foregone conclusion,” the act of producing them didn’t tell the government anything it didn’t already know.
Obviously, a 44-year-old decision over tax papers doesn’t take into account how information can be stored today, nor how much.
“The EFF’s position is that the foregone conclusion exception is very narrow and should never apply in these passcode cases,” Crocker said.
But without further guidance from the Supreme Court, it’s largely been left up to interpretation by lower courts, with state courts considering their state constitution’s provisions as well as the federal. The result, Crocker says, is “a total patchwork of [decisions from] state Supreme Courts and federal courts.”
For example, in 2019, Massachusetts’s highest court forced a defendant to reveal his phone’s passcode while Pennsylvania’s highest court ruled that a defendant could not be compelled to unlock his computer. Indiana’s and New Jersey’s highest courts are both considering compelled passcode disclosure cases. On the federal side, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a defendant could be compelled to unlock multiple password-protected devices, even though the defendant claimed he couldn’t remember his passwords. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, on the other hand, ruled the other way in a different case.
“It’s very much in flux,” Crocker said. “Eventually, the US Supreme Court could get involved and resolve this.”
There are other ways to protect your phone. Some phones can use fingerprints, facial recognition, and iris scanners to unlock instead of passwords. Law enforcement is allowed to use people’s bodies as evidence against them, for instance by compelling them to participate in suspect lineups or provide their DNA. So if the police can take your fingerprints, can’t they use them to unlock your phone? Again, courts are all over the map on this.
“The issue with biometrics is, is it testimonial?” Granick said. “The courts have not entirely decided that, but there have been a couple courts recently that said biometrics is basically the modern technological equivalent of your passcode.”
Crocker says courts should consider that the evidence police can get from your fingerprint is much more restricted and known than what they can get when your fingerprint unlocks a phone. So far, though, he says, courts have been more likely to rule that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to biometrics than they are that it applies to passcodes.
Yet another factor to consider here is that, while it’s impossible for police to read your mind and get your passcode, they can hold a phone up to your face or press your finger on it to bypass the biometric lock. And while your lawyer can (and should) argue that any evidence found this way was illegally obtained and should be suppressed, there’s no guarantee they’ll win.
“It’s fair to say that invoking one’s rights not to turn over evidence is stronger than trying to have the evidence suppressed after the fact,” Crocker said.
So, all things considered, if you’re worried about law enforcement getting access to your phone, your safest bet is to just use a passcode.
Sadly, I have died. Law enforcement wants to unlock my phone, but they can’t get my password due to my aforementioned death. What happens now?
Short answer: Your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights generally end when you do. But other parties have rights, too, and those might be enough to keep the government out of your phone.
Long answer: This isn’t about your Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights anymore; for the most part, you lost those when you died. (That said, law enforcement might have to get the right paperwork if they were looking for evidence against someone else on your phone — after all, their Fourth Amendment rights are still intact.) If law enforcement can’t get into your device on its own, it may well be the phone’s manufacturer’s rights that come into question.
Attorney General Bill Barr has made no secret of his disdain for Apple over its refusal to grant law enforcement access to locked and encrypted devices. In May, he called for a “legislative solution” that would force tech companies to cooperate with his demands.
Barr also claimed in January that the only way the FBI could access dead suspected terrorist Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani’s iPhones is if Apple unlocked them. The agency has made this argument before. In 2016, the United States tried to use the All Writs Act, which dates back to 1789, to force Apple to create a “back door” that would give the FBI access to the San Bernardino shooter’s locked phone. Apple refused, saying the government could not force it to create “a crippled and insecure product” that it would not have built otherwise. So far, there’s been no legal resolution: In both cases, the FBI was able to access the phone through other means before a court could rule on it.
You may have noticed by now that, while many of the cases concerning phones and passcodes are recent — some are even still making their way through the legal system — the cases cited to make legal arguments are decades or even centuries old. The wheels of justice turn slowly, and judges are often forced to use decisions about access to pieces of paper to inform their rulings about access to devices that hold tremendous amounts of personal information: who we talk to, when, and about what; where we were yesterday, last month, or three years ago; what we spent money on or got money for; our calendars, photos, emails, and contacts. These devices hold tens or even hundreds of gigabytes of data on almost everything about us.
You may not be able to control what law enforcement can get from someone else or what they do with your phone once you’re dead. But, with so much uncertainty surrounding what the government can force you to do with it when you’re alive, it’s a good idea to check out your legal options before handing over that passcode.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-06-04--What the protesters want and why they might not get it

In the glowing embers of dumpster fires and amid the plumes rising from smoldering police SUVs , the age-old question in American political life has once again returned : What do the protesters want ?
After the police killings of Tony McDade , Breonna Taylor , George Floyd , and countless other black people , the United States has been struck by protests , both violent and nonviolent , expressing grief and anger , and demanding change after centuries of racism .
Yet with America ’ s deep-rooted bigotry and political dysfunction , stiff headwinds threaten to undermine the protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms , anti-racist protesters , politicians , and thinkers advocate for a less-policed existence and investment in impoverished , segregated communities — as well as more self-determination for those who live there .
The policy specifics favored within this coalition diverge widely , from the institutionalist reforms of the Democratic Party to the radical proposals outlined by the Movement for Black Lives .
Yet , generally speaking , the consensus focuses on less police , more community control , more investment .
For activists and their allies , however , uprisings against police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism often fall far short of the reforms they aim to achieve .
The cycle is familiar .
Following the police violence comes the protest decrying it .
Then enter the commissions and panels .
But absent is the enduring investment and reform — a failure that too often dooms communities to endure poverty and brutality .
Essentially , this means that protests , when they end , do not end well .
Days ahead of the uprising in Baltimore following the killing of Freddie Gray , writer Ta-Nehisi Coates critiqued the role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police officers fight crime , ” he wrote .
“ Police officers are neither case-workers , nor teachers , nor mental-health professionals , nor drug counselors .
One of the great hallmarks of the past forty years of American domestic policy is a broad disinterest in that difference.
” One year after Baltimore ’ s uprising , this hadn ’ t changed .
In a speech on criminal justice reform then-President Barack Obama gave in the wake of yet another uprising in Dallas , he castigated the United States for eschewing mental health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty to fester , underfunding drug treatment , and then telling police “ you ’ re a social worker , you ’ re the parent , you ’ re the teacher , you ’ re the drug counselor.
” In 2016 , a robust coalition of racial justice organizations under the moniker the Movement for Black Lives published a policy platform distilling this frustration into federal , state , and local proposals and demanding “ investments in the education , health , and safety of Black people , instead of investments in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black people.
” This platform — broad , sweeping , ambitious — was not taken up by federal policymakers .
To the contrary , it was published the same year that President Donald Trump , who threatened to send military forces to police black residents in Chicago , won the presidency .
In the years since , his administration has not just ignored proposals created by the Movement for Black Lives , for example , but actively pursued policies damaging to black lives , from rolling back oversight of policing to creating pathways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration is only part of the problem .
Stretching back into the middle of the 20th century , decade after decade , protest after protest , anti-racist activists have been met with a reoccurring political blockade , effectively thwarting many of the most robust societal-level policy changes that they seek .
How the civil rights era unrest didn ’ t lead to lasting change Near the end of the civil rights era , violent protests swept the nation .
In cities like Newark , Los Angeles , and Detroit , black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police brutality and generations of discrimination .
For years , local activists had been advocating for community control of law enforcement .
They were met instead with brutal force .
To better understand the unrest , the federal government created the Kerner Commission .
Officials were tasked with answering three basic questions : What happened ?
Why did it happen ?
What can be done to prevent it from happening again and again ?
The group found “ white racism ” and the “ racial ghetto ” were principally responsible for the underlying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Segregation and poverty have created in the racial ghetto a destructive environment , ” the report read .
“ White society is deeply implicated in the ghetto , ” it continued .
“ White institutions created it , white institutions maintain it , and white society condones it.
” Despite sweeping recommendations for broad-based investments in these communities , the policy suggestions of the Kerner Commission were never followed .
“ Kerner was one of the most ambitious documents that never was , ” says Johns Hopkins political scientist Vesla M. Weaver .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was produced.
” Weaver notes the racial justice activists of this era understood crime not as a behavior but as a social condition .
They fought for democratic control of the police and broader communal investment .
Yet these reform-minded activists and politicians were ultimately unsuccessful in winning the broader public policy debate .
“ It ’ s really difficult to say , ‘ Okay , we ’ ve got social conditions that lead to levels of safety deprivation , that then lead to the need for police .
And , instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the social conditions ?
’ That discourse lost .
It lost in the ’ 60s , ” says Weaver .
“ That was liberal rhetoric that totally fell by the wayside by the time you get to the 1970s and ’ 80s.
” That change in focus led to centuries of economic and racial inequality in black communities being addressed through policing and prisons , thereby creating the modern era of mass incarceration .
Beginning in the 1970s , America ’ s prison population quadrupled in the span of 20 years , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Sampson .
And just one generation later , as American policing and the carceral state metastasized , the country would again heave under the weight of mass protest .
The lessons of 1992 were the same as the lessons of 1968 .
As was the action taken based on that knowledge .
In 1992 , Los Angeles County was engulfed in the uprising following the beating of Rodney King .
With dozens of deaths , thousands of arrests , and $ 1 billion in property damage , the nation watched in awe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1960s , after the dust settled , investigations revealed the same underlying causes : community divestment and undemocratic police systems .
Describing the conditions in the Nation , Dave Zirin portrays the city as being pushed “ to the bursting point by urban neglect and rampant , unchecked police violence.
” “ It was the 45 percent unemployment-rate of African-American males in South Central , ” Zirin wrote .
“ It was Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates and his violent programs of police enforcement like the infamous Operation Hammer .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs.
” The government ’ s assessment of the situation was the same .
The California State Legislature ’ s Tucker Commission — charged with reexamining the cause of the LA uprising — concluded that “ the causes of the 1992 unrest were the same as the causes of the unrest of the 1960s , aggravated by a highly visible increasing concentration of wealth at the top of the income scale and a decreasing Federal and State commitment to urban programs serving those at the bottom of the income scale.
” Yet as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show , the 1992 riots did not successfully catalyze the United States to embark on a mission to radically reimagine its political economy and policing policies .
The failure to heed the warning of the 1992 uprising meant that the country entered into another generation of violent policing — one fueled by the 1994 crime bill , which further corroded communities and grew prisons in a way that directly leads to the problems that sparked America ’ s more recent protests .
How recent uprisings fit into a cycle of inertia on racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the cycle began again .
Again , the police violently arrested and ultimately killed an unarmed black person .
Again , demonstrators protested .
Agitators destroyed property for six days .
The community ’ s concerns were illuminated , and subsequent federal government reports were filed .
The investigation by the Justice Department revealed that Baltimore police “ routinely violated the constitutional rights of citizens , used excessive force , and discriminated against African Americans.
” Studies outlined the underlying socioeconomic conditions that contribute to crime and a lower quality of life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetoric , the uprising in Baltimore was not followed with broad-based national police reform that would create local democratic control of law enforcement or divestments from unnecessary policing .
Protected by an interlocking web of police unions , Supreme Court cases , and “ law-and-order ” legislators , many of the macro political and economic factors undergirding aggressive policing remain unchanged .
As revealed in the violent policing tactics levied against black individuals and common in black communities , theories of racialized criminality and punitive policy continue to anchor American public policy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Again , the country is confronted with the same questions and presented with many of the same solutions .
Congress is considering discussions on policing and racism — the same discussions that led to the creation of the Kerner Commission , the same ones that occurred in 1992 .
The familiar dance is in full swing .
Yet this time , the nation is strutting closer to the breach than ever before , with coast-to-coast demands for racial equality that are amplified by the presence of a global pandemic and economic crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ demands long made by activists and experts might determine if the US falls over the edge .
With President Trump flirting with increasing law enforcement through martial law — and the current prospect for legislative action remaining scant — whether this generation of protesters will be able to successfully change America ’ s policing paradigm will likely be determined not just by the duration of these protests , but by the elections in November .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Vox today .

In the glowing embers of dumpster fires and amid the plumes rising from smoldering police SUVs, the age-old question in American political life has once again returned: What do the protesters want?
After the police killings of Tony McDade, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and countless other black people, the United States has been struck by protests, both violent and nonviolent, expressing grief and anger, and demanding change after centuries of racism. Yet with America’s deep-rooted bigotry and political dysfunction, stiff headwinds threaten to undermine the protesters’ agenda.
In the broadest possible terms, anti-racist protesters, politicians, and thinkers advocate for a less-policed existence and investment in impoverished, segregated communities — as well as more self-determination for those who live there. The policy specifics favored within this coalition diverge widely, from the institutionalist reforms of the Democratic Party to the radical proposals outlined by the Movement for Black Lives. Yet, generally speaking, the consensus focuses on less police, more community control, more investment.
For activists and their allies, however, uprisings against police brutality and policies aimed at unraveling systemic racism often fall far short of the reforms they aim to achieve. The cycle is familiar. Following the police violence comes the protest decrying it. Then enter the commissions and panels. But absent is the enduring investment and reform — a failure that too often dooms communities to endure poverty and brutality. Essentially, this means that protests, when they end, do not end well.
Days ahead of the uprising in Baltimore following the killing of Freddie Gray, writer Ta-Nehisi Coates critiqued the role police officers have been assigned: “Police officers fight crime,” he wrote. “Police officers are neither case-workers, nor teachers, nor mental-health professionals, nor drug counselors. One of the great hallmarks of the past forty years of American domestic policy is a broad disinterest in that difference.”
One year after Baltimore’s uprising, this hadn’t changed. In a speech on criminal justice reform then-President Barack Obama gave in the wake of yet another uprising in Dallas, he castigated the United States for eschewing mental health programs, under-investing in schools, allowing poverty to fester, underfunding drug treatment, and then telling police “you’re a social worker, you’re the parent, you’re the teacher, you’re the drug counselor.”
In 2016, a robust coalition of racial justice organizations under the moniker the Movement for Black Lives published a policy platform distilling this frustration into federal, state, and local proposals and demanding “investments in the education, health, and safety of Black people, instead of investments in the criminalizing, caging, and harming of Black people.”
This platform — broad, sweeping, ambitious — was not taken up by federal policymakers. To the contrary, it was published the same year that President Donald Trump, who threatened to send military forces to police black residents in Chicago, won the presidency. In the years since, his administration has not just ignored proposals created by the Movement for Black Lives, for example, but actively pursued policies damaging to black lives, from rolling back oversight of policing to creating pathways for the militarization of police.
But the Trump administration is only part of the problem. Stretching back into the middle of the 20th century, decade after decade, protest after protest, anti-racist activists have been met with a reoccurring political blockade, effectively thwarting many of the most robust societal-level policy changes that they seek.
How the civil rights era unrest didn’t lead to lasting change
Near the end of the civil rights era, violent protests swept the nation. In cities like Newark, Los Angeles, and Detroit, black residents took part in uprisings to protest police brutality and generations of discrimination. For years, local activists had been advocating for community control of law enforcement. They were met instead with brutal force.
To better understand the unrest, the federal government created the Kerner Commission. Officials were tasked with answering three basic questions: What happened? Why did it happen? What can be done to prevent it from happening again and again?
The group found “white racism” and the “racial ghetto” were principally responsible for the underlying conditions that sparked the uprising.
“Segregation and poverty have created in the racial ghetto a destructive environment,” the report read. “White society is deeply implicated in the ghetto,” it continued. “White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.”
Despite sweeping recommendations for broad-based investments in these communities, the policy suggestions of the Kerner Commission were never followed. “Kerner was one of the most ambitious documents that never was,” says Johns Hopkins political scientist Vesla M. Weaver. “It was discredited the day after it was produced.”
Weaver notes the racial justice activists of this era understood crime not as a behavior but as a social condition. They fought for democratic control of the police and broader communal investment. Yet these reform-minded activists and politicians were ultimately unsuccessful in winning the broader public policy debate.
“It’s really difficult to say, ‘Okay, we’ve got social conditions that lead to levels of safety deprivation, that then lead to the need for police. And, instead of police, how about we fix the social conditions?’ That discourse lost. It lost in the ’60s,” says Weaver. “That was liberal rhetoric that totally fell by the wayside by the time you get to the 1970s and ’80s.”
That change in focus led to centuries of economic and racial inequality in black communities being addressed through policing and prisons, thereby creating the modern era of mass incarceration. Beginning in the 1970s, America’s prison population quadrupled in the span of 20 years, according to crime data analyzed by Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson.
And just one generation later, as American policing and the carceral state metastasized, the country would again heave under the weight of mass protest.
The lessons of 1992 were the same as the lessons of 1968. As was the action taken based on that knowledge.
In 1992, Los Angeles County was engulfed in the uprising following the beating of Rodney King. With dozens of deaths, thousands of arrests, and $1 billion in property damage, the nation watched in awe and horror.
And just as in the 1960s, after the dust settled, investigations revealed the same underlying causes: community divestment and undemocratic police systems. Describing the conditions in the Nation, Dave Zirin portrays the city as being pushed “to the bursting point by urban neglect and rampant, unchecked police violence.”
“It was the 45 percent unemployment-rate of African-American males in South Central,” Zirin wrote. “It was Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates and his violent programs of police enforcement like the infamous Operation Hammer. It was deindustrialization and the loss of union jobs.”
The government’s assessment of the situation was the same. The California State Legislature’s Tucker Commission — charged with reexamining the cause of the LA uprising — concluded that “the causes of the 1992 unrest were the same as the causes of the unrest of the 1960s, aggravated by a highly visible increasing concentration of wealth at the top of the income scale and a decreasing Federal and State commitment to urban programs serving those at the bottom of the income scale.”
Yet as socioeconomic statistics on racial inequality and policing show, the 1992 riots did not successfully catalyze the United States to embark on a mission to radically reimagine its political economy and policing policies. The failure to heed the warning of the 1992 uprising meant that the country entered into another generation of violent policing — one fueled by the 1994 crime bill, which further corroded communities and grew prisons in a way that directly leads to the problems that sparked America’s more recent protests.
How recent uprisings fit into a cycle of inertia on racial justice
Baltimore rose up in 2015 — and the cycle began again.
Again, the police violently arrested and ultimately killed an unarmed black person.
Again, demonstrators protested. Agitators destroyed property for six days.
The community’s concerns were illuminated, and subsequent federal government reports were filed. The investigation by the Justice Department revealed that Baltimore police “routinely violated the constitutional rights of citizens, used excessive force, and discriminated against African Americans.”
Studies outlined the underlying socioeconomic conditions that contribute to crime and a lower quality of life. Yet for all the chaos and rhetoric, the uprising in Baltimore was not followed with broad-based national police reform that would create local democratic control of law enforcement or divestments from unnecessary policing.
Protected by an interlocking web of police unions, Supreme Court cases, and “law-and-order” legislators, many of the macro political and economic factors undergirding aggressive policing remain unchanged. As revealed in the violent policing tactics levied against black individuals and common in black communities, theories of racialized criminality and punitive policy continue to anchor American public policy.
Protesters have taken to the streets. Again, the country is confronted with the same questions and presented with many of the same solutions. Congress is considering discussions on policing and racism — the same discussions that led to the creation of the Kerner Commission, the same ones that occurred in 1992. The familiar dance is in full swing.
Yet this time, the nation is strutting closer to the breach than ever before, with coast-to-coast demands for racial equality that are amplified by the presence of a global pandemic and economic crisis. Whether the elected officials will heed the demands long made by activists and experts might determine if the US falls over the edge. With President Trump flirting with increasing law enforcement through martial law — and the current prospect for legislative action remaining scant — whether this generation of protesters will be able to successfully change America’s policing paradigm will likely be determined not just by the duration of these protests, but by the elections in November.


vox--2020-06-04--No one knows why these Covid-19 patients’ symptoms keep relapsing

Share All sharing options for : No one knows why these Covid-19 patients ’ symptoms keep relapsing On April 11 , more than a month after she first fell ill with Covid-19 , Melanie Montano spritzed perfume around her bedroom to test her senses .
She couldn ’ t smell anything .
The next morning , Montano woke up and noticed a “ faintly fragrant ” scent ; her symptoms were finally subsiding .
She had more energy for household chores , phone calls with friends , and remote work .
“ I felt a massive wave of encouragement zap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montano , 32 , who lives in New Jersey .
Then , five days later , fever , shortness of breath , and crippling gastrointestinal issues suddenly returned .
“ This has been the pattern , on-and-off , ever since.
” Now , more than two months after she first fell ill , Montano still has symptoms .
In May , the World Health Organization announced that Covid-19 recoveries were taking longer than expected and that some patients were experiencing what appeared to be a “ relapse ” of symptoms .
This contradicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that recovery for non-severe Covid-19 cases should only take two weeks .
That guidance has been questioned , as more stories of long recoveries and lingering symptoms emerge .
It ’ s too early to really know what is causing symptom relapse , according to several physicians I spoke to , but almost all of them reported treating or hearing about patients who had cycling symptoms .
Doctors and research scientists aren ’ t sure whether potential relapses mean patients are still infectious — and whether the recurrent symptoms are from other infections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the virus simply taking its normal course .
For patients who think they ’ ve recovered from Covid-19 , symptom relapses can be emotionally , physically , and financially devastating .
For researchers looking for answers , the relapses remain one of the ongoing mysteries of Covid-19 .
When it just keeps coming back In researching symptom relapse , I spoke with more than a dozen patients who believed they ’ d experienced the return of symptoms at least once during their lengthy recoveries from Covid-19 .
Almost all first became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 within the following month , and are still experiencing symptoms today .
Most sought medical care during their perceived symptom relapse ( s ) , but few were satisfied with the advice they got .
Susan Nagle , 54 , of Massachusetts , first experienced symptoms in late March and tested positive in April .
A month into her illness , her symptoms began to disappear .
She was finally fever-free , and her fatigue , chest pain , and shortness of breath improved significantly .
“ I was starting to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house ... and I realized I wasn ’ t walking around with my pulse oximeter , ” Nagle said .
Then , on May 9 , Nagle ’ s fever returned , spiking at 101 degrees Fahrenheit .
Eventually her chest pain and breathlessness came back , as well .
Today , Nagle is battling symptoms that she says are “ worse than they were at the start.
” Cara Schiavo , 31 , of New Jersey , experienced a similar episode .
She tested positive for Covid-19 on March 10 and was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and chest pain .
On week four , her symptoms started to subside .
“ I felt like I was getting back to my old self , ” Schiavo said .
“ I started walking , exercising , and even told family and friends [ I ’ d ] recovered.
” A week later , her symptoms returned , along with new dermatological and GI issues .
“ Relapse to me is a scary word , ” Schiavo said .
Until the WHO ’ s recent announcement , it was mostly just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ relapse.
” Until she joined an online support group where others were discussing it , Montano said , the concept of “ relapse ” felt like a “ feverish supposition.
” Nagle said she doesn ’ t think of her experiences as relapses .
“ I think this is [ just ] what it means to have Covid-19 , ” she explained .
Not knowing if they ’ re infectious , relapsed patients are staying home from work and fear their illness will get worse Many of the patients I spoke with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work , even remotely , because they still feel sick , and some fear that excess activity triggers their symptom relapses .
None have received confirmation from doctors about whether they ’ re still infectious .
Montano and Schiavo sought medical care when their symptoms returned , but neither was satisfied with the answers they received .
“ My [ primary care doctor ] was less than helpful , ” Montano told me .
Schiavo says her doctor dismissed her symptoms as anxiety .
After three months of isolating at home , Montano @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her doctor suggested she be retested for Covid-19 .
She went to a drive-through testing center , where she had to self-administer a nasal swab , and received a negative result .
The test result confused Montano , given her recurrent fever and other symptoms , but she has continued to isolate at home in case she is still infectious .
Daniel Kuritzkes , the chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital in Boston , says that patients returning to work face “ a real challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on contagiousness .
When asked whether patients like Montano should be concerned about returning to work due to their lingering symptoms , Kuritzkes said , “ We don ’ t have a good answer for that at the moment.
” The question of when to return to work is especially confusing for health care workers and others who employers sometimes require to test negative before they can resume their jobs , he added .
Angela Aston , 49 , is a registered nurse in Texas who contracted Covid-19 in late March while treating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned to work since April 23 , when she thought she had recovered from the virus , after being fever-free for 72 hours .
But at the end of her shift that day , Aston noticed she was feeling “ shaky and weak , ” and by the following afternoon , her fever and shortness of breath had returned .
“ I was confused [ and ] anxious , ” Aston told me .
“ I had a meltdown in the staff lounge.
” While Aston is eager to return to work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actively infectious , and she says her workplace has “ no idea ” when it would be safe for her to return .
“ The [ CDC ’ s ] return-to-work guidelines say three days no fever , but those guidelines are not appropriate for me , ” Aston said .
“ People freak out if a person with recent Covid-19 has an elevated temperature and wants to be around them .
Even if it has been 10 days with no fever.
” Aston has been retested three times — one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since return-to-work guidelines vary and retesting can be unreliable , many relapsed patients face confusion and financial distress .
Zackary Berger , a primary care doctor and associate professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine , thinks retesting relapsed patients isn ’ t helpful because the test results aren ’ t always reliable .
Some researchers estimate the rate of false negatives to be around 30 percent , due in part to discrepancies in how tests are administered and the variety of types of tests that are being used .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients may test positive even after they have fully recovered and are no longer infectious .
Because the 285 survivors did not appear to have infected any of their 790 close contacts , and the virus in their samples did not appear to be alive , researchers now believe tests may be picking up small remnants of the virus that remain in the body even after recovery .
Berger says he sees many patients who need documentation that they ’ re virus-free to return to work , but his institution does not recommend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing methods .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend guidelines for health care workers returning to work after being sick , which are dependent on test availability and follow either a test-based strategy ( fever and respiratory symptoms have improved , and the worker has tested negative ) or a symptom-based strategy ( the worker has been fever-free for 72 hours and 10 days have passed since symptoms first appeared ) .
Aston wants to go back to work and is frustrated by the duration of her illness .
“ When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this ?
” she asked .
“ For another 10 days ?
20 days ?
Because my fever always comes back.
” Montano feels similarly alone .
“ I felt anxious , I felt confused , and I felt the need to slap on a facade that aligned with the speedy , two-week recovery period depicted in the news , ” she said .
“ Not a single health care provider has offered any solid , tangible guidelines on what to do next to address my issues ” Aston knows she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though she can ’ t return to work .
On May 4 , almost two months into her illness , Montano lost her job as a post-graduate academic writing instructor , when the position was made redundant .
Now , Montano ’ s struggling to find a new source of income , while managing her recurring symptoms .
“ The job-hunting process is already work in itself , and it ’ s been exhausting having to push myself harder than my body is able to , ” Montano said .
“ My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search with full-force , but the stark reality is my debilitating fatigue continues to impede any successful attempts to be proactive.
” Aston has found her fever often returns after she gets out of bed and moves around .
One doctor she consulted suggested she stay in bed to avoid future relapses .
She found this advice unrealistic .
“ Not a single health care provider has offered any solid , tangible guidelines on what to do next to address my issues , ” she said .
For patients like Montano , Nagle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t see an end in sight , long-term impacts may be physical , mental , and financial .
Gary Phelan , an employment lawyer in Connecticut , told me the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has not yet decided whether Covid-19 will be recognized as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the virus is so new .
Phelan , who has represented Covid-19 patients , says “ until the EEOC takes that position it will lead to more uncertainty and , as a result , ... more Covid-19 victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” We don ’ t know why people are relapsing .
Here are some early guesses .
Based on the limited understanding of Covid-19 , here are four possible explanations for patients who seem to experience symptom relapse .
All are currently theoretical ; the physicians I spoke to warned that science and medicine are still struggling to catch up with the novel virus .
We don ’ t yet have hard evidence that any of these explanations are the true culprit , and other infections may explain symptom relapse , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The word “ relapse ” implies a resurgence of something previously dormant or nonexistent , and many patients I spoke to assumed they ’ re experiencing some kind of viral reactivation .
According to Bernard P. Chang , an emergency physician and psychologist at Columbia University in New York City , “ viral reactivation is the concept that a latent or ‘ not active ’ virus that is already within your system ‘ awakens ’ or switches to an active phase and begins causing symptoms in patients.
” Viral reactivation is well known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which remains dormant in between outbreaks .
But it ’ s not a proven ( or disproven ) aspect of the new coronavirus .
Kuritzkes thinks it is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 can reactivate because the virus infects and spreads differently than ones that do so .
Right now , this is a possibility , but we don ’ t yet have scientific data either way .
2 ) People might be getting reinfected Can someone get the coronavirus , completely clear it from their system , and then catch it all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether people can develop immunity to the coronavirus ( and if so , for how long ) .
Scientists and researchers are urgently trying to answer this question , as governments all over the world pin hope on a wave of immune survivors who can travel freely and revive the economy .
Recent studies on immunity bode well for the possibility , but the WHO warns there ’ s no guarantee .
One such experiment found that rhesus macaques monkeys that were infected once were not able to be reinfected .
But that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of research remains to be done .
In order to determine if humans can become immune , scientists will need to further study B cells and T cells ( which help to create antibodies ) , improve the accuracy of antibody tests , and determine what level of antibodies confirm some level of immunity .
3 ) It might be the normal course of Covid-19 Jeremy Faust , an ER doctor and colleague of Kuritzkes at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital in Boston , told me that mild viral symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse after initially recovering , ” citing the common cold as one example .
“ Some may simply have coronavirus symptoms that come and go , but slowly improve over time , like a pendulum running out of energy , ” he explained .
“ I can ’ t think of any illness that doesn ’ t ebb and flow in terms of symptom resolution , to some extent .
So in that regard , coronavirus may be no different.
” Many of the patients I spoke with were concerned their condition might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms had lasted and how regular their relapses were .
“ My fear is that ‘ relapses ’ are my new normal and this has done permanent damage , ” Nagle told me .
“ I have yet to hear a story of someone who has had the same symptoms for the same length of time and are now back to whatever they called normal before they were infected.
” Despite some patients ’ fears that their symptoms will never end , Kuritzkes is optimistic .
He urges people facing nonlinear recoveries to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should speak to a health care provider if they experience high fevers , joint swelling , or persistent fatigue .
“ Based on what we know about coronaviruses generally , it is very likely that all of these individuals will completely recover , ” he said .
Kuritzkes , Chang , and Berger all mentioned post-viral syndromes as a possible explanation for symptom relapse — although Kuritzkes doesn ’ t think such post-viral syndromes are likely to be common — and many patients I spoke with had received similar information from their doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tropical and infectious diseases at University College London Hospitals , recently tweeted that he ’ d seen an uptick in hospitalizations of patients recovering from Covid-19 and theorized that the “ wide array of covid phenomena which we don ’ t yet understand ... may one day come to be known as Post Covid Syndrome.
” According to Kuritzkes , post-viral fatigue syndrome , for instance , is sometimes found in patients who ’ ve had mononucleosis , among other infections .
“ I ’ ve heard anecdotally of some [ Covid-19 ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ akin to that , ” he explained .
“ Since we ’ ve only got three to four months of experience in the United States , it ’ s very hard to say what proportion would go on to develop ... some form of post-viral fatigue syndrome.
” Some researchers are also concerned that Covid-19 might trigger ME/CFS ( myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome ) , after noticing that some patients with pre-existing ME/CFS experienced an exacerbation of those symptoms after contracting Covid-19 .
The Open Medicine Foundation , an organization dedicated to ME/CFS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will examine the prevalence of potential chronic conditions like ME/CFS in patients with Covid-19 .
Another possibility Kuritzkes suggests is that patients with relapsing symptoms may be experiencing an inflammatory syndrome similar to Kawasaki disease , which has recently been linked to cases of Covid-19 in children and young adults .
It causes an inflammation of blood vessels that can lead to severe cardiac complications .
However , we don ’ t yet know if this syndrome can develop in people of all ages .
Like many other aspects of the current pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the stakes are increasingly high .
Almost 2 million people have been diagnosed with Covid-19 in the US alone , and experts believe infection rates may peak again in the fall .
Stories of relapsed patients indicate that those who fall ill and survive may still face devastating consequences of the disease .
Fiona Lowenstein is the founder of Body Politic , a queer feminist wellness collective , events series , and media company aimed at creating content and events on accessible wellness for marginalized populations .
Her last piece for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group she founded .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Share All sharing options for: No one knows why these Covid-19 patients’ symptoms keep relapsing
On April 11, more than a month after she first fell ill with Covid-19, Melanie Montano spritzed perfume around her bedroom to test her senses. She couldn’t smell anything.
The next morning, Montano woke up and noticed a “faintly fragrant” scent; her symptoms were finally subsiding. She had more energy for household chores, phone calls with friends, and remote work.
“I felt a massive wave of encouragement zap me back to life,” said Montano, 32, who lives in New Jersey. Then, five days later, fever, shortness of breath, and crippling gastrointestinal issues suddenly returned. “This has been the pattern, on-and-off, ever since.” Now, more than two months after she first fell ill, Montano still has symptoms.
In May, the World Health Organization announced that Covid-19 recoveries were taking longer than expected and that some patients were experiencing what appeared to be a “relapse” of symptoms. This contradicted an earlier WHO report, which stated that recovery for non-severe Covid-19 cases should only take two weeks. That guidance has been questioned, as more stories of long recoveries and lingering symptoms emerge.
It’s too early to really know what is causing symptom relapse, according to several physicians I spoke to, but almost all of them reported treating or hearing about patients who had cycling symptoms. Doctors and research scientists aren’t sure whether potential relapses mean patients are still infectious — and whether the recurrent symptoms are from other infections, viral reactivation, chronic post-viral conditions, or the virus simply taking its normal course.
For patients who think they’ve recovered from Covid-19, symptom relapses can be emotionally, physically, and financially devastating. For researchers looking for answers, the relapses remain one of the ongoing mysteries of Covid-19.
When it just keeps coming back
In researching symptom relapse, I spoke with more than a dozen patients who believed they’d experienced the return of symptoms at least once during their lengthy recoveries from Covid-19. Almost all first became sick in March, tested positive for Covid-19 within the following month, and are still experiencing symptoms today. Most sought medical care during their perceived symptom relapse(s), but few were satisfied with the advice they got.
Susan Nagle, 54, of Massachusetts, first experienced symptoms in late March and tested positive in April. A month into her illness, her symptoms began to disappear. She was finally fever-free, and her fatigue, chest pain, and shortness of breath improved significantly.
“I was starting to be able to get projects done around the house ... and I realized I wasn’t walking around with my pulse oximeter,” Nagle said. Then, on May 9, Nagle’s fever returned, spiking at 101 degrees Fahrenheit. Eventually her chest pain and breathlessness came back, as well. Today, Nagle is battling symptoms that she says are “worse than they were at the start.”
Cara Schiavo, 31, of New Jersey, experienced a similar episode. She tested positive for Covid-19 on March 10 and was sick with fever, shortness of breath, and chest pain.
On week four, her symptoms started to subside. “I felt like I was getting back to my old self,” Schiavo said. “I started walking, exercising, and even told family and friends [I’d] recovered.” A week later, her symptoms returned, along with new dermatological and GI issues. “Relapse to me is a scary word,” Schiavo said.
Until the WHO’s recent announcement, it was mostly just Covid-19 survivors and patients using the word “relapse.” Until she joined an online support group where others were discussing it, Montano said, the concept of “relapse” felt like a “feverish supposition.”
Nagle said she doesn’t think of her experiences as relapses. “I think this is [just] what it means to have Covid-19,” she explained.
Not knowing if they’re infectious, relapsed patients are staying home from work and fear their illness will get worse
Many of the patients I spoke with have not been able to return to work, even remotely, because they still feel sick, and some fear that excess activity triggers their symptom relapses. None have received confirmation from doctors about whether they’re still infectious.
Montano and Schiavo sought medical care when their symptoms returned, but neither was satisfied with the answers they received. “My [primary care doctor] was less than helpful,” Montano told me. Schiavo says her doctor dismissed her symptoms as anxiety.
Related My coronavirus survivor group is my most important medical support right now
After three months of isolating at home, Montano relapsed again in late May, and her doctor suggested she be retested for Covid-19. She went to a drive-through testing center, where she had to self-administer a nasal swab, and received a negative result. The test result confused Montano, given her recurrent fever and other symptoms, but she has continued to isolate at home in case she is still infectious.
Daniel Kuritzkes, the chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, says that patients returning to work face “a real challenge,” given the lack of information on contagiousness. When asked whether patients like Montano should be concerned about returning to work due to their lingering symptoms, Kuritzkes said, “We don’t have a good answer for that at the moment.” The question of when to return to work is especially confusing for health care workers and others who employers sometimes require to test negative before they can resume their jobs, he added.
Angela Aston, 49, is a registered nurse in Texas who contracted Covid-19 in late March while treating a patient. She hasn’t returned to work since April 23, when she thought she had recovered from the virus, after being fever-free for 72 hours. But at the end of her shift that day, Aston noticed she was feeling “shaky and weak,” and by the following afternoon, her fever and shortness of breath had returned. “I was confused [and] anxious,” Aston told me. “I had a meltdown in the staff lounge.”
While Aston is eager to return to work, none of her doctors know if she’s actively infectious, and she says her workplace has “no idea” when it would be safe for her to return. “The [CDC’s] return-to-work guidelines say three days no fever, but those guidelines are not appropriate for me,” Aston said. “People freak out if a person with recent Covid-19 has an elevated temperature and wants to be around them. Even if it has been 10 days with no fever.” Aston has been retested three times — one negative result, followed by two positives.
Since return-to-work guidelines vary and retesting can be unreliable, many relapsed patients face confusion and financial distress.
Zackary Berger, a primary care doctor and associate professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, thinks retesting relapsed patients isn’t helpful because the test results aren’t always reliable. Some researchers estimate the rate of false negatives to be around 30 percent, due in part to discrepancies in how tests are administered and the variety of types of tests that are being used.
A recent study from South Korea suggests that patients may test positive even after they have fully recovered and are no longer infectious. Because the 285 survivors did not appear to have infected any of their 790 close contacts, and the virus in their samples did not appear to be alive, researchers now believe tests may be picking up small remnants of the virus that remain in the body even after recovery.
Berger says he sees many patients who need documentation that they’re virus-free to return to work, but his institution does not recommend retesting, given the concerns about current testing methods.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend guidelines for health care workers returning to work after being sick, which are dependent on test availability and follow either a test-based strategy (fever and respiratory symptoms have improved, and the worker has tested negative) or a symptom-based strategy (the worker has been fever-free for 72 hours and 10 days have passed since symptoms first appeared).
Aston wants to go back to work and is frustrated by the duration of her illness. “When am I going to be free from this?” she asked. “For another 10 days? 20 days? Because my fever always comes back.”
Montano feels similarly alone. “I felt anxious, I felt confused, and I felt the need to slap on a facade that aligned with the speedy, two-week recovery period depicted in the news,” she said.
“Not a single health care provider has offered any solid, tangible guidelines on what to do next to address my issues”
Aston knows she’s lucky to still be earning wages, even though she can’t return to work. On May 4, almost two months into her illness, Montano lost her job as a post-graduate academic writing instructor, when the position was made redundant. Now, Montano’s struggling to find a new source of income, while managing her recurring symptoms.
“The job-hunting process is already work in itself, and it’s been exhausting having to push myself harder than my body is able to,” Montano said. “My first inclination is to tackle the job search with full-force, but the stark reality is my debilitating fatigue continues to impede any successful attempts to be proactive.”
Aston has found her fever often returns after she gets out of bed and moves around. One doctor she consulted suggested she stay in bed to avoid future relapses. She found this advice unrealistic. “Not a single health care provider has offered any solid, tangible guidelines on what to do next to address my issues,” she said.
For patients like Montano, Nagle, and Aston, who say they can’t see an end in sight, long-term impacts may be physical, mental, and financial. Gary Phelan, an employment lawyer in Connecticut, told me the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has not yet decided whether Covid-19 will be recognized as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the virus is so new.
Phelan, who has represented Covid-19 patients, says “until the EEOC takes that position it will lead to more uncertainty and, as a result, ... more Covid-19 victims losing their jobs or not being accommodated.”
We don’t know why people are relapsing. Here are some early guesses.
Based on the limited understanding of Covid-19, here are four possible explanations for patients who seem to experience symptom relapse. All are currently theoretical; the physicians I spoke to warned that science and medicine are still struggling to catch up with the novel virus. We don’t yet have hard evidence that any of these explanations are the true culprit, and other infections may explain symptom relapse, too.
1) The virus might be reactivating
The word “relapse” implies a resurgence of something previously dormant or nonexistent, and many patients I spoke to assumed they’re experiencing some kind of viral reactivation. According to Bernard P. Chang, an emergency physician and psychologist at Columbia University in New York City, “viral reactivation is the concept that a latent or ‘not active’ virus that is already within your system ‘awakens’ or switches to an active phase and begins causing symptoms in patients.”
Viral reactivation is well known in other illnesses, such as herpes, which remains dormant in between outbreaks. But it’s not a proven (or disproven) aspect of the new coronavirus. Kuritzkes thinks it is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 can reactivate because the virus infects and spreads differently than ones that do so. Right now, this is a possibility, but we don’t yet have scientific data either way.
2) People might be getting reinfected
Can someone get the coronavirus, completely clear it from their system, and then catch it all over again? The answer would depend on whether people can develop immunity to the coronavirus (and if so, for how long).
Scientists and researchers are urgently trying to answer this question, as governments all over the world pin hope on a wave of immune survivors who can travel freely and revive the economy.
Recent studies on immunity bode well for the possibility, but the WHO warns there’s no guarantee. One such experiment found that rhesus macaques monkeys that were infected once were not able to be reinfected. But that’s just one study, and a lot of research remains to be done. In order to determine if humans can become immune, scientists will need to further study B cells and T cells (which help to create antibodies), improve the accuracy of antibody tests, and determine what level of antibodies confirm some level of immunity.
3) It might be the normal course of Covid-19
Jeremy Faust, an ER doctor and colleague of Kuritzkes at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told me that mild viral symptoms often “return or get a little worse after initially recovering,” citing the common cold as one example. “Some may simply have coronavirus symptoms that come and go, but slowly improve over time, like a pendulum running out of energy,” he explained. “I can’t think of any illness that doesn’t ebb and flow in terms of symptom resolution, to some extent. So in that regard, coronavirus may be no different.”
4) Relapses might be chronic post-viral syndromes
Many of the patients I spoke with were concerned their condition might be chronic because of how long their symptoms had lasted and how regular their relapses were. “My fear is that ‘relapses’ are my new normal and this has done permanent damage,” Nagle told me. “I have yet to hear a story of someone who has had the same symptoms for the same length of time and are now back to whatever they called normal before they were infected.”
Despite some patients’ fears that their symptoms will never end, Kuritzkes is optimistic. He urges people facing nonlinear recoveries to “not get discouraged” though they should speak to a health care provider if they experience high fevers, joint swelling, or persistent fatigue. “Based on what we know about coronaviruses generally, it is very likely that all of these individuals will completely recover,” he said.
Kuritzkes, Chang, and Berger all mentioned post-viral syndromes as a possible explanation for symptom relapse — although Kuritzkes doesn’t think such post-viral syndromes are likely to be common — and many patients I spoke with had received similar information from their doctors.
Neil Stone, a specialist in tropical and infectious diseases at University College London Hospitals, recently tweeted that he’d seen an uptick in hospitalizations of patients recovering from Covid-19 and theorized that the “wide array of covid phenomena which we don’t yet understand ... may one day come to be known as Post Covid Syndrome.”
According to Kuritzkes, post-viral fatigue syndrome, for instance, is sometimes found in patients who’ve had mononucleosis, among other infections. “I’ve heard anecdotally of some [Covid-19] patients who seem to be experiencing something akin to that,” he explained. “Since we’ve only got three to four months of experience in the United States, it’s very hard to say what proportion would go on to develop ... some form of post-viral fatigue syndrome.”
Some researchers are also concerned that Covid-19 might trigger ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), after noticing that some patients with pre-existing ME/CFS experienced an exacerbation of those symptoms after contracting Covid-19. The Open Medicine Foundation, an organization dedicated to ME/CFS research, recently announced a study that will examine the prevalence of potential chronic conditions like ME/CFS in patients with Covid-19.
Another possibility Kuritzkes suggests is that patients with relapsing symptoms may be experiencing an inflammatory syndrome similar to Kawasaki disease, which has recently been linked to cases of Covid-19 in children and young adults. It causes an inflammation of blood vessels that can lead to severe cardiac complications. However, we don’t yet know if this syndrome can develop in people of all ages.
Like many other aspects of the current pandemic, the question of relapse remains unanswered, and the stakes are increasingly high. Almost 2 million people have been diagnosed with Covid-19 in the US alone, and experts believe infection rates may peak again in the fall. Stories of relapsed patients indicate that those who fall ill and survive may still face devastating consequences of the disease.
Fiona Lowenstein is the founder of Body Politic, a queer feminist wellness collective, events series, and media company aimed at creating content and events on accessible wellness for marginalized populations. Her last piece for Vox was about the Covid-19 survivor support group she founded.