vox--2020-02-17--The radical moral implications of luck in human life

In July 2018 ( when we first published this piece ) , there was a minor uproar when Kardashian scion Kylie Jenner , who is all of 22 , appeared on the cover of Forbes ’ s 60 richest self-made women issue .
As many people pointed out , Jenner ’ s success would have been impossible if she hadn ’ t been born white , healthy , rich , and famous .
She built a successful cosmetics company — now valued at $ 900 million , according to Forbes — not just with hard work but on a towering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , there was another minor uproar when Refinery29 published “ A Week in New York City on $ 25/Hour , ” an online diary by someone whose rent and bills are paid for by her parents .
It turns out $ 25 an hour goes a lot further if you have no expenses !
These episodes illustrate what seems to be one of the enduring themes of our age : socially dominant groups , recipients of myriad unearned advantages , willfully refusing to acknowledge them , despite persistent efforts from socially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new theme , of course — it waxes and wanes with circumstance — but after a multi-decade rise in inequality , it has come roaring back to the fore .
Of course , socially dominant groups have every incentive to ignore luck .
And they have found a patron saint in President Trump , who once claimed , “ My father gave me a very small loan in 1975 , and I built it into a company that ’ s worth many , many billions of dollars.
” Neither side of that claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as in so much else , Trump ’ s brazenness serves as cover , a signal that it ’ s still okay to cling to this myth .
These recent controversies reminded me of the fuss around a book that came out a few years ago : Success and Luck : Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy , by economist Robert Frank .
( Vox ’ s Sean Illing interviewed Frank in 2016 . )
It argued that luck plays a large role in every human success and failure , which ought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , but the reaction of many commentators was gobsmacked outrage .
On Fox Business , Stuart Varney sputtered at Frank : “ Do you know how insulting that was , when I read that ?
” It ’ s not difficult to see why many people take offense when reminded of their luck , especially those who have received the most .
Allowing for luck can dent our self-conception .
It can diminish our sense of control .
It opens up all kinds of uncomfortable questions about obligations to other , less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a battle that can not be bypassed .
There can be no ceasefire .
Individually , coming to terms with luck is the secular equivalent of religious awakening , the first step in building any coherent universalist moral perspective .
Socially , acknowledging the role of luck lays a moral foundation for humane economic , housing , and carceral policy .
Building a more compassionate society means reminding ourselves of luck , and of the gratitude and obligations it entails , against inevitable resistance .
How much credit do we deserve for who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
How much moral credit are we due for where we end up in life , and for who we end up ?
Conversely , how much responsibility or blame do we deserve ?
I don ’ t just mean Kylie Jenner or Donald Trump — all of us .
Anyone .
How you answer these questions reveals a great deal about your moral worldview .
To a first approximation , the more credit/responsibility you believe we are due , the more you will be inclined to accept default ( often cruel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People basically get what they deserve .
The less credit/responsibility you believe we are due , the more you believe our trajectories are shaped by forces outside our control ( and sheer chance ) , the more compassionate you will be toward failure and the more you will expect back from the fortunate .
When luck is recognized , softening its harsh effects becomes the basic moral project .
Understanding the role of luck begins with getting past the old “ nature versus nurture ” debate , which has always captivated the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science but because of the deeper existential questions involved .
“ Nature ” has come to serve roughly as code for the stuff we ’ re stuck with , our bodies , our genes — an arrow fate has already fired , with a preset path .
And “ nurture ” has become shorthand for our capacity for change , our ability to be shaped by circumstances , other people , and ourselves , to wiggle and move about within that path , or even escape it .
It ’ s shorthand for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But this has always struck me as a misguided way to look at it .
Both nature and nurture happen to you Of course it is true that you have no choice when it comes to your genes , your hair color , your basic body shape and appearance , your vulnerability to certain diseases .
You ’ re stuck with what nature gives you — and it does not distribute its blessings equitably or according to merit .
But you also have no choice when it comes to the vast bulk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development psychologists tell us that deep and lasting shaping of neural pathways happens in the first hours , days , months , and years of life .
Basic dispositions are formed that can last a lifetime .
Whether you are held , spoken to , fed , made to feel safe and cared for — you have no choice in any of it , but it more or less forms your emotional skeleton .
It determines how sensitive you are to threat , how open you are to new experience , your capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t responsible for how they spend their formative years and the permanent imprint it makes upon them .
But they ’ re stuck with it .
Legally speaking , here in the US , we don ’ t consider people autonomous moral agents , responsible for their own decisions , until they are 18 .
Obviously , different cultures have different ages and markers for adulthood ( moral agenthood ) , but all cultures mark a transition .
At some point , a child , an instinctual creature not fully responsible for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of using higher cognitive functions to shape and moderate their behavior according to shared standards , and to be held accountable if they don ’ t .
For the purposes of this argument , it doesn ’ t matter much where you draw the line between child and adult .
What matters is that it takes place after the bulk of temperament , personality , and socioeconomic circumstance are in place .
So , then , here you are .
You turn 18 .
You are no longer a child ; you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for who you are and what you do .
By that time , your inheritance is enormous .
You ’ ve not only been granted a genetic makeup , an ethnicity and appearance , by accidents of nature and parentage .
You ’ ve also had your latent genetic traits “ activated ” in a very specific way through a specific upbringing , in a specific environment , with a specific set of experiences .
Your basic mental and emotional wiring is in place ; you have certain instincts , predilections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain amount of money , certain social connections and opportunities , a certain family lineage .
You ’ ve had a certain amount and quality of education .
You ’ re a certain kind of person .
You are not responsible for any of that stuff ; you weren ’ t yet capable of being responsible .
You were just a kid ( or worse , a teen ) .
You didn ’ t choose your genes or your experiences .
Both nature and the vast bulk of the nurture that matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you turn 18 , it ’ s all yours — the whole inheritance , warts and all .
By the time you are an autonomous , responsible moral agent , you have effectively been fired out of a cannon , on a particular trajectory .
You wake up , morally speaking , midflight .
Bettering ourselves frequently means overcoming our own inheritances How capable are we of altering our trajectories ?
How much can we change ourselves ?
Here , a distinction made famous by psychologist Daniel Kahneman in his seminal Thinking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues that humans have two modes of thinking : “ system one , ” which is fast , instinctual , automatic , and often unconscious , and “ system two , ” which is slower , more deliberative , and emotionally “ cooler ” ( generally traced to the prefrontal cortex ) .
Our system one reactions are largely hardwired by the time we become adults .
But what about system two ?
We do seem to have some control over it .
We can use it , to some extent , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our system one reactions over time — to change ourselves .
Everyone is familiar with that struggle ; indeed , the battle between systems one and two tends to be the central drama in most human lives .
When we step back and reflect , we know we need to exercise more and eat less , to be more generous and less grumpy , to manage time better and be more productive .
System two recognizes those as the right decisions ; they make sense ; the numbers work out .
But then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting on the couch and system one feels very strongly that it doesn ’ t want to put on running shoes .
It wants greasy takeout food .
It wants to snap at the delivery guy for being late .
Where is system two when it ’ s needed ?
It shows up later , full of regret and self-recrimination .
Thanks a lot , system two .
To become a better person is , at least to some degree , to consciously decide what kind of person one wants to be , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead , and to enforce that meta-decision through day-to-day smaller decisions .
They say you are what you do repeatedly ; our choices become habit and habit becomes character .
So forming a good character , becoming a good person , means repeatedly choosing to do the right thing until it becomes habit .
To make this more concrete , an example : For whatever reason , I hate waiting on people .
I can barely stand to walk behind people on the sidewalk .
Driving behind people leaves me in constant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of me in line at the store bumble through their slow transactions makes me want to claw my eyes out .
When I use system-two thinking , I understand that this instinctual reaction of mine is both irrational and uncharitable — irrational because we ’ re all always waiting for one another and there ’ s no way to avoid it ; uncharitable because I expect alacrity from others that I don ’ t always display myself .
I make others wait just as much or more than anyone , but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To put it more bluntly , I tend to be kind of an asshole in that particular way .
And I don ’ t want to be !
It makes other people tense .
It makes me miserable .
It serves absolutely no purpose .
The only way to change it is to use system-two thinking to override system one — to intervene in my own anger — again and again , until a different , better reaction becomes habitual and I become , in a literal sense , a different , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , uh , ongoing . )
The same is true for being a good parent , saving money , making more friends , or any other long-term life goal ; it often involves overriding our own instincts — many of which are grossly maladaptive .
Do people deserve moral credit for what they do with their system-two thinking ?
Perhaps that ’ s the mechanism through which meritocracy works , through which people really do get what they deserve ?
If you are a go-getter , lucky for you !
No , really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are two reasons why system-two thinking can ’ t get us out of the luck trap : Both the capacity and the need for system-two thinking are inequitably distributed .
Using system two to regulate system one is difficult .
Exercising the kind of self-discipline necessary to override system one reactions with deliberative , system-two choices is effortful .
It drains energy .
( See Brian Resnick ’ s fascinating discussion of the famous “ marshmallow test ” for more on this . )
Doing it requires certain conditions : a degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from more basic physical needs like food and shelter , some training and habituation .
Even with those advantages , it ’ s difficult .
There ’ s an entire “ life hacking ” genre devoted to tricks and techniques that system-two thinking can use to counteract system one ’ s predilections for salty snacks and procrastination .
And the thing is , not everyone has equal access to those conditions .
Whether and how much you have the ability to exercise system two in this way is largely — you guessed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too depends on where you were born , how you were raised , the resources to which you had access .
Even our desire and ability to alter our trajectory is largely determined by our trajectory .
Second , the need .
Some people don ’ t much need the ability to self-regulate , because their failures of self-regulation are forgiven and forgotten .
If you are , say , a white male born to wealth , like Donald Trump , you can blunder about and fuck up over and over again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more money and social connections ; the justice system will always go easy on you ; you ’ ll always get more second chances .
You could even be president someday , without being required to learn anything or develop any skills relevant to the job .
But if you are , say , a black male , you are called upon to exercise an extraordinary degree of self-regulation .
You will frequently be surrounded by people on a hair trigger , prone to suspect or fear you , to turn down your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or pass you over for a “ safer ” job applicant , prone to calling the cops on you , prone , if they are cops , to target and abuse you .
And , especially if you are poor , one step out of line — one incident at school , one brush with the justice system , one stupid teenage prank — can mean years or even a lifetime of consequences .
Subaltern groups have to self-regulate twice as much to have half a chance .
Neither the capacity nor the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairly .
In a dark irony , we demand much more of it from those — the poor , the hungry , the homeless or housing-insecure — likely to have the least access to the conditions that make it possible .
( Just one more way it ’ s expensive to be poor . )
Your capacity for self-regulation and self-improvement , and your need for them , are both part of your inheritance .
They come to you via life ’ s lottery .
Via luck .
Acknowledging luck is profoundly threatening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bridle at this point .
They want credit for their achievements and for their better qualities .
As Varney said , it can be insulting to be told that one ’ s success is in large part a lucky roll of the dice .
Of course , people aren ’ t nearly as eager to take credit for their failures and flaws .
Psychologists have shown that all humans are subject to “ fundamental attribution error.
” When we assess others , we tend to attribute successes to circumstance and failures to character @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives , it is the opposite .
Everyone ’ s relationship with luck is somewhat self-interested and opportunistic .
And the more one benefits from life ’ s lottery , the greater the incentives to deny it .
As a class , the lucky have every political incentive to frame social and economic outcomes as reflective of a natural order .
Life ’ s winners have been telling stories about why they ’ re special since civilization began .
But that ’ s my point about the moral implications of luck : They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established order .
They cast doubt on every form of privilege and light on every mechanism by which privilege perpetuates itself .
Acknowledging luck — or , more broadly , the pervasive influence on our lives of factors we did not choose and for which we deserve no credit or blame — does not mean denying all agency .
It doesn ’ t mean people are nothing more than the sum of their inheritances , or that merit has no role in outcomes .
It doesn ’ t mean people shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do or rewarded for good things .
Nor does it necessarily mean going full socialist .
These are all familiar straw men in this debate .
No , it just means that no one “ deserves ” hunger , homelessness , ill health , or subjugation — and ultimately , no one “ deserves ” giant fortunes either .
All such outcomes involve a large portion of luck .
The promise of great financial reward spurs risk-taking , market competition , and innovation .
Markets , properly regulated , are a socially healthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no reason to try to completely equalize market outcomes .
But there ’ s also no reason to allow hunger , homelessness , ill health , or subjugation .
And there ’ s no reason we shouldn ’ t ask everyone , especially those who have benefited most from luck — from being born a certain place , a certain color , to certain people in a certain economic bracket , sent to certain schools , introduced to certain people — to chip in to help those upon whom life ’ s lottery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely possible to do both , to harness market competition while using the wealth it generates to raise up the unlucky and give them greater access to that very competition .
“ If you want meritocracy , ” Chris Hayes argued in his seminal book Twilight of the Elites , “ work for equality .
Because it is only in a society which values equality of actual outcomes , one that promotes the commonweal and social solidarity , that equal opportunity and earned mobility can flourish.
” Or as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic primary in New York ’ s 14th District , is fond of saying , “ in a modern , moral , and wealthy society , no person should be too poor to live.
” Neither human genes nor human societies distribute life ’ s gifts according to any principle we would recognize as fair or humane , given the extraordinary role of luck in our lives .
We all become adults with wildly different inheritances , starting our lives in radically different places , propelled toward dramatically different destinations .
We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equality , but it is easily within our grasp to soften luck ’ s harsher effects , to ensure that no one falls too far , that everyone has access to a life of dignity .
Before that can happen , though , we must look luck square in the face .

In July 2018 (when we first published this piece), there was a minor uproar when Kardashian scion Kylie Jenner, who is all of 22, appeared on the cover of Forbes’s 60 richest self-made women issue. As many people pointed out, Jenner’s success would have been impossible if she hadn’t been born white, healthy, rich, and famous. She built a successful cosmetics company — now valued at $900 million, according to Forbes — not just with hard work but on a towering foundation of good luck.
Around the same time, there was another minor uproar when Refinery29 published “A Week in New York City on $25/Hour,” an online diary by someone whose rent and bills are paid for by her parents. It turns out $25 an hour goes a lot further if you have no expenses!
These episodes illustrate what seems to be one of the enduring themes of our age: socially dominant groups, recipients of myriad unearned advantages, willfully refusing to acknowledge them, despite persistent efforts from socially disadvantaged groups. This is not a new theme, of course — it waxes and wanes with circumstance — but after a multi-decade rise in inequality, it has come roaring back to the fore.
Of course, socially dominant groups have every incentive to ignore luck. And they have found a patron saint in President Trump, who once claimed, “My father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that’s worth many, many billions of dollars.”
Neither side of that claim is true. But in this, as in so much else, Trump’s brazenness serves as cover, a signal that it’s still okay to cling to this myth.
These recent controversies reminded me of the fuss around a book that came out a few years ago: Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, by economist Robert Frank. (Vox’s Sean Illing interviewed Frank in 2016.) It argued that luck plays a large role in every human success and failure, which ought to be a rather banal and uncontroversial point, but the reaction of many commentators was gobsmacked outrage. On Fox Business, Stuart Varney sputtered at Frank: “Do you know how insulting that was, when I read that?”
It’s not difficult to see why many people take offense when reminded of their luck, especially those who have received the most. Allowing for luck can dent our self-conception. It can diminish our sense of control. It opens up all kinds of uncomfortable questions about obligations to other, less fortunate people.
Nonetheless, this is a battle that cannot be bypassed. There can be no ceasefire. Individually, coming to terms with luck is the secular equivalent of religious awakening, the first step in building any coherent universalist moral perspective. Socially, acknowledging the role of luck lays a moral foundation for humane economic, housing, and carceral policy.
Building a more compassionate society means reminding ourselves of luck, and of the gratitude and obligations it entails, against inevitable resistance.
So here’s a reminder.
How much credit do we deserve for who, and where, we end up?
How much moral credit are we due for where we end up in life, and for who we end up? Conversely, how much responsibility or blame do we deserve? I don’t just mean Kylie Jenner or Donald Trump — all of us. Anyone.
How you answer these questions reveals a great deal about your moral worldview. To a first approximation, the more credit/responsibility you believe we are due, the more you will be inclined to accept default (often cruel and inequitable) social and economic outcomes. People basically get what they deserve.
The less credit/responsibility you believe we are due, the more you believe our trajectories are shaped by forces outside our control (and sheer chance), the more compassionate you will be toward failure and the more you will expect back from the fortunate. When luck is recognized, softening its harsh effects becomes the basic moral project.
Understanding the role of luck begins with getting past the old “nature versus nurture” debate, which has always captivated the public, not so much because of the science but because of the deeper existential questions involved.
“Nature” has come to serve roughly as code for the stuff we’re stuck with, our bodies, our genes — an arrow fate has already fired, with a preset path. And “nurture” has become shorthand for our capacity for change, our ability to be shaped by circumstances, other people, and ourselves, to wiggle and move about within that path, or even escape it. It’s shorthand for our range of control over our fates.
But this has always struck me as a misguided way to look at it.
Both nature and nurture happen to you
Of course it is true that you have no choice when it comes to your genes, your hair color, your basic body shape and appearance, your vulnerability to certain diseases. You’re stuck with what nature gives you — and it does not distribute its blessings equitably or according to merit.
But you also have no choice when it comes to the vast bulk of the nurture that matters.
Child development psychologists tell us that deep and lasting shaping of neural pathways happens in the first hours, days, months, and years of life. Basic dispositions are formed that can last a lifetime. Whether you are held, spoken to, fed, made to feel safe and cared for — you have no choice in any of it, but it more or less forms your emotional skeleton. It determines how sensitive you are to threat, how open you are to new experience, your capacity to exercise empathy.
Children aren’t responsible for how they spend their formative years and the permanent imprint it makes upon them. But they’re stuck with it.
Legally speaking, here in the US, we don’t consider people autonomous moral agents, responsible for their own decisions, until they are 18. Obviously, different cultures have different ages and markers for adulthood (moral agenthood), but all cultures mark a transition. At some point, a child, an instinctual creature not fully responsible for their decisions, becomes an adult, capable of using higher cognitive functions to shape and moderate their behavior according to shared standards, and to be held accountable if they don’t.
For the purposes of this argument, it doesn’t matter much where you draw the line between child and adult. What matters is that it takes place after the bulk of temperament, personality, and socioeconomic circumstance are in place.
So, then, here you are. You turn 18. You are no longer a child; you are an adult, a moral agent, responsible for who you are and what you do.
By that time, your inheritance is enormous. You’ve not only been granted a genetic makeup, an ethnicity and appearance, by accidents of nature and parentage. You’ve also had your latent genetic traits “activated” in a very specific way through a specific upbringing, in a specific environment, with a specific set of experiences.
Your basic mental and emotional wiring is in place; you have certain instincts, predilections, fears, and cravings. You have a certain amount of money, certain social connections and opportunities, a certain family lineage. You’ve had a certain amount and quality of education. You’re a certain kind of person.
You are not responsible for any of that stuff; you weren’t yet capable of being responsible. You were just a kid (or worse, a teen). You didn’t choose your genes or your experiences. Both nature and the vast bulk of the nurture that matters happened to you.
And yet when you turn 18, it’s all yours — the whole inheritance, warts and all. By the time you are an autonomous, responsible moral agent, you have effectively been fired out of a cannon, on a particular trajectory. You wake up, morally speaking, midflight.
Bettering ourselves frequently means overcoming our own inheritances
How capable are we of altering our trajectories? How much can we change ourselves?
Here, a distinction made famous by psychologist Daniel Kahneman in his seminal Thinking, Fast and Slow is helpful. Kahneman argues that humans have two modes of thinking: “system one,” which is fast, instinctual, automatic, and often unconscious, and “system two,” which is slower, more deliberative, and emotionally “cooler” (generally traced to the prefrontal cortex).
Our system one reactions are largely hardwired by the time we become adults. But what about system two?
We do seem to have some control over it. We can use it, to some extent, to shape, channel, or even change our system one reactions over time — to change ourselves.
Everyone is familiar with that struggle; indeed, the battle between systems one and two tends to be the central drama in most human lives. When we step back and reflect, we know we need to exercise more and eat less, to be more generous and less grumpy, to manage time better and be more productive. System two recognizes those as the right decisions; they make sense; the numbers work out.
But then the moment comes and we’re sitting on the couch and system one feels very strongly that it doesn’t want to put on running shoes. It wants greasy takeout food. It wants to snap at the delivery guy for being late. Where is system two when it’s needed? It shows up later, full of regret and self-recrimination. Thanks a lot, system two.
To become a better person is, at least to some degree, to consciously decide what kind of person one wants to be, what kind of life one wants to lead, and to enforce that meta-decision through day-to-day smaller decisions. They say you are what you do repeatedly; our choices become habit and habit becomes character. So forming a good character, becoming a good person, means repeatedly choosing to do the right thing until it becomes habit.
To make this more concrete, an example: For whatever reason, I hate waiting on people. I can barely stand to walk behind people on the sidewalk. Driving behind people leaves me in constant, low-level seething rage. Watching the people ahead of me in line at the store bumble through their slow transactions makes me want to claw my eyes out.
When I use system-two thinking, I understand that this instinctual reaction of mine is both irrational and uncharitable — irrational because we’re all always waiting for one another and there’s no way to avoid it; uncharitable because I expect alacrity from others that I don’t always display myself. I make others wait just as much or more than anyone, but I absolutely can’t wait for others.
To put it more bluntly, I tend to be kind of an asshole in that particular way. And I don’t want to be! It makes other people tense. It makes me miserable. It serves absolutely no purpose.
The only way to change it is to use system-two thinking to override system one — to intervene in my own anger — again and again, until a different, better reaction becomes habitual and I become, in a literal sense, a different, better person. (That project is, uh, ongoing.)
The same is true for being a good parent, saving money, making more friends, or any other long-term life goal; it often involves overriding our own instincts — many of which are grossly maladaptive.
Do people deserve moral credit for what they do with their system-two thinking? Perhaps that’s the mechanism through which meritocracy works, through which people really do get what they deserve?
If you are a go-getter, lucky for you! No, really — that’s luck too.
There are two reasons why system-two thinking can’t get us out of the luck trap: Both the capacity and the need for system-two thinking are inequitably distributed.
First, the capacity.
Using system two to regulate system one is difficult. Exercising the kind of self-discipline necessary to override system one reactions with deliberative, system-two choices is effortful. It drains energy. (See Brian Resnick’s fascinating discussion of the famous “marshmallow test” for more on this.)
Doing it requires certain conditions: a degree of self-possession, a degree of freedom from more basic physical needs like food and shelter, some training and habituation. Even with those advantages, it’s difficult. There’s an entire “life hacking” genre devoted to tricks and techniques that system-two thinking can use to counteract system one’s predilections for salty snacks and procrastination.
And the thing is, not everyone has equal access to those conditions. Whether and how much you have the ability to exercise system two in this way is largely — you guessed it — part of your inheritance. It too depends on where you were born, how you were raised, the resources to which you had access.
Even our desire and ability to alter our trajectory is largely determined by our trajectory.
Second, the need.
Some people don’t much need the ability to self-regulate, because their failures of self-regulation are forgiven and forgotten. If you are, say, a white male born to wealth, like Donald Trump, you can blunder about and fuck up over and over again. You’ll always have access to more money and social connections; the justice system will always go easy on you; you’ll always get more second chances. You could even be president someday, without being required to learn anything or develop any skills relevant to the job.
And he goes for it pic.twitter.com/XC2Xdvyumq — Axios (@axios) August 21, 2017
But if you are, say, a black male, you are called upon to exercise an extraordinary degree of self-regulation. You will frequently be surrounded by people on a hair trigger, prone to suspect or fear you, to turn down your rental application or deny you a loan or pass you over for a “safer” job applicant, prone to calling the cops on you, prone, if they are cops, to target and abuse you.
And, especially if you are poor, one step out of line — one incident at school, one brush with the justice system, one stupid teenage prank — can mean years or even a lifetime of consequences. Subaltern groups have to self-regulate twice as much to have half a chance.
Neither the capacity nor the need for self-regulation is distributed evenly or fairly. In a dark irony, we demand much more of it from those — the poor, the hungry, the homeless or housing-insecure — likely to have the least access to the conditions that make it possible. (Just one more way it’s expensive to be poor.)
Your capacity for self-regulation and self-improvement, and your need for them, are both part of your inheritance. They come to you via life’s lottery. Via luck.
Acknowledging luck is profoundly threatening to the lucky
I get why people bridle at this point. They want credit for their achievements and for their better qualities. As Varney said, it can be insulting to be told that one’s success is in large part a lucky roll of the dice.
Of course, people aren’t nearly as eager to take credit for their failures and flaws. Psychologists have shown that all humans are subject to “fundamental attribution error.” When we assess others, we tend to attribute successes to circumstance and failures to character — and when we assess our own lives, it is the opposite. Everyone’s relationship with luck is somewhat self-interested and opportunistic.
And the more one benefits from life’s lottery, the greater the incentives to deny it. As a class, the lucky have every political incentive to frame social and economic outcomes as reflective of a natural order. Life’s winners have been telling stories about why they’re special since civilization began.
But that’s my point about the moral implications of luck: They are radical and inevitably corrosive to the established order. They cast doubt on every form of privilege and light on every mechanism by which privilege perpetuates itself.
Acknowledging luck — or, more broadly, the pervasive influence on our lives of factors we did not choose and for which we deserve no credit or blame — does not mean denying all agency. It doesn’t mean people are nothing more than the sum of their inheritances, or that merit has no role in outcomes. It doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be held responsible for bad things they do or rewarded for good things. Nor does it necessarily mean going full socialist. These are all familiar straw men in this debate.
No, it just means that no one “deserves” hunger, homelessness, ill health, or subjugation — and ultimately, no one “deserves” giant fortunes either. All such outcomes involve a large portion of luck.
The promise of great financial reward spurs risk-taking, market competition, and innovation. Markets, properly regulated, are a socially healthy form of gambling. There’s no reason to try to completely equalize market outcomes. But there’s also no reason to allow hunger, homelessness, ill health, or subjugation.
And there’s no reason we shouldn’t ask everyone, especially those who have benefited most from luck — from being born a certain place, a certain color, to certain people in a certain economic bracket, sent to certain schools, introduced to certain people — to chip in to help those upon whom life’s lottery bestowed fewer gifts.
And it is entirely possible to do both, to harness market competition while using the wealth it generates to raise up the unlucky and give them greater access to that very competition.
“If you want meritocracy,” Chris Hayes argued in his seminal book Twilight of the Elites, “work for equality. Because it is only in a society which values equality of actual outcomes, one that promotes the commonweal and social solidarity, that equal opportunity and earned mobility can flourish.”
Or as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the democratic socialist firebrand who won her House Democratic primary in New York’s 14th District, is fond of saying, “in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person should be too poor to live.”
Neither human genes nor human societies distribute life’s gifts according to any principle we would recognize as fair or humane, given the extraordinary role of luck in our lives. We all become adults with wildly different inheritances, starting our lives in radically different places, propelled toward dramatically different destinations.
We cannot eliminate luck, nor achieve total equality, but it is easily within our grasp to soften luck’s harsher effects, to ensure that no one falls too far, that everyone has access to a life of dignity. Before that can happen, though, we must look luck square in the face.


vox--2020-02-17--The unfair pressure for Birds of Prey to be a great feminist superhero movie

Despite Birds of Prey , Warner Bros. ’ s Harley Quinn spinoff , earning great reviews , and despite making an estimated $ 81 million worldwide in its opening weekend , the film has already been labeled a commercial disappointment in the DC Expanded Universe canon .
But the silly thing is that , because of how rare women-fronted superhero movies are , Birds of Prey ’ s disappointment is a bigger deal to fans looking for more representation in their superhero movies .
Thanks to the glut of male superhero-led movies , that Thor movie you didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easier to write off as flash-in-the-pan flops when they don ’ t make big box office numbers .
Yet , because Birds of Prey is now just the third film after 2017 ’ s Wonder Woman and 2019 ’ s Captain Marvel in both the modern-day DCEU and MCU to focus on women superheroes , there ’ s a nagging worry that studio executives will take it to mean people won ’ t see women-led superhero movies .
It has happened in the past with disasters like Catwoman and Elektra , and those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clear lack of women-led superhero movies compared to their male counterparts .
The attention paid to Birds of Prey and its cohort and reading their success as a bellwether isn ’ t unique to women-fronted superhero movies .
But the concern that the success of each movie in a marginalized genre impacts that genre ’ s future comes with the territory .
There was pressure on Crazy Rich Asians ’ s box office numbers , for example , because its success dictated the future of Asian American representation ; when a movie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status quo , the movie ’ s supporters are forced to cross their fingers .
The pressure of its own importance to superhero movies shapes Birds of Prey and the conversation surrounding it .
The thought goes : The better the movie does , the more it feels like a victory for representation , and vice versa .
But is that true equality ?
What if the real fight for representation is in a movie ’ s shortcomings — as may be the case for the delightfully messy Birds of Prey ?
Birds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are so few movies like it The most difficult thing for Birds of Prey might be that it came out in the year 2020 .
For Birds of Prey and the women-centric superhero movies that preceded it , simply existing at a time when such movies are few and far between has posed an uphill battle .
Up until Captain Marvel ’ s debut in 2019 , Marvel had never made a women-led superhero movie .
And Warner Bros. , after years of fumbling and complaining about how hard it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally did so in 2017 .
These movies , because of their gender-barrier-breaking milestones , had to not only make enough money to convince executives that they could stand with traditionally male-led heroes , but they also had to make up for the decade of stories where women were primarily sidekicks , love interests , or damsels in distress , not action heroes .
Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel had to give women a superhero in whom they could see themselves — a single character encompassing a myriad of lives , just like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the big screen over the past decade are meant to do .
Viewers , in turn , want both someone to cheer for and a movement to cheer about .
It ’ s why these women-led movies are framed and sold in a way that champions female empowerment .
Captain Marvel , Wonder Woman , and movies that similarly represent people who don ’ t often get the attention they deserve on the big screen — Black Panther , Spider-Man : Into The Spider-Verse , and even a movie like Crazy Rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genre — change the way we talk about movies ( see : all the pieces about how these movies could change the future of filmmaking ) .
Because of their scarcity and rarity , movies about underrepresented voices become symbolic .
They ’ re discussed and looked at in ways that you don ’ t see , say , with the various Spider-Man reboots or Batman flicks , particularly by the people they represent .
The characters themselves , more than just the movies they ’ re in , become symbols of representation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Captain Marvel can kick and punch as hard as the men , and they ’ re also morally uncomplicated .
They fight for good and for people who need protecting ( the refugee Skrulls for Captain Marvel , and all of humanity for Wonder Woman ) from those more powerful than them .
And the feminism in Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman attempted to be as pronounced and clear as possible — these women support other women , they ’ re in charge of their own sexuality and appearance ; they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
For better and worse , that happens in Birds of Prey , too .
While Birds of Prey is fun and crackles with excitement , it ’ s very careful not to miss its female-empowerment-moment beats .
Its feminist heart is cleanly marked and packaged tightly .
Harley Quinn , a woman we know best as the Joker ’ s main squeeze , tells us that she and her squad are rough around the edges — more dinged up than the usual squeaky clean heroine .
But the script never allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully exist beyond representational avatars — not unlike Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel .
Though she commits terrible acts — breaking a man ’ s leg , evading police , and blowing up a chemical plant — Harley Quinn mostly spends the movie acting out as a consequence of her breakup with her old lover , the Joker .
Her background is immediately tied to the Batman universe ’ s most hated villain , putting Harley in a much grayer area than the usual star of a supposed superhero movie .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s facing off against the villainous misogynist Roman Sionis ( Harley ’ s narration via on-screen notes says one of his grievances against her is her having a vagina ) , Harley also ends up committing some pretty bad crimes — kidnapping Cassandra Cain , holding her for ransom , maiming bounty hunters , etc .
But these are done in the interest of protecting herself from Sionis , not out of sheer malice .
If not for these villainous men in her way , the movie seems to suggest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that bad .
She ’ s a loyal person , as evidenced by her relationship with her landlord Doc .
She never harms Cassandra Cain , protecting her from Sionis and his bounty hunters multiple times .
And by the end of the movie , she ’ s easily made friends with the rest of her makeshift team and takes Cain under her wing .
Had the dice rolled the other way and had she never met the Joker , the movie suggests , Quinn wouldn ’ t be a villain .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more antihero than villain .
The other members of the girl gang Harley ends up corralling find themselves in similar situations .
Each one is a strong woman wronged by men ( Renee Montoya and Huntress ) or kept as their pet ( Black Canary ) .
They ’ re very clearly the heroes in their own stories , and these women only cause harm to the people who very clearly deserve it within the film .
( And typically , they ’ re guys , which is even better . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the women decide very quickly to become friends , everything — their success , independence , and power — locks into place .
Birds of Prey ’ s uncomplicated feminist message made me think about a 2018 BuzzFeed piece from film critic Alison Willmore , in which she wrote about her qualms with the way girl power is commodified in Hollywood .
She contrasted the lack of complexity in the all-women heist movie Ocean ’ s 8 with the grittiness earned in that year ’ s other all-women heist movie , Widows .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ great , where Ocean ’ s 8 failed to leave a strong impression : Reading this now , I kept thinking about how much better Birds of Prey could ’ ve been had it been allowed to be more like Widows , a truly excellent film .
Granted , Birds is a superhero movie , and superhero movies have a tendency to treat success as a result of how well you punch your way through conflicts .
And Widows was filled with bloody violence and themes that would never make it into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a superhero film .
But the “ hard ” R-rated Birds of Prey so loudly promised a story about a chaotic , unconventional antihero , it ’ s a shame that it didn ’ t swing for something darker , grittier — and something more rewarding .
True equality will be when Harley Quinn can star in a movie like Joker Unintentional or not , Harley Quinn ’ s Birds of Prey is hitting theaters right after a movie about her bad boyfriend : Joker , directed by Todd Phillips .
And despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent ) lower than Birds of Prey ( 79 percent ) , that movie has stormed its way to over $ 1 billion worldwide at the box office .
While critics were mixed on Joker , many viewers lauded the movie and Phillips for focusing on a character who revels in his own ghoulishness .
Joker had no ties to the larger DC cinematic universe and no worries about overblown violence .
Unlike Birds of Prey , it wasn ’ t tethered to past portrayals , namely the particularly dismal one by Jared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a hard movie for us to get made and to convince DC and the studio , ” Phillips told the Associated Press in August .
“ And in fairness the studio took a bold swing with the movie and let us do exactly what we wanted ... there really were no rules and boundaries for it.
” Reading Phillips ’ s multiple interviews about his own movie ’ s edginess and how “ woke ” culture inspired him to create Joker is hilariously frustrating when compared to what it takes to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind the hoops a movie about a female supervillain would have to jump through to get made — like Gotham City Sirens , what would have been Warner Bros. ’ s first female-supervillain-centered movie ( which was also supposed to star Robbie ’ s Harley Quinn ) .
It has reportedly been put on hold .
It feels like while there ’ s hemming and hawing over Harley Quinn ’ s solo box office potential , Phillips is already on his way to making another edge-lord movie that promises to shock the masses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re still at a point where Harley can ’ t be a character who can be as deranged , messy , and reprehensible as her boyfriend .
It ’ s not the number of Harley Quinn or Wonder Woman movies that will determine whether they ’ re equal with the boys , but rather if either one — or any woman superhero for that matter — ever enjoys the same artistic freedom as Phillips and Joker .
Imagine letting Harley be her own human-disaster self , not a forced role model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not having the pressure of meeting absurd box office goals in order to square away its future .
Imagine what kind of bonkers , off-the-wall , uniquely enraged movie that could be .
We aren ’ t at that point yet , but hopefully Birds of Prey , along with this year ’ s Black Widow prequel and Wonder Woman 1984 , will bring us somewhere closer .

Despite Birds of Prey, Warner Bros.’s Harley Quinn spinoff, earning great reviews, and despite making an estimated $81 million worldwide in its opening weekend, the film has already been labeled a commercial disappointment in the DC Expanded Universe canon.
But the silly thing is that, because of how rare women-fronted superhero movies are, Birds of Prey’s disappointment is a bigger deal to fans looking for more representation in their superhero movies.
Thanks to the glut of male superhero-led movies, that Thor movie you didn’t see and the beleaguered Justice League are easier to write off as flash-in-the-pan flops when they don’t make big box office numbers.
Yet, because Birds of Prey is now just the third film after 2017’s Wonder Woman and 2019’s Captain Marvel in both the modern-day DCEU and MCU to focus on women superheroes, there’s a nagging worry that studio executives will take it to mean people won’t see women-led superhero movies. It has happened in the past with disasters like Catwoman and Elektra, and those box office busts have directly led to the clear lack of women-led superhero movies compared to their male counterparts.
The attention paid to Birds of Prey and its cohort and reading their success as a bellwether isn’t unique to women-fronted superhero movies. But the concern that the success of each movie in a marginalized genre impacts that genre’s future comes with the territory. There was pressure on Crazy Rich Asians’s box office numbers, for example, because its success dictated the future of Asian American representation; when a movie dares to represent something other than the status quo, the movie’s supporters are forced to cross their fingers.
The pressure of its own importance to superhero movies shapes Birds of Prey and the conversation surrounding it. The thought goes: The better the movie does, the more it feels like a victory for representation, and vice versa. But is that true equality? What if the real fight for representation is in a movie’s shortcomings — as may be the case for the delightfully messy Birds of Prey?
Birds of Prey is an important movie because there are so few movies like it
The most difficult thing for Birds of Prey might be that it came out in the year 2020. For Birds of Prey and the women-centric superhero movies that preceded it, simply existing at a time when such movies are few and far between has posed an uphill battle.
Up until Captain Marvel’s debut in 2019, Marvel had never made a women-led superhero movie. And Warner Bros., after years of fumbling and complaining about how hard it would be to make a Wonder Woman movie, finally did so in 2017.
These movies, because of their gender-barrier-breaking milestones, had to not only make enough money to convince executives that they could stand with traditionally male-led heroes, but they also had to make up for the decade of stories where women were primarily sidekicks, love interests, or damsels in distress, not action heroes. Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel had to give women a superhero in whom they could see themselves — a single character encompassing a myriad of lives, just like the multiple male heroes who have been on the big screen over the past decade are meant to do.
Viewers, in turn, want both someone to cheer for and a movement to cheer about. It’s why these women-led movies are framed and sold in a way that champions female empowerment. Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman, and movies that similarly represent people who don’t often get the attention they deserve on the big screen — Black Panther, Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse, and even a movie like Crazy Rich Asians, which exists in a different genre — change the way we talk about movies (see: all the pieces about how these movies could change the future of filmmaking).
Because of their scarcity and rarity, movies about underrepresented voices become symbolic. They’re discussed and looked at in ways that you don’t see, say, with the various Spider-Man reboots or Batman flicks, particularly by the people they represent.
The characters themselves, more than just the movies they’re in, become symbols of representation, too.
Both Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel can kick and punch as hard as the men, and they’re also morally uncomplicated. They fight for good and for people who need protecting (the refugee Skrulls for Captain Marvel, and all of humanity for Wonder Woman) from those more powerful than them. And the feminism in Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman attempted to be as pronounced and clear as possible — these women support other women, they’re in charge of their own sexuality and appearance; they’re instantly good and good at what they do.
For better and worse, that happens in Birds of Prey, too.
While Birds of Prey is fun and crackles with excitement, it’s very careful not to miss its female-empowerment-moment beats. Its feminist heart is cleanly marked and packaged tightly. Harley Quinn, a woman we know best as the Joker’s main squeeze, tells us that she and her squad are rough around the edges — more dinged up than the usual squeaky clean heroine. But the script never allows Harley or the Birds of Prey to fully exist beyond representational avatars — not unlike Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel.
Though she commits terrible acts — breaking a man’s leg, evading police, and blowing up a chemical plant — Harley Quinn mostly spends the movie acting out as a consequence of her breakup with her old lover, the Joker. Her background is immediately tied to the Batman universe’s most hated villain, putting Harley in a much grayer area than the usual star of a supposed superhero movie.
In the second half of the film, while she’s facing off against the villainous misogynist Roman Sionis (Harley’s narration via on-screen notes says one of his grievances against her is her having a vagina), Harley also ends up committing some pretty bad crimes — kidnapping Cassandra Cain, holding her for ransom, maiming bounty hunters, etc. But these are done in the interest of protecting herself from Sionis, not out of sheer malice.
If not for these villainous men in her way, the movie seems to suggest, then Harley Quinn isn’t all that bad. She’s a loyal person, as evidenced by her relationship with her landlord Doc. She never harms Cassandra Cain, protecting her from Sionis and his bounty hunters multiple times. And by the end of the movie, she’s easily made friends with the rest of her makeshift team and takes Cain under her wing.
Had the dice rolled the other way and had she never met the Joker, the movie suggests, Quinn wouldn’t be a villain. And the movie shows us that she’s more antihero than villain.
The other members of the girl gang Harley ends up corralling find themselves in similar situations. Each one is a strong woman wronged by men (Renee Montoya and Huntress) or kept as their pet (Black Canary). They’re very clearly the heroes in their own stories, and these women only cause harm to the people who very clearly deserve it within the film. (And typically, they’re guys, which is even better.)
In the final act, when all the women decide very quickly to become friends, everything — their success, independence, and power — locks into place.
Birds of Prey’s uncomplicated feminist message made me think about a 2018 BuzzFeed piece from film critic Alison Willmore, in which she wrote about her qualms with the way girl power is commodified in Hollywood. She contrasted the lack of complexity in the all-women heist movie Ocean’s 8 with the grittiness earned in that year’s other all-women heist movie, Widows.
Willmore succinctly explains what makes Widows so great, where Ocean’s 8 failed to leave a strong impression:
They don’t like each other right away, and they aren’t instantly great at crime. Why would they be? The smile Viola Davis gives one of her costars in the last act is heartstopping because it’s so hard-won, one of the few genuine expressions of warmth in the movie. This crew’s successes are all the sweeter because they’ve had to fumble through and work to find out, literally, if they can bear up under the weight of what they’re doing.
Reading this now, I kept thinking about how much better Birds of Prey could’ve been had it been allowed to be more like Widows, a truly excellent film.
Granted, Birds is a superhero movie, and superhero movies have a tendency to treat success as a result of how well you punch your way through conflicts. And Widows was filled with bloody violence and themes that would never make it into a PG-13 rating, the typical aim for a superhero film. But the “hard” R-rated Birds of Prey so loudly promised a story about a chaotic, unconventional antihero, it’s a shame that it didn’t swing for something darker, grittier — and something more rewarding.
True equality will be when Harley Quinn can star in a movie like Joker
Unintentional or not, Harley Quinn’s Birds of Prey is hitting theaters right after a movie about her bad boyfriend: Joker, directed by Todd Phillips. And despite having a Rotten Tomatoes score (68 percent) lower than Birds of Prey (79 percent), that movie has stormed its way to over $1 billion worldwide at the box office.
While critics were mixed on Joker, many viewers lauded the movie and Phillips for focusing on a character who revels in his own ghoulishness. Joker had no ties to the larger DC cinematic universe and no worries about overblown violence. Unlike Birds of Prey, it wasn’t tethered to past portrayals, namely the particularly dismal one by Jared Leto in Suicide Squad.
“It was a hard movie for us to get made and to convince DC and the studio,” Phillips told the Associated Press in August. “And in fairness the studio took a bold swing with the movie and let us do exactly what we wanted ... there really were no rules and boundaries for it.”
Reading Phillips’s multiple interviews about his own movie’s edginess and how “woke” culture inspired him to create Joker is hilariously frustrating when compared to what it takes to get women superheroes onto the screen. Never mind the hoops a movie about a female supervillain would have to jump through to get made — like Gotham City Sirens, what would have been Warner Bros.’s first female-supervillain-centered movie (which was also supposed to star Robbie’s Harley Quinn). It has reportedly been put on hold.
It feels like while there’s hemming and hawing over Harley Quinn’s solo box office potential, Phillips is already on his way to making another edge-lord movie that promises to shock the masses.
And it’s rough that we’re still at a point where Harley can’t be a character who can be as deranged, messy, and reprehensible as her boyfriend. It’s not the number of Harley Quinn or Wonder Woman movies that will determine whether they’re equal with the boys, but rather if either one — or any woman superhero for that matter — ever enjoys the same artistic freedom as Phillips and Joker.
Imagine letting Harley be her own human-disaster self, not a forced role model for women. Imagine Birds of Prey not having the pressure of meeting absurd box office goals in order to square away its future. Imagine what kind of bonkers, off-the-wall, uniquely enraged movie that could be.
We aren’t at that point yet, but hopefully Birds of Prey, along with this year’s Black Widow prequel and Wonder Woman 1984, will bring us somewhere closer.


vox--2020-02-17--I reported through a mass shooting at my own newspaper. Now I’m taking a buyout.

“ Are you in the newsroom ?
I ’ m hearing there was a shooting .
I can ’ t get ahold of anyone.
” I heard the catch in his voice the same moment I saw dozens of police cars tearing toward Annapolis in the breakdown lane .
The call was from my editor Rick Hutzell on June 28 , 2018 , the day a man fired a shotgun through the glass doors of the Capital Gazette newsroom .
He killed five of my colleagues and friends : Rebecca Smith , Wendi Winters , Gerald Fischman , Rob Hiassen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were injured .
That morning , I had driven to the United States Naval Academy to photograph the induction of the newest class .
I had been a staff photojournalist for the Capital since 2004 .
That day , after I filed my photos , I snuck out early to take my daughter out for birthday snowballs .
That ’ s when I got the call .
I knew what to do , which was what I ’ d done my whole career .
I turned my car around and headed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after very nearly 20 years of covering my neighbors and community , including reporting through a mass shooting at my own newspaper , I am taking a buyout and leaving the Capital Gazette .
It ’ s an encapsulation of both the challenges journalists today face , and why I have hope for the future .
The day of the shooting , I arrived at the office and police were everywhere .
I took out my camera and captured the wide scene , took some detailed shots , took a minute or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the images .
Don ’ t think , I repeated to myself .
Don ’ t worry .
Just do the job .
Two of my colleagues , fellow journalists — Pat Furgurson and Chase Cook — arrived .
We gathered facts , confirmed who was alive , and then who was dead .
We transmitted from the back of Pat ’ s pickup in the mall garage across from the newsroom .
We all struggled to keep our emotions at bay .
The next day , we put out a paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from staff at the Baltimore Sun .
The suspect , now the admitted murderer , was a man we ’ d written about years before who pleaded guilty to harassing a woman on Facebook .
He was angry , tried suing the paper , and lost in court there , too .
He then went silent for years .
We ’ d long forgotten him , until that horrific day .
In a moment , the staff of the paper had transformed from colleagues to family .
There was no need to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had tried to silence us and silence journalism at large , but we would not let it .
The next year brought first the funerals , PTSD for many of us , a Time magazine cover , and a Pulitzer Special Citation .
It brought us a blur of feelings and trauma and laughter and family and frustration , and every day we produced a new issue of the Capital .
We never missed a single day .
This March would have been 20 years for me with Tribune , the company that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw company-wide buyouts of veteran staff members across the Tribune ’ s papers .
When I joined the staff , there were five photojournalists and a photo editor .
Two weeks ago we were down to just two , myself and Paul W. Gillespie , who survived the shooting .
Now it ’ s just Paul .
Last week , I took the buyout .
The decision was almost as hard as what I went through two years ago .
I first fell in love with the newsroom at my first journalism job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Aegis , later bought by Tribune , in Harford County , Maryland , in 2000 .
We were all mostly kids , led by gruff professionals who had seen it all and were patiently beating the heart and soul of journalism into our heads .
Seeing our work come to life — seeing our work validate the truth and lives of our readers — was as fulfilling as almost anything I know .
It became my life and how I defined myself .
Every day , we put into practice this belief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts down , gave voice to our community , and made a difference .
Corrupt public officials resigned because we reported on them .
Traffic lights went up at deadly intersections because we reported on it .
High school kids were spotlighted , and in turn they were told that the world saw them .
A community comes together naturally , but I believe that a community needs to be shown it is real , that it matters .
That ’ s the last real mission of American journalism .
You know the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like local journalism everywhere , were hit by consolidation and cuts .
Between 2004 and 2018 , newsroom employment has fallen by 47 percent .
Just last week , McClatchy , which owns 30 local newspapers around the country including the Miami Herald and the Kansas City Star , filed for bankruptcy .
As it felt like the industry around me was crumbling , I looked to my newsroom mentors and how they tacked into the wind and kept working .
I did the same .
What currents were eroding the industry was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important to me .
What was important was continuing to put out a paper .
Why did I take the buyout now ?
Twenty years is a lot , and there have been hard times in my career as a photojournalist .
But there are no words to describe the last two years .
You give and you give , and the traumas add up , and eventually , I wondered if I owed this business any more of myself .
For the moment — clearly briefer than I imagined because here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this piece — I could say I ’ ve given enough .
That ’ s one reason .
But there ’ s another reason , and that reason is what gives me strength .
My last assignments for the Capital were with two young journalists , Naomi Harris and Olivia Sanchez , excellent reporters who are working on some amazing projects .
They are bright and sharp and see the world clearly .
They see the hurricane of attacks buffeting journalism on all sides , and they stepped up .
They didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of endless advertising profits paying decent salaries .
They are volunteering not despite the challenges , but because of them .
They see the job needs doing and are going to do it no matter who tries to stop them .
Despite everything , I ’ m more optimistic than ever .
This is the golden age of local journalism , of American journalism .
What we do matters .
And what we do will continue .
Count on it .
Correction : A previous version of this essay misspelled Pat Furgurson ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veteran photojournalist based in Annapolis .
With the staff of the Capital , he was part of a Pulitzer Prize Special Citation and a Time magazine Person of the Year .

“Are you in the newsroom? I’m hearing there was a shooting. I can’t get ahold of anyone.” I heard the catch in his voice the same moment I saw dozens of police cars tearing toward Annapolis in the breakdown lane.
The call was from my editor Rick Hutzell on June 28, 2018, the day a man fired a shotgun through the glass doors of the Capital Gazette newsroom. He killed five of my colleagues and friends: Rebecca Smith, Wendi Winters, Gerald Fischman, Rob Hiaasen, and John McNamara. Two more were injured.
That morning, I had driven to the United States Naval Academy to photograph the induction of the newest class. I had been a staff photojournalist for the Capital since 2004. That day, after I filed my photos, I snuck out early to take my daughter out for birthday snowballs. That’s when I got the call.
I knew what to do, which was what I’d done my whole career. I turned my car around and headed to the Capital office to cover it.
Now, after very nearly 20 years of covering my neighbors and community, including reporting through a mass shooting at my own newspaper, I am taking a buyout and leaving the Capital Gazette. It’s an encapsulation of both the challenges journalists today face, and why I have hope for the future.
The day of the shooting, I arrived at the office and police were everywhere. I took out my camera and captured the wide scene, took some detailed shots, took a minute or two of video, all while tweeting out the images. Don’t think, I repeated to myself. Don’t worry. Just do the job.
Two of my colleagues, fellow journalists — Pat Furgurson and Chase Cook — arrived. We gathered facts, confirmed who was alive, and then who was dead. We transmitted from the back of Pat’s pickup in the mall garage across from the newsroom. We all struggled to keep our emotions at bay.
The next day, we put out a paper that covered the shooting, with help from staff at the Baltimore Sun. The suspect, now the admitted murderer, was a man we’d written about years before who pleaded guilty to harassing a woman on Facebook. He was angry, tried suing the paper, and lost in court there, too. He then went silent for years. We’d long forgotten him, until that horrific day.
In a moment, the staff of the paper had transformed from colleagues to family. There was no need to say it to each other. A force had tried to silence us and silence journalism at large, but we would not let it.
The next year brought first the funerals, PTSD for many of us, a Time magazine cover, and a Pulitzer Special Citation. It brought us a blur of feelings and trauma and laughter and family and frustration, and every day we produced a new issue of the Capital. We never missed a single day.
This March would have been 20 years for me with Tribune, the company that owns the Capital Gazette. Last week saw company-wide buyouts of veteran staff members across the Tribune’s papers. When I joined the staff, there were five photojournalists and a photo editor. Two weeks ago we were down to just two, myself and Paul W. Gillespie, who survived the shooting. Now it’s just Paul.
Last week, I took the buyout. The decision was almost as hard as what I went through two years ago.
I first fell in love with the newsroom at my first journalism job at a scrappy, old-fashioned biweekly called the Aegis, later bought by Tribune, in Harford County, Maryland, in 2000. We were all mostly kids, led by gruff professionals who had seen it all and were patiently beating the heart and soul of journalism into our heads. Seeing our work come to life — seeing our work validate the truth and lives of our readers — was as fulfilling as almost anything I know. It became my life and how I defined myself.
Every day, we put into practice this belief: Journalism matters. We locked the facts down, gave voice to our community, and made a difference. Corrupt public officials resigned because we reported on them. Traffic lights went up at deadly intersections because we reported on it. High school kids were spotlighted, and in turn they were told that the world saw them. A community comes together naturally, but I believe that a community needs to be shown it is real, that it matters. That’s the last real mission of American journalism.
You know the next part. Our papers, just like local journalism everywhere, were hit by consolidation and cuts. Between 2004 and 2018, newsroom employment has fallen by 47 percent. Just last week, McClatchy, which owns 30 local newspapers around the country including the Miami Herald and the Kansas City Star, filed for bankruptcy. As it felt like the industry around me was crumbling, I looked to my newsroom mentors and how they tacked into the wind and kept working. I did the same. What currents were eroding the industry was last on the list of what was most important to me. What was important was continuing to put out a paper.
Why did I take the buyout now? Twenty years is a lot, and there have been hard times in my career as a photojournalist. But there are no words to describe the last two years. You give and you give, and the traumas add up, and eventually, I wondered if I owed this business any more of myself. For the moment — clearly briefer than I imagined because here I am staring at a deadline again for this piece — I could say I’ve given enough. That’s one reason.
But there’s another reason, and that reason is what gives me strength. My last assignments for the Capital were with two young journalists, Naomi Harris and Olivia Sanchez, excellent reporters who are working on some amazing projects. They are bright and sharp and see the world clearly. They see the hurricane of attacks buffeting journalism on all sides, and they stepped up. They didn’t grow up in a world of endless advertising profits paying decent salaries. They are volunteering not despite the challenges, but because of them. They see the job needs doing and are going to do it no matter who tries to stop them.
Despite everything, I’m more optimistic than ever. This is the golden age of local journalism, of American journalism. What we do matters. And what we do will continue. Count on it.
Correction: A previous version of this essay misspelled Pat Furgurson’s and Rob Hiaasen’s names.
Joshua McKerrow is a veteran photojournalist based in Annapolis. With the staff of the Capital, he was part of a Pulitzer Prize Special Citation and a Time magazine Person of the Year.


vox--2020-02-17--The coronavirus cruise ship quarantine is a scary public health experiment

It ’ s a hypochondriac ’ s worst nightmare and a startling public health crisis : The largest coronavirus outbreak outside of mainland China is currently floating in Japanese waters , on a cruise ship owned by Princess Cruises .
The outbreak was first detected when an 80-year-old passenger tested positive for the virus on February 1 , a week after disembarking in Hong Kong .
By February 4 , the remaining 3,700 passengers and crew of the Diamond Princess — currently docked at the port city of Yokohama , Japan — were asked to stay on the ship under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of passengers and crew aboard the Diamond Princess with the disease — known as Covid-19 — has surged to 454 .
While those who tested positive have been allowed to leave the ship for treatment , the rest have had to remain there until at least February 19 , with the exception of the Americans who were still on board .
On Saturday , the US Embassy in Tokyo announced a chartered flight would arrive to evacuate citizens and their families .
By the time the group boarded the airplane Sunday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to the State Department , and were deemed “ fit to fly ” since they weren ’ t showing symptoms .
“ These individuals were moved in the most expeditious and safe manner to a specialized containment area on the evacuation aircraft to isolate them in accordance with standard protocols , ” the State Department said in a statement .
The new cases bring the total number of Americans on the cruise ship who became infected to 58 ( of about 400 total ) .
But they were not the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cruise ship in Asia because of Covid-19 .
After being barred from docking in five countries , Holland America ’ s cruise ship MS Westerdam finally disembarked on February 14 in Sihanoukville , Cambodia .
One day later , the ship ’ s first coronavirus case was confirmed in an American .
The cruise ship drama is unfolding in the context of the worsening outbreak : As of February 16 , there were more than 71,900 cases of the disease and 1,700 deaths , mostly in mainland China .
As a wave of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more questions are being raised about whether quarantining people onboard is a safe , or even ethical , strategy to contain the virus .
Chief among them : Did the cruise ship quarantine do more harm than good ?
Let ’ s walk through what we know .
1 ) What does cruise ship quarantine mean ?
Since the 80-year-old passenger tested positive for the virus , the Diamond Princess cruise ship has transformed into a mass public health experiment .
Passengers who have tested positive for the virus have disembarked and been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to the World Health Organization .
The others have been held in quarantine onboard at the order of the Japanese Ministry of Health .
For over a week now , the passengers on the ship have been asked to stay in their rooms , wear masks , and only walk on the deck for a couple of minutes each day , keeping at least six feet of distance from other passengers .
They ’ re having meals delivered to their rooms , and have plenty of TV , movie , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Officially , the objective of this quarantine is to prevent further spread of the virus onshore , particularly ahead of the Summer Olympics , which begin in Tokyo in July .
“ In this unprecedented situation , the Japanese Ministry of Health authorities are working with us collaboratively on additional enhancements and approving new procedures as we adapt our process to the unique challenges of this situation , ” said Jan Swartz , president of Princess Cruises , in a statement .
On the other hand , “ The Japanese government is probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus to their country more than the higher risk of harm to passengers from this mass cruise ship quarantine , ” said Steven Hoffman , director of the Global Strategy Lab and a professor of global health at York University .
The quarantine is supposed to end on February 19 , according to Princess Cruises , “ unless there are any other unforeseen developments.
” So it ’ s not yet clear whether it will end then .
And that ’ s a source of worry , for reasons we ’ ll get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantine lead to more coronavirus infections ?
Over the last week , doctors and health researchers became increasingly skeptical of this quarantine for exactly that reason .
“ They ’ ve basically trapped a bunch of people in a large container with [ the ] virus , ” said University of Toronto epidemiology professor David Fisman , over email .
“ So [ I ’ m ] assuming ‘ quarantine ’ is generating active transmission.
” For the same reason , Michael Mina , another epidemiologist at Harvard University , called the quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driven by the mounting case toll and details emerging from the ship , which paint an alarming portrait .
According to a must-read New York Times report , as of February 10 , Japanese officials had only tested 439 of the 3,700 passengers onboard for the coronavirus , citing shortages of testing supplies .
This meant that at least a fraction of the remaining thousands onboard may have the virus and not know it .
Among those who ’ ve tested positive recently are 10 crew members .
“ And according to employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday had been eating in the mess hall alongside their co-workers , ” the Times reports .
On Wednesday , a Japanese health official who was checking in on passengers on the ship also tested positive for the virus .
Given the risk of further spread among the crew , and to the passengers they ’ re trying to serve , the quarantine on the Diamond Princess increasingly seems to pose an “ unacceptable risk , ” as Mina said .
3 ) How are the people on the ship doing ?
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and crew are sharing their experiences of the quarantine through tweets and videos .
And they ’ re reporting more fear and anxiety every day as more people are diagnosed : 4 ) How can the cruise company just lock these people up ?
It ’ s not the cruise company quarantining people ; it ’ s the Japanese government .
People on the ship “ are in Japanese waters , and this is being managed by public health officials in Japan , ” said Isaac Bogoch , a professor at the University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ship , as visitors of Japan , are subject to Japan ’ s quarantine protocols , he added .
According to the cruise company , the passengers hail from all over the world : America , Australia , Canada , and Japan , among other countries .
Quarantines can be effective tools for containing the spread of disease — but only when you ’ re dealing with people who are already sick .
“ All the evidence we ’ ve got to go on is based on quarantining people who are infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global health law researcher at Keele University in England .
When quarantines are done arbitrarily , with no scientific basis , he added , they ’ re “ not in line with human rights obligations.
” The cruise ship quarantine is not just a human rights or justice issue , though ; it ’ s a public health problem .
In this case , people who aren ’ t yet sick and who may not have been exposed to the new coronavirus are being held together in close proximity with people who may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top of that the fact that we don ’ t yet know exactly how this virus spreads ; all we know is that respiratory viruses like it — MERS and SARS — spread mainly through exposure to droplets , from coughing or sneezing .
But like SARS , there ’ s already some suggestion that the new coronavirus may be able to spread long distances through pipes in buildings , and potentially via feces , too .
It ’ s also possible the virus could spread through the cruise ship ’ s ventilation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passengers and crew , the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it has no evidence of that yet .
6 ) What does this cruise ship situation reveal about the larger outbreak ?
Though the cruise ship situation is unfortunate , it could be helpful for understanding the new coronavirus .
“ It may shed light on the incubation period [ for this disease ] , transmission dynamics , the clinical spectrum of illness , ” said Bogoch .
Marion Koopmans , who studies emerging infectious diseases and heads the department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rotterdam , Netherlands , thinks we can learn a lot about how the disease spreads when we know exactly how the virus began spreading on the ship .
“ Cruise ships have these shows , several restaurants with joint dinners — so was there a close contact situation that involved a sick person with many people around him or her ?
” she wondered .
There ’ s also the question of how the quarantine worked : whether the passengers and crew would have acquired the new coronavirus with or without being forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are these truly new infections acquired after quarantine , or would these people have already acquired [ the virus ] and it ’ s just the regular incubation period ?
” Bogoch asked .
Once we get answers to these questions , they might shed light on the larger outbreak .
7 ) Given the potential for outbreaks like this , should cruises be banned ?
There is indeed a surprisingly robust science of disease spread on cruise ships — in particular , from norovirus , the highly contagious bug spread by ingesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person , often through food or touching a contaminated surface .
Koopmans said she wasn ’ t sure if that ’ s because of “ surveillance bias ” — we ’ re more likely to hear about what happens on a massive cruise ship than in a small hotel or restaurant — or because there ’ s something inherently risky about cruise ships .
She has studied norovirus outbreaks on cruises extensively and came to a striking finding in one paper : The researchers looked at norovirus outbreaks over time and found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerging , it was often accompanied by a big wave of outbreaks on cruise ships .
In other words , what happened aboard was a signal that there was a larger outbreak on the ground .
“ For a virus that likes to spread in groups of people , cruise ships are notorious , ” Koopmans added .

It’s a hypochondriac’s worst nightmare and a startling public health crisis: The largest coronavirus outbreak outside of mainland China is currently floating in Japanese waters, on a cruise ship owned by Princess Cruises.
The outbreak was first detected when an 80-year-old passenger tested positive for the virus on February 1, a week after disembarking in Hong Kong. By February 4, the remaining 3,700 passengers and crew of the luxury Diamond Princess ship — currently docked at the port city of Yokohama, Japan — were asked to stay on the ship under quarantine orders.
Since then, the number of people aboard with the disease — known as Covid-19 — has surged to 542. While those who tested positive have been allowed to leave the ship for treatment, the rest have had to remain there until at least February 19, with the exception of American citizens.
On Saturday, the US Embassy in Tokyo announced a chartered flight would arrive to evacuate citizens and their families who opted to leave. By the time the group of 328 boarded the plane Sunday, 14 had tested positive for the virus, according to the State Department, but were deemed “fit to fly” since they weren’t showing symptoms.
“These individuals were moved in the most expeditious and safe manner to a specialized containment area on the evacuation aircraft to isolate them in accordance with standard protocols,” the State Department said in a statement. The new cases bring the total number of Americans on the cruise ship who became infected to 58 (of about 400 total).
But they were not the only ones caught in a Covid-19 cruise ship drama. After being barred from docking in five countries, another ship — Holland America’s MS Westerdam — finally disembarked on February 13 in Sihanoukville, Cambodia. Two days later, the ship’s first coronavirus case was confirmed in an American who had already traveled to Malaysia — setting off a global search for other Westerdam passengers who may have been exposed to the virus.
The cruise ship health emergencies have unfolded in the context of a worsening outbreak: As of February 17, there were more than 73,000 cases of the disease and 1,800 deaths, mostly in mainland China.
As a wave of coronavirus panic sweeps the cruise industry, more questions are being raised about how governments and cruise ship operators handled these health scares. Chief among them: Is quarantining people onboard a safe, or even ethical, strategy to contain the virus? Did the measures taken by countries and cruise companies make the outbreak worse? Let’s walk through what we know.
1) What does cruise ship quarantine mean?
Since the 80-year-old passenger tested positive for the virus, the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan has transformed into a mass public health experiment. Passengers who have tested positive for the virus have disembarked and been admitted to hospitals in the Yokohama area, according to the World Health Organization. The others have been held in quarantine onboard at the order of the Japanese Ministry of Health.
For nearly two weeks now, the passengers on the ship have been asked to stay in their rooms, wear masks, and only walk on the deck for a couple of minutes each day, keeping at least six feet of distance from other passengers. They’re having meals delivered to their rooms, and have plenty of TV, movie, and newspaper options to keep them busy.
Officially, the objective of this quarantine is to prevent further spread of the virus onshore, particularly ahead of the Summer Olympics, which begin in Tokyo in July.
“In this unprecedented situation, the Japanese Ministry of Health authorities are working with us collaboratively on additional enhancements and approving new procedures as we adapt our process to the unique challenges of this situation,” said Jan Swartz, president of Princess Cruises, in a statement.
On the other hand, “The Japanese government is probably valuing stopping the spread of the novel coronavirus to their country more than the higher risk of harm to passengers from this mass cruise ship quarantine,” said Steven Hoffman, director of the Global Strategy Lab and a professor of global health at York University.
The quarantine is supposed to end on February 19, according to Princess Cruises, “unless there are any other unforeseen developments.” So it’s not yet clear whether it will end then. And that’s a source of worry, for reasons we’ll get to next.
2) Could the quarantine lead to more coronavirus infections?
Doctors and health researchers have been skeptical of this quarantine for exactly that reason. “They’ve basically trapped a bunch of people in a large container with [the] virus,” said University of Toronto epidemiology professor David Fisman, over email. “So [I’m] assuming ‘quarantine’ is generating active transmission.”
For the same reason, Michael Mina, another epidemiologist at Harvard University, called the quarantine unethical on Twitter:
The decision to keep the passengers & crew on the ship is no longer ethical and is wholly inappropriate. 10 crew are infected and crew cannot self quarantine, and room together. Clearly this has transmitted among them placing all at unacceptable risk. https://t.co/8GsI5ThDgg — Michael Mina (@michaelmina_lab) February 11, 2020
Their concern is driven by the mounting case toll and details emerging from the ship, which paint an alarming portrait. According to a must-read New York Times report, as of February 10, Japanese officials had only tested 439 of the 3,700 passengers onboard for the coronavirus, citing shortages of testing supplies. This meant that at least a fraction of the remaining thousands onboard may have the virus and not know it.
Among those who’ve tested positive recently are 10 crew members. “And according to employees, the infected crew members identified on Sunday had been eating in the mess hall alongside their co-workers,” the Times reports.
Last Wednesday, a Japanese health official who was checking in on passengers on the ship also tested positive for the virus — raising further questions about whether people on board are protected from the virus.
Given the risk of further spread among the crew, and to the passengers they’re trying to serve, the quarantine on the Diamond Princess increasingly seems to pose an “unacceptable risk, Mina said.
3) How are the people on the ship doing?
You can hear from them directly: Passengers and crew have been sharing their experiences of the quarantine through tweets and videos. And they’re reporting more fear and anxiety every day as more people are diagnosed:
Diabetic passenger David Abel says he was without food for 17 hours on quarantined Princess cruise ship after 10 passengers test positive for novel #coronavirus.https://t.co/ih7WAoIJ4h pic.twitter.com/N1Lh5E7zJr — euronews (@euronews) February 5, 2020
"At this moment, we are very scared."
The Indian crew members on the quarantined #DiamondPrincess cruise ship are asking Prime Minister @NarendraModi for help as they remain stranded in Yokohama, Japan #クルーズ船 #CoronavirusOutbreak #coronavirus pic.twitter.com/SFfGdwwvcD — QuickTake by Bloomberg (@QuickTake) February 11, 2020
"We feel like sitting ducks here."
Novelist, Gay Courter explains what life is like being quarantined onboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship, after some passengers tested positive for coronavirus.
Get the latest on #coronavirus here: https://t.co/tNKhlqpEMK pic.twitter.com/ZlvkQimwIF — Sky News (@SkyNews) February 9, 2020
Aun Na Tan and her family have been confined to their cabin on a quarantined cruise ship docked in Japan. Tan says families who booked separate rooms from their children are now unable to see each other https://t.co/yl50Vovw2p pic.twitter.com/KsPvwxHDMi — Reuters (@Reuters) February 10, 2020
4) How can the cruise company just lock these people up?
It’s not the cruise company quarantining people; it’s the Japanese government.
People on the ship “are in Japanese waters, and this is being managed by public health officials in Japan,” said Isaac Bogoch, a professor at the University of Toronto. So the passengers onboard the ship, as visitors of Japan, are subject to Japan’s quarantine protocols, he added. According to the cruise company, the passengers hail from all over the world: America, Australia, Canada, and Japan, among other countries.
5) Is this quarantine ethical?
Quarantines can be effective tools for containing the spread of disease — but only when you’re dealing with people who are already sick.
“All the evidence we’ve got to go on is based on quarantining people who are infected,” said Mark Eccleston-Turner, a global health law researcher at Keele University in England. When quarantines are done arbitrarily, with no scientific basis, he added, they’re “not in line with human rights obligations.”
The cruise ship quarantine is not just a human rights or justice issue, though; it’s a public health problem. In this case, people who aren’t yet sick and who may not have been exposed to the new coronavirus are being held together in close proximity with people who may already have the disease. Layer on top of that the fact that we don’t yet know exactly how this virus spreads; all we know is that respiratory viruses like it — MERS and SARS — spread mainly through exposure to droplets, from coughing or sneezing.
But like SARS, there’s already some suggestion that the new coronavirus may be able to spread long distances through pipes in buildings, and potentially via feces, too.
It’s also possible the virus could spread through the cruise ship’s ventilation systems, though in a letter to passengers and crew, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it has no evidence of that yet.
6) So is the cruise ship quarantine an epic failure?
As Fisman and Mina already said, quarantining people on a cruise ship seemed like a bad idea at best and unethical at worst. A Tokyo doctor who specializes in infectious diseases told the New York Times that the experiment was “an unprecedented failure.” We should learn from this lesson that a quarantine on a ship is impossible, and we should not repeat this in the future,” Eiji Kusumi said.
But others point out that the cruise ship company and the Japanese government were caught in a difficult position. “In a perfect world,” Bogoch said, “the passengers could have been let off the ship” then placed in a safe quarantine environment in Japan or sent back to their home countries for medical care there. “But the logistics of letting 3,700 people off a ship and finding appropriate accommodations, medical care, and basic needs — with no warning — would be challenging at best,” he added.
At the same time, the global community has had ample warning for years that a pandemic threat of this nature could arise at any time. So one can make the argument that governments, even cruise companies, should have been ready with an emergency plan in place.
7) What happened to the Americans who evacuated the ship in Japan, and the passengers who left the Westerdam ship in Cambodia?
On Sunday, 328 Americans got on two cargo planes headed for military bases in the US: the Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, or Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio, Texas. But after the passengers had already left the ship, the US government got the results of their recent coronavirus tests and learned that 14 tested positive for the virus.
The State Department decided to repatriate them anyway, simply separating them from other passengers on the planes in an area cordoned off using plastic sheets, according to the Times.
Separately, the Westerdam passengers were welcomed in Cambodia on February 13, and then dispersed around the world — returning home or onward with their travels. At the time, no one had tested positive for Covid-19. But two days later, the ship’s first coronavirus case was confirmed in an American passenger who had already traveled to Malaysia, raising questions about the ship’s and Cambodia’s thoroughness in testing passengers. Her case has set off an unprecedented global search for other Westerdam passengers who may have been exposed to the virus.
8) What do these cruise ship emergencies reveal about the larger outbreak?
The Japanese case shows us that quarantining people on a cruise ship to stop the spread of Covid-19 can backfire, while the Cambodia case suggests that letting people disembark and disperse around the world can create a public health nightmare. In both cases, there appears to have been sloppiness: Proper quarantine protocols weren’t followed, and passengers weren’t adequately tested before moving on with their travels.
While all parties involved could have done better, the situations also reveal just how challenging containing the spread of this highly contagious virus is going to be in a time of global travel.
On the bright side, the cruise ship debacles could actually contribute to science. “It may shed light on the incubation period [for this disease], transmission dynamics, the clinical spectrum of illness,” said Bogoch.
Marion Koopmans, who studies emerging infectious diseases and heads the department of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands, thinks we can learn a lot about how the disease spreads when we know exactly how the virus began spreading on the ship. “Cruise ships have these shows, several restaurants with joint dinners — so was there a close contact situation that involved a sick person with many people around him or her?” she wondered.
There’s also understanding precisely what impact the quarantine had on the larger outbreak: whether the passengers and crew would have acquired the new coronavirus with or without being forced to stay on the ship. “Are these truly new infections acquired after quarantine, or would these people have already acquired [the virus] and it’s just the regular incubation period?” Bogoch asked. Once we get answers to these questions, they might shed light on the larger outbreak.
9) Given the potential for outbreaks like this, should cruises be banned?
There is indeed a surprisingly robust science of disease spread on cruise ships — in particular, from norovirus, the highly contagious bug spread by ingesting the stool or vomit of an infected person, often through food or touching a contaminated surface.
Cruise ships and viruses: studied them for years with norovirus https://t.co/ppx4EsVG0J check out this paper: we found that cruise ship outbreaks were an early warning indicator of new pandemic norovirus variants https://t.co/hT6sMcoVFO — Marion Koopmans (@MarionKoopmans) February 6, 2020
Koopmans said she wasn’t sure if that’s because of “surveillance bias” — we’re more likely to hear about what happens on a massive cruise ship than in a small hotel or restaurant — or because there’s something inherently risky about cruise ships.
She has studied norovirus outbreaks on cruises extensively and came to a striking finding in one paper: The researchers looked at norovirus outbreaks over time and found that whenever a new, fast-spreading variant was emerging, it was often accompanied by a big wave of outbreaks on cruise ships. In other words, what happened aboard was a signal that there was a larger outbreak on the ground. “For a virus that likes to spread in groups of people, cruise ships are notorious,” Koopmans added.