vox--2020-04-15--Trump announces halt to WHO funding, NYC revises death toll: Wednesday’s coronavirus news

President Donald Trump has announced he will stop US financial support for the World Health Organization ( WHO ) in the middle of a disease outbreak that is undeniably global : As of April 15 , there have been more than 2 million confirmed cases and nearly 130,000 deaths worldwide , according to the Johns Hopkins tracker .
The Trump administration blames the international organization for favoring China and making the coronavirus pandemic worse , while the president is trying to sidestep criticism of his own response to the outbreak .
Though questions have been raised about the WHO ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has come under fire for taking this action even as the entire planet tries to fight the coronavirus .
In the United States , the number of confirmed coronavirus cases has risen to more than 610,000 .
New York City , the epicenter of the US crisis , revised its death toll Tuesday to account for people who are presumed to have died at home from Covid-19 but were never tested .
That revision led to nearly 4,000 more deaths being added to the total — and now , more than 10,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the city as of April 14 .
On the economic front , there ’ s more grim news : US retailers reported the worst decline in sales in approximately three decades , showing just how much the coronavirus has upended the country ’ s economy .
Here ’ s what you need to know today .
President Donald Trump is halting US funding of the World Health Organization over what he claims are its failures in handling the coronavirus outbreak .
On Tuesday , he accused the global health institution of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus.
” Trump has also accused the WHO of pushing back on his decision to ban travel from China in January .
That ’ s not exactly what happened , however : The WHO didn ’ t criticize the US directly .
It instead issued a statement that appealed to countries not to take measures that might restrict international trade and travel .
According to the New York Times , the US provided more than $ 550 million of the WHO ’ s current $ 6 billion biennial budget , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge blow to the organization that is trying to manage and coordinate the response to this global pandemic , among its other initiatives .
The World Health Organization has received its fair share of criticism during this pandemic , including whether it was too deferential to China at the start of the outbreak and whether it should have declared a global health emergency far earlier than it did .
Trump , who ’ s been amping up his criticism of the WHO for more than a week now , has made these critiques @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be trying to pin the blame on the organization for the US ’ s own botched response .
However , the president ’ s critics argue he deserves the blame for coronavirus failings in the US : Although Trump did close US borders to China , he failed to use that time to ramp up US testing capabilities or acquire medical supplies , forcing the US into lockdown to avoid overwhelming the health care system .
Public health experts and world leaders condemned Trump ’ s decision , arguing that a global pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO .
In a tweet , Microsoft founder Bill Gates said that “ halting funding for the World Health Organization ... is as dangerous as it sounds , ” adding that “ the world needs WHO more than ever.
” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement that the WHO must be supported , as it is “ absolutely critical to the world ’ s efforts to win the war against COVID-19.
” The WHO does not have a perfect track record on the coronavirus outbreak , but it ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 190 countries that belong to and invest in the organization .
Rather than empowering the WHO to coordinate a global response , some countries , like the US , are instead turning inward .
This could make it harder to bring the outbreak under control , as it ’ s going to take a massive international effort to stop the global spread .
As the coronavirus pandemic engulfed New York , the city began to witness another alarming trend : an increase in people dying at home .
A spokesperson for the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Gothamist on April 7 that about 200 residents were dying at home every day , compared to 20 to 25 a day before the coronavirus hit .
Frequently , those individuals died without being tested for Covid-19 , meaning they weren ’ t included in the city ’ s official death count , even if they were suspected of having been infected .
The city later said it would change this policy , which was expected to dramatically increase New York ’ s death toll — and it did .
On Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths to its official count , all of whom are people suspected to have died of Covid-19 but did not test positive .
That brought the city ’ s death toll past 10,000 as of Tuesday .
No other state or city in the US has even come close to that number .
Adding suspected cases isn ’ t a perfect system , of course , but it may offer a clearer picture of coronavirus fatalities both in NYC and the country at large .
As ProPublica reported , New York City isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spike in at-home deaths .
Experts said such increases could stem from people who didn ’ t seek treatment ( or who were told to stay home ) and later died of coronavirus without ever getting tested .
But the rise in at-home deaths may also be a larger consequence of an overwhelmed health care system : People are declining to seek care for other conditions , so they aren ’ t receiving the help that they might need .
US retailers have toughest month ever The more economic data the US gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
Retail sales declined in March by 8.7 percent , the Commerce Department said Wednesday , the largest-ever decline in retail spending since tracking began in 1992 and the worst month since fall 2008 , during the Great Recession .
Basically , this means Americans aren ’ t buying things — not cars ( auto dealers and car-parts stores lost 25.6 percent ) or clothing ( sales are down 50.5 percent ) .
Consumer spending is critical to the US economy , but many Americans are under stay-at-home orders , have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losing their jobs — all of which means the ability , need , or even desire to go out and buy things isn ’ t there right now .
Considering that a lot of the US ’ s most stringent lockdown measures didn ’ t go into effect until mid-March , the picture is expected to be even worse in April .
As Vox ’ s Matthew Yglesias explained , this is why simply reopening the economy — a strategy some of Trump ’ s advisers recommend — isn ’ t a quick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t change the fact that people with falling incomes aren ’ t going to go make major purchases.
” As Vox ’ s Brian Resnick wrote in a beautiful story about plant resilience , “ Life yearns for more.
” Or , as Ian Malcom — Jeff Goldblum ’ s character in Jurassic Park — put it , “ Life finds a way.
” With many stuck in quarantine , wildlife , at least , is finding a way , in places like Yosemite National Park in California — where coyotes , bears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amid an absence of human tourists .
Park officials said this often happens when the park is closed during government shutdowns , but the park has been closed since March 20 because of the coronavirus , and it may end up being the longest closure yet .
“ The bear population has quadrupled , ” Dane Peterson , who works in the park , told the Los Angeles Times .
He said that while bears , bobcats , and coyotes are always around , they “ usually hang back at the edges , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t the only place where life has found a way ; Venice saw clear canals and fish once the cruise ships and traffic stopped because of the coronavirus .
Goats took over the Welsh town of Llandudno .
Even the rats are taking over , which actually ... well , let ’ s draw the line somewhere .
This is a bad thing .
Plus , it might not actually be good for the rats .
But it ’ s nice to give the animal kingdom a bit of a vacation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about that a bit more , whenever we do head back out into the world .
Except for the rats , though — I do not want to face the rat army that wins the “ rat battle ” for territory in the New York City subway system .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

President Donald Trump has announced he will stop US financial support for the World Health Organization (WHO) in the middle of a disease outbreak that is undeniably global: As of April 15, there have been more than 2 million confirmed cases and nearly 130,000 deaths worldwide, according to the Johns Hopkins tracker.
The Trump administration blames the international organization for favoring China and making the coronavirus pandemic worse, while the president is trying to sidestep criticism of his own response to the outbreak. Though questions have been raised about the WHO’s handling of the pandemic, Trump has come under fire for taking this action even as the entire planet tries to fight the coronavirus.
In the United States, the number of confirmed coronavirus cases has risen to more than 610,000. New York City, the epicenter of the US crisis, revised its death toll Tuesday to account for people who are presumed to have died at home from Covid-19 but were never tested. That revision led to nearly 4,000 more deaths being added to the total — and now, more than 10,000 people are said to have died of coronavirus in the city as of April 14.
On the economic front, there’s more grim news: US retailers reported the worst decline in sales in approximately three decades, showing just how much the coronavirus has upended the country’s economy.
Here’s what you need to know today.
Trump puts WHO funding on hold
President Donald Trump is halting US funding of the World Health Organization over what he claims are its failures in handling the coronavirus outbreak. On Tuesday, he accused the global health institution of “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.”
Trump has also accused the WHO of pushing back on his decision to ban travel from China in January. That’s not exactly what happened, however: The WHO didn’t criticize the US directly. It instead issued a statement that appealed to countries not to take measures that might restrict international trade and travel.
According to the New York Times, the US provided more than $550 million of the WHO’s current $6 billion biennial budget, which means Trump pulling funds would be a huge blow to the organization that is trying to manage and coordinate the response to this global pandemic, among its other initiatives.
The World Health Organization has received its fair share of criticism during this pandemic, including whether it was too deferential to China at the start of the outbreak and whether it should have declared a global health emergency far earlier than it did.
Trump, who’s been amping up his criticism of the WHO for more than a week now, has made these critiques himself. But he also seems to be trying to pin the blame on the organization for the US’s own botched response. However, the president’s critics argue he deserves the blame for coronavirus failings in the US: Although Trump did close US borders to China, he failed to use that time to ramp up US testing capabilities or acquire medical supplies, forcing the US into lockdown to avoid overwhelming the health care system.
Public health experts and world leaders condemned Trump’s decision, arguing that a global pandemic is not the time to undercut the WHO. In a tweet, Microsoft founder Bill Gates said that “halting funding for the World Health Organization ... is as dangerous as it sounds,” adding that “the world needs WHO more than ever.”
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement that the WHO must be supported, as it is “absolutely critical to the world’s efforts to win the war against COVID-19.”
The WHO does not have a perfect track record on the coronavirus outbreak, but it’s also only as strong as the more than 190 countries that belong to and invest in the organization. Rather than empowering the WHO to coordinate a global response, some countries, like the US, are instead turning inward. This could make it harder to bring the outbreak under control, as it’s going to take a massive international effort to stop the global spread.
New York City revises death count
As the coronavirus pandemic engulfed New York, the city began to witness another alarming trend: an increase in people dying at home. A spokesperson for the New York City medical examiner’s office told Gothamist on April 7 that about 200 residents were dying at home every day, compared to 20 to 25 a day before the coronavirus hit. Frequently, those individuals died without being tested for Covid-19, meaning they weren’t included in the city’s official death count, even if they were suspected of having been infected.
The city later said it would change this policy, which was expected to dramatically increase New York’s death toll — and it did. On Tuesday, the city added more than 3,700 deaths to its official count, all of whom are people suspected to have died of Covid-19 but did not test positive.
That brought the city’s death toll past 10,000 as of Tuesday. No other state or city in the US has even come close to that number. Adding suspected cases isn’t a perfect system, of course, but it may offer a clearer picture of coronavirus fatalities both in NYC and the country at large.
As ProPublica reported, New York City isn’t the only city with a spike in at-home deaths. Experts said such increases could stem from people who didn’t seek treatment (or who were told to stay home) and later died of coronavirus without ever getting tested. But the rise in at-home deaths may also be a larger consequence of an overwhelmed health care system: People are declining to seek care for other conditions, so they aren’t receiving the help that they might need.
US retailers have toughest month ever
The more economic data the US gets, the worse the situation seems to be. Retail sales declined in March by 8.7 percent, the Commerce Department said Wednesday, the largest-ever decline in retail spending since tracking began in 1992 and the worst month since fall 2008, during the Great Recession.
Basically, this means Americans aren’t buying things — not cars (auto dealers and car-parts stores lost 25.6 percent) or clothing (sales are down 50.5 percent). Consumer spending is critical to the US economy, but many Americans are under stay-at-home orders, have been laid off, or are fearful of losing their jobs — all of which means the ability, need, or even desire to go out and buy things isn’t there right now. Considering that a lot of the US’s most stringent lockdown measures didn’t go into effect until mid-March, the picture is expected to be even worse in April.
As Vox’s Matthew Yglesias explained, this is why simply reopening the economy — a strategy some of Trump’s advisers recommend — isn’t a quick fix, since it “doesn’t change the fact that people with falling incomes aren’t going to go make major purchases.”
The public health crisis is intimately linked to the economic one, but they’re not identical, and Congress and the Federal Reserve have many options to bolster the economy — like sending money to state governments and doing additional rounds of direct financial transfers to households — even as the country waits for an improved situation.
Time for some good news
As Vox’s Brian Resnick wrote in a beautiful story about plant resilience, “Life yearns for more.” Or, as Ian Malcom — Jeff Goldblum’s character in Jurassic Park — put it, “Life finds a way.”
With many stuck in quarantine, wildlife, at least, is finding a way, in places like Yosemite National Park in California — where coyotes, bears, and bobcats are making a comeback amid an absence of human tourists. Park officials said this often happens when the park is closed during government shutdowns, but the park has been closed since March 20 because of the coronavirus, and it may end up being the longest closure yet.
“The bear population has quadrupled,” Dane Peterson, who works in the park, told the Los Angeles Times. He said that while bears, bobcats, and coyotes are always around, they “usually hang back at the edges, or move in the shadows.”
This isn’t the only place where life has found a way; Venice saw clear canals and fish once the cruise ships and traffic stopped because of the coronavirus. Goats took over the Welsh town of Llandudno. Even the rats are taking over, which actually ... well, let’s draw the line somewhere. This is a bad thing. Plus, it might not actually be good for the rats.
But it’s nice to give the animal kingdom a bit of a vacation from humans. Maybe we should think about that a bit more, whenever we do head back out into the world. Except for the rats, though — I do not want to face the rat army that wins the “rat battle” for territory in the New York City subway system.


vox--2020-04-15--Data shows social distancing has slowed down the coronavirus outbreak. But what’s next?

As the number of reported US coronavirus cases climbs past 600,000 and reported deaths past 26,000 as of April 15 , there is a little bit of good news in the data : Things may be getting somewhat better , especially for areas that were hot spots , like New York and Washington state .
For the past week , new case numbers have been growing steadily , rather than exponentially .
And daily new deaths are lower this week than last week .
New York and Washington state , which saw cases and deaths skyrocket in the final week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a little more under control in the first week of April .
“ We are flattening the curve , ” said New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , pointing out that new hospitalizations are at “ the lowest number we ’ ve had since this nightmare started.
” Feared hot spots like Florida aren ’ t yet overwhelmed , either ( though in all of these states , spikes in all-cause mortality suggest that the situation is worse than the numbers suggest ) .
A body of preliminary research suggests that social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the curve and , at a minimum , greatly slowed down the spread of the disease .
“ We ’ re seeing less cases , ” professor of health metrics sciences Ali Mokdad at the University of Washington told me .
“ Social distancing is working.
” But while that ’ s good news , it ’ s limited good news .
Case numbers aren ’ t growing as fast or as exponentially as they were in March , but it is not apparent yet that they ’ re shrinking , either .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or argue the US has already reached it ) and should then see a decline in the number of cases , but these models are highly uncertain , and it remains a possibility that case numbers will continue to grow , even if they ’ re growing more slowly than previously .
Since it takes several weeks for new case numbers to reflect changes in policy , experts have been waiting for the last few weeks to learn how stay-at-home orders have worked .
Now the data ’ s in .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lockdowns , but all steps that people took to avoid other people ) is working — but perhaps not necessarily working well enough to drive new cases down to zero .
That puts the country in a challenging position going forward , even if it should rightly take some pride in having successfully tempered the exponential spread of the virus .
First , the good news : Social distancing absolutely does work to slow the spread of the coronavirus .
In the states that started social distancing the earliest , including Seattle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new cases has slowed noticeably .
In places that implemented them a little later , like New York , the growth of new cases began to slow later .
Testing is still limited and the criteria for testing varies in different places , making direct comparisons difficult , but there are enough cities seeing improvement that a real trend can be observed .
Modeling done by the Center for Mathematical Modeling of Infectious Diseases ( CMMID ) at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine attempts to use confirmed case numbers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or R0 — the number of people the average person infects .
If that number is less than 1 , the disease will die out .
Early studies found that the R0 for the Covid-19 coronavirus was in the 2-2.5 range ( by comparison , the seasonal flu ’ s R0 is 1.3 ) .
In the US , the CMMID model found that the number was between 2 and 3 when the disease first took off , but it has been steadily declining in the weeks since .
It is now around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infecting about one additional person .
That decline started before stay-at-home orders went into effect in most states and reflects the impact of those orders and the voluntary social distancing efforts before them .
Other recent studies point toward a similar conclusion , though there ’ s still a lot of uncertainty .
An April 6 article in The BMJ ( The British Medical Journal ) argued that Seattle ’ s success at controlling the virus is a cause for hope : Then came the lockdown , after which , the article says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ on the cusp ’ of pushing the viral reproductive value to 1 , below which the virus wouldn ’ t be able to sustain its spread over time.
” Other states now appear to be on the same trajectory .
New reported confirmed cases in the US hovered for a week between 30,000 and 34,000 , and have at last fallen under a reported 30,000 in the past few days ( it ’ s not just limited testing ; the percentage of tests that are positive is falling as well ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , where by Friday there ’ d be twice as many new cases as there were on Monday .
New York , the hardest-hit state in the country , is seeing that trend .
“ The evidence is very strong that the curve is leveling off in New York , ” Jeffrey Harris , a medical doctor and MIT economist , told me .
His new working paper , “ The Coronavirus Epidemic Curve Is Already Flattening in New York City , ” explores what that means .
Through March 20 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s confirmed case numbers were doubling every 1.3 days .
That ’ s when they started leveling off — still growing , but with a much slower doubling time .
Some of this is attributable to reduced testing — the number of tests being conducted has fallen slightly over the last few weeks .
But it can not all be attributed to that .
The percentage of tests that return a positive result has also been falling .
The number of new hospitalizations has been growing more slowly .
The most remarkable thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in case statistics too early to be just the result of lockdowns and stay-at-home orders .
Harris , for example , finds that New York ’ s slowdown in new case numbers started on March 20 — before the state even put such an order into place .
“ In many places , many people started staying at home before the orders came out , ” Mokdad told me .
“ Many companies moved to working from home , ” he said , including Seattle giant Microsoft , which switched to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders were put in place in the city .
A few weeks after those companies first started ordering employees to work from home , the virus was no longer spreading exponentially throughout the Seattle population .
The improvement began well before measures started in cities like Los Angeles , Detroit , and New Orleans , suggesting — though all this data is still preliminary — that it ’ s early social distancing that made the difference .
Key things we still don ’ t know yet But while the slowing spread of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depends on exactly how much the spread has slowed .
And that ’ s where there ’ s still a lot of uncertainty — which makes things difficult for epidemiologists , modelers , and policy planners who want to start planning the next phase of the attack on the virus .
Here ’ s the dilemma : Ideally , case numbers would now start falling .
If the effective reproductive number ( the R0 ) of the virus has been pushed below 1 with the shelter-in-place orders around the country , then every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day before , and case numbers should fall , hopefully as quickly as they rose .
Most schemes to reopen the country rely on this : They require that case numbers fall for 14 days before the US starts loosening restrictions .
The idea is that two weeks of falling cases is enough that it can ’ t just be a coincidence , and enough to lower the overall case count so regions can trace contacts and use more intensive monitoring approaches in a targeted way .
But even in the parts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under extensive restrictions for several weeks , case numbers aren ’ t falling across the board — though in some areas ( most crucially New York ) they do seem to be .
More reliable measures like hospitalizations and deaths aren ’ t falling , either .
That ’ s why the CMMID estimates the RO in the US at about 1 — each sick person is infecting about one more person .
But that estimate has a lot of uncertainty , too , and that uncertainty is significant .
If the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new case numbers will decline .
If it ’ s a little larger than 1 , new case numbers will keep increasing .
And there are some signs that it might , indeed , be larger than 1 , considering that case numbers aren ’ t consistently decreasing anywhere .
“ We are still moving in an uphill direction , ” Becca Bartles , Providence St. Joseph Health ’ s executive director of infection prevention , told The BMJ .
“ It is almost completely flat in the borough of Manhattan , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers .
“ The doubling time in the other boroughs is much slower but is still not leveling off.
” It has been more than three weeks since New York ’ s stay-at-home order , so these slowdowns in the rate of infections likely reflect entirely new infections that occurred under the order .
In other words , social distancing is definitely working , but the question of whether it is working well enough remains to be seen , and the fact that numbers are plateauing rather than falling isn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press has been eager to push the narrative of ‘ we are near the peak !
’ and ‘ the end is in sight , ’ but given the strong uncertainty about the future and lack of clear consensus among modelers , I think these messages are premature , ” UMass infectious disease researcher Nicholas Reich argued .
The more accurate message : There are some promising signs , but nothing definitive , and the range of possible futures is very wide .
Even if case numbers are falling , that just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertainty : What next ?
“ We can not lift all the restrictions at once , ” Mokdad told me .
He favors a cautious , gradual approach that lets us keep the R0 below 1 ( assuming that it is below 1 right now ) : “ Relax a little , see that the virus is not circulating , relax a little more.
” But the current uncertainty is fatal to such an approach .
If we ’ re going to calibrate our restrictions around the R0 of the virus , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly what that number is .
“ All of the conditions to go back to opening business depend on being able to do testing , ” Mokdad says .
And US testing , which grew rapidly for most of March , has been plateauing lately .
It ’ s a vexing situation .
The US has succeeded at its first task of slowing the wildfire spread of the virus through our communities , but it may have achieved only a standstill , not a victory .
And as pressure grows to open more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work , there is still limited ( and not encouraging ) data about what will be needed to keep the virus from roaring back .
Even worse , if the data suggests that the country actually needs more stringent restrictions than the current ones , it ’ s hard to imagine who ’ d muster the political will to implement them .
That bad news must be grappled with alongside the good if the country is to take sensible next steps .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As the number of reported US coronavirus cases climbs past 600,000 and reported deaths past 26,000 as of April 15, there is a little bit of good news in the data: Things may be getting somewhat better, especially for areas that were hot spots, like New York and Washington state. For the past week, new case numbers have been growing steadily, rather than exponentially. And daily new deaths are lower this week than last week.
New York and Washington state, which saw cases and deaths skyrocket in the final week of March, have seen their numbers get a little more under control in the first week of April. “We are flattening the curve,” said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, pointing out that new hospitalizations are at “the lowest number we’ve had since this nightmare started.” Feared hot spots like Florida aren’t yet overwhelmed, either (though in all of these states, spikes in all-cause mortality suggest that the situation is worse than the numbers suggest).
A body of preliminary research suggests that social distancing and lockdowns have worked to flatten the curve and, at a minimum, greatly slowed down the spread of the disease. “We’re seeing less cases,” professor of health metrics sciences Ali Mokdad at the University of Washington told me. “Social distancing is working.”
But while that’s good news, it’s limited good news. Case numbers aren’t growing as fast or as exponentially as they were in March, but it is not apparent yet that they’re shrinking, either. Some models project a nationwide peak soon (or argue the US has already reached it) and should then see a decline in the number of cases, but these models are highly uncertain, and it remains a possibility that case numbers will continue to grow, even if they’re growing more slowly than previously.
Since it takes several weeks for new case numbers to reflect changes in policy, experts have been waiting for the last few weeks to learn how stay-at-home orders have worked. Now the data’s in. It suggests that social distancing (not just the lockdowns, but all steps that people took to avoid other people) is working — but perhaps not necessarily working well enough to drive new cases down to zero.
That puts the country in a challenging position going forward, even if it should rightly take some pride in having successfully tempered the exponential spread of the virus.
Social distancing works
First, the good news: Social distancing absolutely does work to slow the spread of the coronavirus. In the states that started social distancing the earliest, including Seattle and San Francisco, the growth of new cases has slowed noticeably. In places that implemented them a little later, like New York, the growth of new cases began to slow later.
Testing is still limited and the criteria for testing varies in different places, making direct comparisons difficult, but there are enough cities seeing improvement that a real trend can be observed.
Modeling done by the Center for Mathematical Modeling of Infectious Diseases (CMMID) at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine attempts to use confirmed case numbers to estimate the “effective reproductive number” or R0 — the number of people the average person infects. If that number is less than 1, the disease will die out.
Early studies found that the R0 for the Covid-19 coronavirus was in the 2-2.5 range (by comparison, the seasonal flu’s R0 is 1.3). In the US, the CMMID model found that the number was between 2 and 3 when the disease first took off, but it has been steadily declining in the weeks since. It is now around 1, meaning the average person is infecting about one additional person. That decline started before stay-at-home orders went into effect in most states and reflects the impact of those orders and the voluntary social distancing efforts before them.
Other recent studies point toward a similar conclusion, though there’s still a lot of uncertainty. An April 6 article in The BMJ (The British Medical Journal) argued that Seattle’s success at controlling the virus is a cause for hope:
Two reports released on 30 March by the Seattle based Institute for Disease Modelling suggested that the early implementation of successively stronger measures, starting with a 4 March recommendation that workers be allowed to work from home, effectively reduced the reproductive value of the coronavirus from 2.7 in late February to 1.4 by 18 March.
Then came the lockdown, after which, the article says, “modellers suggested the region was ‘on the cusp’ of pushing the viral reproductive value to 1, below which the virus wouldn’t be able to sustain its spread over time.”
Other states now appear to be on the same trajectory. New reported confirmed cases in the US hovered for a week between 30,000 and 34,000, and have at last fallen under a reported 30,000 in the past few days (it’s not just limited testing; the percentage of tests that are positive is falling as well). This is a big change from previous weeks, where by Friday there’d be twice as many new cases as there were on Monday.
New York, the hardest-hit state in the country, is seeing that trend. “The evidence is very strong that the curve is leveling off in New York,” Jeffrey Harris, a medical doctor and MIT economist, told me. His new working paper, “The Coronavirus Epidemic Curve Is Already Flattening in New York City,” explores what that means. Through March 20, the paper argues, New York’s confirmed case numbers were doubling every 1.3 days. That’s when they started leveling off — still growing, but with a much slower doubling time.
Some of this is attributable to reduced testing — the number of tests being conducted has fallen slightly over the last few weeks. But it cannot all be attributed to that. The percentage of tests that return a positive result has also been falling. The number of new hospitalizations has been growing more slowly.
The most remarkable thing is that much of these gains showed up in case statistics too early to be just the result of lockdowns and stay-at-home orders. Harris, for example, finds that New York’s slowdown in new case numbers started on March 20 — before the state even put such an order into place.
“In many places, many people started staying at home before the orders came out,” Mokdad told me. “Many companies moved to working from home,” he said, including Seattle giant Microsoft, which switched to work from home several weeks before formal stay-at-home orders were put in place in the city.
A few weeks after those companies first started ordering employees to work from home, the virus was no longer spreading exponentially throughout the Seattle population. The improvement began well before measures started in cities like Los Angeles, Detroit, and New Orleans, suggesting — though all this data is still preliminary — that it’s early social distancing that made the difference.
Key things we still don’t know yet
But while the slowing spread of the virus is good news, a lot depends on exactly how much the spread has slowed. And that’s where there’s still a lot of uncertainty — which makes things difficult for epidemiologists, modelers, and policy planners who want to start planning the next phase of the attack on the virus.
Here’s the dilemma: Ideally, case numbers would now start falling. If the effective reproductive number (the R0) of the virus has been pushed below 1 with the shelter-in-place orders around the country, then every day should see fewer infections than the day before, and case numbers should fall, hopefully as quickly as they rose.
Most schemes to reopen the country rely on this: They require that case numbers fall for 14 days before the US starts loosening restrictions. The idea is that two weeks of falling cases is enough that it can’t just be a coincidence, and enough to lower the overall case count so regions can trace contacts and use more intensive monitoring approaches in a targeted way.
But even in the parts of the country that have now been living under extensive restrictions for several weeks, case numbers aren’t falling across the board — though in some areas (most crucially New York) they do seem to be. More reliable measures like hospitalizations and deaths aren’t falling, either. That’s why the CMMID estimates the RO in the US at about 1 — each sick person is infecting about one more person.
But that estimate has a lot of uncertainty, too, and that uncertainty is significant. If the number is a little smaller than 1, new case numbers will decline. If it’s a little larger than 1, new case numbers will keep increasing. And there are some signs that it might, indeed, be larger than 1, considering that case numbers aren’t consistently decreasing anywhere. “We are still moving in an uphill direction,” Becca Bartles, Providence St. Joseph Health’s executive director of infection prevention, told The BMJ.
“It is almost completely flat in the borough of Manhattan,” Harris told me of the New York numbers. “The doubling time in the other boroughs is much slower but is still not leveling off.” It has been more than three weeks since New York’s stay-at-home order, so these slowdowns in the rate of infections likely reflect entirely new infections that occurred under the order.
In other words, social distancing is definitely working, but the question of whether it is working well enough remains to be seen, and the fact that numbers are plateauing rather than falling isn’t a great sign.
“It seems that the press has been eager to push the narrative of ‘we are near the peak!’ and ‘the end is in sight,’ but given the strong uncertainty about the future and lack of clear consensus among modelers, I think these messages are premature,” UMass infectious disease researcher Nicholas Reich argued.
The more accurate message: There are some promising signs, but nothing definitive, and the range of possible futures is very wide.
The long road ahead
Even if case numbers are falling, that just brings us face to face with another uncertainty: What next?
“We cannot lift all the restrictions at once,” Mokdad told me. He favors a cautious, gradual approach that lets us keep the R0 below 1 (assuming that it is below 1 right now): “Relax a little, see that the virus is not circulating, relax a little more.”
But the current uncertainty is fatal to such an approach. If we’re going to calibrate our restrictions around the R0 of the virus, we need really good and timely data on exactly what that number is. “All of the conditions to go back to opening business depend on being able to do testing,” Mokdad says. And US testing, which grew rapidly for most of March, has been plateauing lately.
It’s a vexing situation. The US has succeeded at its first task of slowing the wildfire spread of the virus through our communities, but it may have achieved only a standstill, not a victory. And as pressure grows to open more businesses and get the country back to work, there is still limited (and not encouraging) data about what will be needed to keep the virus from roaring back. Even worse, if the data suggests that the country actually needs more stringent restrictions than the current ones, it’s hard to imagine who’d muster the political will to implement them.
That bad news must be grappled with alongside the good if the country is to take sensible next steps.


vox--2020-04-15--Why millions of college students and young adults won’t get a stimulus check

Rachel Sherman lost her two streams of income seemingly overnight on March 19 .
California officials had implemented a statewide stay-at-home order , and the 23-year-old was working at a Los Angeles gym and restaurant — two nonessential businesses that were forced to close .
Her two service jobs were helping to keep her afloat after her college graduation last May as she searched for career opportunities in journalism .
While Sherman filed for unemployment shortly after her layoffs in March , she was disheartened to realize she didn ’ t qualify for another form of financial relief — a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government ’ s $ 2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package — because she was claimed as a dependent on her parents ’ 2019 tax return .
” I ’ m getting some money for my unemployment benefits , but it ’ s nothing compared to what the stimulus check would ’ ve been , ” Sherman told me .
“ I ’ m grateful I have a cushion for groceries and utilities , but it doesn ’ t really help cover my rent , which is $ 1,000 a month , or make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one of the many people ages 17 to 24 who won ’ t be getting a check because of her tax filing status as a dependent .
Under the coronavirus stimulus bill , or the CARES Act , most taxpayers will receive a one-time payment from the Internal Revenue Service : Those who earn $ 75,000 or less a year are eligible for a $ 1,200 check ( or $ 2,400 for couples who filed jointly ) , with an additional $ 500 bonus for each dependent age 16 years or younger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 17-24 age group are entirely excluded from receiving any money for that child , including the $ 500 bonus granted to their younger kids .
The economic fallout due to Covid-19 has ruined the finances of millions of Americans , and for many , the stimulus check is intended to provide much-needed , albeit temporary , relief .
A Data for Progress survey of 2,644 people in early April found that 52 percent of respondents under 45 had lost their jobs , been placed on leave , or had their hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excludes millions of people , including immigrants without a Social Security number , green card , or eligible work visas ; elderly or disabled people who are claimed as dependents ; and dependents ages 17 to 24 .
Critics of the bill , including proponents of universal basic income , say that establishing certain qualifications for a stimulus payment is a form of means-testing that hurts vulnerable people .
Plus , a majority of taxpayers who qualify for the money say that the amount is inadequate to cover living expenses for more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dependent as someone who relies on a benefactor for more than 50 percent of their expenses and earns less than $ 4,200 a year in taxable income .
However , the age cut-off for dependent bonuses in the CARES Act is likely “ a relic of the tax system ” that has “ an odd definition as to what a child is , ” said Elaine Maag of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center .
Parents can receive up to a $ 2,000 tax refund for each child under the age of 17 each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax credit established in 1997 .
” This under-17 rule for the child tax credit is just a product of a budget process , ” Maag told me .
“ There ’ s a certain amount of money that ’ s going to go into child tax credit , and whatever amount was chosen could cover kids up to 16.
” By her estimates , there are about 4 million dependents ages 17 and 18 in high school who won ’ t qualify for the $ 500 bonus , and about 9 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most of whom won ’ t receive any money .
( Maag acknowledged that a small percentage of that group might be married and are therefore likelier to file a joint tax return , which doesn ’ t categorize them as a dependent . )
Young adults , grappling with a recession and a depressed labor market in their future , are arguing that the stimulus package unjustly leaves out dependents who might also be taxpayers and workers with expenses of their own .
Many are saying that any monetary support — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — would be better than none , regardless of a dependent ’ s age .
” If their parents are getting $ 1,200 each and also getting $ 500 for each kid 16 and under , why are dependent 17-24 year olds not getting something ?
” one Twitter user asked .
“ Please explain to me , using the framework put forth that parents will pay , how providing no money to that age group makes sense ?
” Most young adults are categorized as a dependent to qualify for federal student @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if they aren ’ t living at home or receiving all their money from their parents .
On the Department of Education ’ s website , it states that a dependent ’ s parent is not required to pay anything toward a student ’ s education , and the tax status “ is just a way at looking at everyone in a consistent manner.
” Some dependents ages 17 to 24 hold lower-paying , entry-level jobs , have less-secure housing arrangements , and struggle with student loan debt .
They also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ younger dependents , like car insurance or credit card bills .
Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2018 revealed that about 36 percent of youths aged 16 to 24 participated in the workforce ( either part-time or full-time ) while enrolled in school , compared to 79 percent of the same age group who are not in school .
A significant percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds are not in college or pursuing post-secondary education : Only 49 percent of US adults in that age range are enrolled in or have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Annie E. Casey Foundation ’ s Kids Count ( Other data sets show a slight fluctuation in education participation rate ) .
Some of these young adults might be considered independent if they earn more than $ 4,200 a year , but according to the Pew Research Center , only a quarter of them are financially independent from their parents by 22 or younger .
Still , given the level of workforce participation among 18- to 24-year-olds , millions of young Americans make their own money and could lose income in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a record number of people file for unemployment , some states are struggling to process the number of claims they ’ ve received .
Unemployment websites and systems are crashing , and getting on the phone with any state ’ s office has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task — which means there are likely more unemployed workers than those who have already filed for benefits .
Some of those will be dependents who won ’ t receive anything from the CARES Act .
“ Some of us are full-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our bills on the little money that we have , ” said Kyleigh Beck Rhone , a 21-year-old community college student in Arizona .
“ It ’ s frustrating because , just like other adults with jobs and bills to pay , we ’ re still seen as young children in the government ’ s eyes , despite how we pay taxes like every other working person in America.
” “ It ’ s frustrating because [ we ’ re ] just like other adults with jobs and bills to pay [ but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young children in the government ’ s eyes ” Beck Rhone had taken a semester off , working at a local gym to help pay her rent until she lost her job in March and didn ’ t qualify for unemployment .
The $ 1,200 check would ’ ve helped a lot , she said , since she ’ s now pulling from her savings to pay any bills .
The young adults I spoke to wanted to dispel the myth that all dependents , specifically college students , are privileged and have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stereotype that is clearly false .
And for those who do lean on their parents for help , many are from working-class families who won ’ t receive any monetary bump for having an adult dependent .
Currently , there is no appeal process in place for any type of dependent , including recently employed graduates or workers who provide for themselves .
Those who became financially independent in 2020 , however , will eventually receive the stimulus money they ’ re owed in 2021 if they file their 2020 tax return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of future money fails to alleviate the current stress and financial struggles plaguing most people .
“ I haven ’ t even thought about how I ’ ll pay next month ’ s rent because I just don ’ t know what ’ s going to change , ” Sherman told me .
” What good is money in the future if my credit score is ruined and I can ’ t pay my bills ?
” said Jamie Agustin , a 23-year-old paralegal based in New Jersey who was a dependent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her 17-year-old brother and parents , is clocking in significantly fewer hours at her firm and is worried that her family of four is only receiving $ 2,400 from the stimulus payment .
Her father is also working less at his restaurant job , and her mother was laid off from her retail job .
” My brother is 17 , but his age doesn ’ t affect how much money he ’ s costing my parents , so the age requirement is ridiculous , ” Agustin added .
“ To me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deny people money that they need.
” Since mid-March , millions of college students have been displaced by the chaos of campus shutdowns across the country .
While many have a home to return to , some students , particularly those who are low-income or housing-insecure , are struggling to find even basic resources , like a place to sleep and food , and have to rely on mutual aid primarily organized by other students .
Javan Smith , a freshman at St. John ’ s College in Maryland , is registered as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and splits tuition payments with his father .
Since he left home , he has primarily funded himself through a work-study job and had his meals at the school ’ s dining hall .
At home , he says , “ there isn ’ t a lot of leeway with money.
” ” Maybe the majority of college students are being supported by their parents ’ income , but that ’ s not my reality , ” Smith , who ’ s currently working about 10 hours a week , told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s currently stuck in Maryland after campus shut down and has moved out of his dorm into a house with five other students ; St. John ’ s didn ’ t offer them housing .
” If I went back to Tennessee , I wouldn ’ t have a place to stay .
I ’ m basically trapped in this city , and we all don ’ t have enough money to pay the $ 1,800 rent at the end of the month , ” Smith said .
“ Even if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 a person , that ’ s about $ 5,000 in rent for a couple of months.
” For many , the stimulus check would ’ ve provided a crucial financial buffer for a month or two : Smith is starting an on-campus summer job in May that ’ ll give him more hours .
Meanwhile , Sherman , who was laid off from her two service jobs , is worried that she ’ ll have to file as a dependent again on her 2020 tax return later this year .
” I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but before this , I was making my own money , paying for my own rent , and being basically independent but not on paper , ” she said .
“ As job opportunities continue to decrease , I might have to be a dependent again , at least for health insurance .
It ’ s a weird limbo place to be in because I can ’ t get some money from the government.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Vox today .

Editor’s note, January 4, 2021: This article was last updated on April 15, 2020, and some details may no longer apply. Find Vox’s latest coverage of the second Covid-19 stimulus bill here.
Rachel Sherman lost her two streams of income seemingly overnight on March 19. California officials had implemented a statewide stay-at-home order, and the 23-year-old was working at a Los Angeles gym and restaurant — two nonessential businesses that were forced to close. Her two service jobs were helping to keep her afloat after her college graduation last May as she searched for career opportunities in journalism.
While Sherman filed for unemployment shortly after her layoffs in March, she was disheartened to realize she didn’t qualify for another form of financial relief — a $1,200 check as part of the federal government’s $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package — because she was claimed as a dependent on her parents’ 2019 tax return.
”I’m getting some money for my unemployment benefits, but it’s nothing compared to what the stimulus check would’ve been,” Sherman told me. “I’m grateful I have a cushion for groceries and utilities, but it doesn’t really help cover my rent, which is $1,000 a month, or make me feel somewhat more secure.”
Sherman is one of the many people ages 17 to 24 who won’t be getting a check because of her tax filing status as a dependent. Under the coronavirus stimulus bill, or the CARES Act, most taxpayers will receive a one-time payment from the Internal Revenue Service: Those who earn $75,000 or less a year are eligible for a $1,200 check (or $2,400 for couples who filed jointly), with an additional $500 bonus for each dependent age 16 years or younger. However, families who have dependents in the 17-24 age group are entirely excluded from receiving any money for that child, including the $500 bonus granted to their younger kids.
So I’m not getting a stimulus check because I’m claimed as a dependent by my parents, but I’m also not counted for the additional $500 for dependents because I’m over 18 - so I’m just not counted in the stimulus at all? I don’t exist? — Collin Scott (@CoolinOblay) April 12, 2020
The economic fallout due to Covid-19 has ruined the finances of millions of Americans, and for many, the stimulus check is intended to provide much-needed, albeit temporary, relief. A Data for Progress survey of 2,644 people in early April found that 52 percent of respondents under 45 had lost their jobs, been placed on leave, or had their hours cut.
Still, the CARES Act excludes millions of people, including immigrants without a Social Security number, green card, or eligible work visas; elderly or disabled people who are claimed as dependents; and dependents ages 17 to 24. Critics of the bill, including proponents of universal basic income, say that establishing certain qualifications for a stimulus payment is a form of means-testing that hurts vulnerable people. Plus, a majority of taxpayers who qualify for the money say that the amount is inadequate to cover living expenses for more than a month.
The IRS defines a dependent as someone who relies on a benefactor for more than 50 percent of their expenses and earns less than $4,200 a year in taxable income. However, the age cut-off for dependent bonuses in the CARES Act is likely “a relic of the tax system” that has “an odd definition as to what a child is,” said Elaine Maag of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Parents can receive up to a $2,000 tax refund for each child under the age of 17 each year they file thanks to the child tax credit established in 1997.
”This under-17 rule for the child tax credit is just a product of a budget process,” Maag told me. “There’s a certain amount of money that’s going to go into child tax credit, and whatever amount was chosen could cover kids up to 16.” By her estimates, there are about 4 million dependents ages 17 and 18 in high school who won’t qualify for the $500 bonus, and about 9 million who are under 24 and full-time students, most of whom won’t receive any money. (Maag acknowledged that a small percentage of that group might be married and are therefore likelier to file a joint tax return, which doesn’t categorize them as a dependent.)
Young adults, grappling with a recession and a depressed labor market in their future, are arguing that the stimulus package unjustly leaves out dependents who might also be taxpayers and workers with expenses of their own. Many are saying that any monetary support — either to a dependent or their parent — would be better than none, regardless of a dependent’s age.
”If their parents are getting $1,200 each and also getting $500 for each kid 16 and under, why are dependent 17-24 year olds not getting something?” one Twitter user asked. “Please explain to me, using the framework put forth that parents will pay, how providing no money to that age group makes sense?”
If their parents are getting $1200 each and also getting $500 for each kid 16 and under, why are dependent 17-24 year olds not getting something? Please explain to me, using the framework put forth that parents will pay, how providing no money to that age group makes sense? — Anthony (@AnthonyDDJ) March 28, 2020
Most young adults are categorized as a dependent to qualify for federal student aid or to receive health care benefits, even if they aren’t living at home or receiving all their money from their parents. On the Department of Education’s website, it states that a dependent’s parent is not required to pay anything toward a student’s education, and the tax status “is just a way at looking at everyone in a consistent manner.”
Some dependents ages 17 to 24 hold lower-paying, entry-level jobs, have less-secure housing arrangements, and struggle with student loan debt. They also tend to have more personal expenses than younger dependents, like car insurance or credit card bills. Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2018 revealed that about 36 percent of youths aged 16 to 24 participated in the workforce (either part-time or full-time) while enrolled in school, compared to 79 percent of the same age group who are not in school.
A significant percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds are not in college or pursuing post-secondary education: Only 49 percent of US adults in that age range are enrolled in or have completed college, according to data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count (Other data sets show a slight fluctuation in education participation rate). Some of these young adults might be considered independent if they earn more than $4,200 a year, but according to the Pew Research Center, only a quarter of them are financially independent from their parents by 22 or younger.
Still, given the level of workforce participation among 18- to 24-year-olds, millions of young Americans make their own money and could lose income in the face of skyrocketing unemployment. Furthermore, as a record number of people file for unemployment, some states are struggling to process the number of claims they’ve received. Unemployment websites and systems are crashing, and getting on the phone with any state’s office has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task — which means there are likely more unemployed workers than those who have already filed for benefits.
Some of those will be dependents who won’t receive anything from the CARES Act. “Some of us are full-time students working jobs, trying to pay our bills on the little money that we have,” said Kyleigh Beck Rhone, a 21-year-old community college student in Arizona. “It’s frustrating because, just like other adults with jobs and bills to pay, we’re still seen as young children in the government’s eyes, despite how we pay taxes like every other working person in America.”
“It’s frustrating because [we’re] just like other adults with jobs and bills to pay [but] we’re still seen as young children in the government’s eyes”
Beck Rhone had taken a semester off, working at a local gym to help pay her rent until she lost her job in March and didn’t qualify for unemployment. The $1,200 check would’ve helped a lot, she said, since she’s now pulling from her savings to pay any bills. The young adults I spoke to wanted to dispel the myth that all dependents, specifically college students, are privileged and have their education and expenses paid for — a stereotype that is clearly false. And for those who do lean on their parents for help, many are from working-class families who won’t receive any monetary bump for having an adult dependent.
Currently, there is no appeal process in place for any type of dependent, including recently employed graduates or workers who provide for themselves. Those who became financially independent in 2020, however, will eventually receive the stimulus money they’re owed in 2021 if they file their 2020 tax return, Maag said. Yet the promise of future money fails to alleviate the current stress and financial struggles plaguing most people. “I haven’t even thought about how I’ll pay next month’s rent because I just don’t know what’s going to change,” Sherman told me.
”What good is money in the future if my credit score is ruined and I can’t pay my bills?” said Jamie Agustin, a 23-year-old paralegal based in New Jersey who was a dependent in 2019. Agustin, who lives with her 17-year-old brother and parents, is clocking in significantly fewer hours at her firm and is worried that her family of four is only receiving $2,400 from the stimulus payment. Her father is also working less at his restaurant job, and her mother was laid off from her retail job.
”My brother is 17, but his age doesn’t affect how much money he’s costing my parents, so the age requirement is ridiculous,” Agustin added. “To me, means testing is just another way to deny people money that they need.”
Since mid-March, millions of college students have been displaced by the chaos of campus shutdowns across the country. While many have a home to return to, some students, particularly those who are low-income or housing-insecure, are struggling to find even basic resources, like a place to sleep and food, and have to rely on mutual aid primarily organized by other students.
Javan Smith, a freshman at St. John’s College in Maryland, is registered as a dependent to receive financial aid, and splits tuition payments with his father. Since he left home, he has primarily funded himself through a work-study job and had his meals at the school’s dining hall. At home, he says, “there isn’t a lot of leeway with money.”
”Maybe the majority of college students are being supported by their parents’ income, but that’s not my reality,” Smith, who’s currently working about 10 hours a week, told me. Due to a family situation, he’s currently stuck in Maryland after campus shut down and has moved out of his dorm into a house with five other students; St. John’s didn’t offer them housing.
”If I went back to Tennessee, I wouldn’t have a place to stay. I’m basically trapped in this city, and we all don’t have enough money to pay the $1,800 rent at the end of the month,” Smith said. “Even if we, as a house, received $1,000 a person, that’s about $5,000 in rent for a couple of months.”
For many, the stimulus check would’ve provided a crucial financial buffer for a month or two: Smith is starting an on-campus summer job in May that’ll give him more hours. Meanwhile, Sherman, who was laid off from her two service jobs, is worried that she’ll have to file as a dependent again on her 2020 tax return later this year.
”I might’ve been a dependent, but before this, I was making my own money, paying for my own rent, and being basically independent but not on paper,” she said. “As job opportunities continue to decrease, I might have to be a dependent again, at least for health insurance. It’s a weird limbo place to be in because I can’t get some money from the government.”


vox--2020-04-15--A preliminary Trump administration plan shows how far America is from reopening

President Donald Trump ’ s administration is reportedly working on a plan to reopen the economy as the US continues its fight against the coronavirus pandemic .
But details from the plan — part of which was obtained by Lena Sun , Josh Dawsey , and William Wan at the Washington Post — show just how far America is from safely reopening .
According to the Post , the public health side of the plan can be broken down into three phases : Prepare the nation to reopen ( now to May 1 ) , aggressive testing ( now to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staged re-opening ” ( “ not before May 1 ” ) .
The Post only got the parts of the plan put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , providing only a limited view of the public health strategy .
The plan is also still in development , so even the provided details aren ’ t finalized .
But what we can see from this limited view of the plan is that the US has a very steep road ahead .
The Trump administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adequate testing and surveillance system , which is in line with what experts and think tanks have called for in their own proposals .
The problem is that America is nowhere close to truly establishing such a system .
What the country needs to properly do testing , according to experts , is at least 500,000 tests a day .
Some experts call for much more than that — millions or even tens of millions a day — but 500,000 a day is generally considered the minimum to test everyone with symptoms and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US is , on a good day , doing about 150,000 tests a day , or fewer than a third of that minimum .
The US ’ s poor pandemic preparedness , as well as Trump ’ s slow reaction to the coronavirus outbreak , has meant America is still massively undertesting .
What ’ s more , this figure hasn ’ t improved much in recent weeks .
This week , starting with April 13 , the US has done fewer than 140,000 tests a day — an improvement from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbered in the hundreds , but actually a downgrade from the previous week , starting with April 6 , when the country averaged nearly 150,000 tests a day .
Part of that is driven by a shortage of swabs and personal protective equipment to collect samples , as well as reagents , kits , and machines needed to run the specific tests required .
According to David Lim at Politico , some labs also complain that the CDC ’ s testing criteria — which prioritizes hospitalized patients , health care workers , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as older people — is holding back potential tests .
So the reality is that the US is nowhere near the level of testing that experts say is needed to track and manage the coronavirus .
In fact , further increasing the number of tests will likely be even more of a challenge than ramping them up in the first place .
“ We ’ ve made substantial progress ramping testing this month , ” Scott Gottlieb , a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration , wrote .
“ But many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight ( clinical labs , academic labs ) .
Now we must expand lab capacity , platforms , throughput , test kits .
Getting next million tests/week will be harder than getting first.
” Testing gives officials the means to isolate sick people , track and quarantine the people whom those verified to be sick came into close contact with ( a.k.a .
“ contact tracing ” ) , and deploy community-wide efforts if a new cluster of cases is too large and uncontrolled otherwise .
Without it , the only way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing , which further hurts the economy , or letting the disease run its course — at the cost of potentially millions of lives .
This is one reason the plans to end social distancing are so grim : Not only do they suggest that some level of social distancing will be needed for the next year or so ( until a vaccine or a similarly effective treatment is widely available ) — which we don ’ t know if the country can sustain — but they call for a level of surveillance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t shown the ability and willingness to build and manage yet .
It ’ s possible the US could get a lucky break ; there ’ s still a lot about the coronavirus that we simply don ’ t know , and maybe as we learn more , we ’ ll realize the country can be spared the worst .
( It ’ s optimistic , given the outbreaks we ’ ve already seen across the globe , but it ’ s possible . )
Perhaps the Trump administration will move to ease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by investing in more labs and supplies .
But unless something changes , America is simply not meeting the benchmark of aggressive testing that the Trump administration and independent experts say is necessary to reopen the country .
So as eager as Trump clearly is to get the economy going again , the US just isn ’ t ready to do it in a safe way yet .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly working on a plan to reopen the economy as the US continues its fight against the coronavirus pandemic. But details from the plan — part of which was obtained by Lena Sun, Josh Dawsey, and William Wan at the Washington Post — show just how far America is from safely reopening.
According to the Post, the public health side of the plan can be broken down into three phases: Prepare the nation to reopen (now to May 1), aggressive testing (now to May 15), and a “staged re-opening” (“not before May 1”).
The Post only got the parts of the plan put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, providing only a limited view of the public health strategy. The plan is also still in development, so even the provided details aren’t finalized.
But what we can see from this limited view of the plan is that the US has a very steep road ahead.
The Trump administration’s plan reportedly relies on building an adequate testing and surveillance system, which is in line with what experts and think tanks have called for in their own proposals. The problem is that America is nowhere close to truly establishing such a system.
What the country needs to properly do testing, according to experts, is at least 500,000 tests a day. Some experts call for much more than that — millions or even tens of millions a day — but 500,000 a day is generally considered the minimum to test everyone with symptoms and their close contacts.
Right now, the US is, on a good day, doing about 150,000 tests a day, or fewer than a third of that minimum. The US’s poor pandemic preparedness, as well as Trump’s slow reaction to the coronavirus outbreak, has meant America is still massively undertesting.
Related Why America is still failing on coronavirus testing
What’s more, this figure hasn’t improved much in recent weeks. This week, starting with April 13, the US has done fewer than 140,000 tests a day — an improvement from the early days of March when daily tests numbered in the hundreds, but actually a downgrade from the previous week, starting with April 6, when the country averaged nearly 150,000 tests a day.
Part of that is driven by a shortage of swabs and personal protective equipment to collect samples, as well as reagents, kits, and machines needed to run the specific tests required. According to David Lim at Politico, some labs also complain that the CDC’s testing criteria — which prioritizes hospitalized patients, health care workers, and those vulnerable to the virus, such as older people — is holding back potential tests.
So the reality is that the US is nowhere near the level of testing that experts say is needed to track and manage the coronavirus. In fact, further increasing the number of tests will likely be even more of a challenge than ramping them up in the first place.
“We’ve made substantial progress ramping testing this month,” Scott Gottlieb, a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, wrote. “But many gains were made by getting players into fight (clinical labs, academic labs). Now we must expand lab capacity, platforms, throughput, test kits. Getting next million tests/week will be harder than getting first.”
Testing gives officials the means to isolate sick people, track and quarantine the people whom those verified to be sick came into close contact with (a.k.a. “contact tracing”), and deploy community-wide efforts if a new cluster of cases is too large and uncontrolled otherwise. Without it, the only way to deal with the outbreak is more social distancing, which further hurts the economy, or letting the disease run its course — at the cost of potentially millions of lives.
This is one reason the plans to end social distancing are so grim: Not only do they suggest that some level of social distancing will be needed for the next year or so (until a vaccine or a similarly effective treatment is widely available) — which we don’t know if the country can sustain — but they call for a level of surveillance and testing the US simply hasn’t shown the ability and willingness to build and manage yet.
It’s possible the US could get a lucky break; there’s still a lot about the coronavirus that we simply don’t know, and maybe as we learn more, we’ll realize the country can be spared the worst. (It’s optimistic, given the outbreaks we’ve already seen across the globe, but it’s possible.) Perhaps the Trump administration will move to ease testing criteria or dramatically scale up capacity by investing in more labs and supplies.
But unless something changes, America is simply not meeting the benchmark of aggressive testing that the Trump administration and independent experts say is necessary to reopen the country. So as eager as Trump clearly is to get the economy going again, the US just isn’t ready to do it in a safe way yet.


vox--2020-04-15--I want to donate plasma for an experimental Covid-19 treatment. Because of homophobia, I can’t.

Share All sharing options for : I want to donate plasma for an experimental Covid-19 treatment .
Because of homophobia , I can ’ t .
A few weeks ago , I came down with a mild cough and a runny nose .
I heard seasonal allergies were starting early and didn ’ t think much of it .
The next day , I was exhausted and had a splitting headache .
As a doctor , I was required to get tested for Covid-19 before I could go back to work in the emergency room .
The result was positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to feeling like myself .
I was one of the lucky people with relatively mild symptoms .
Now that I ’ m well , my blood could be used as an experimental cure for the new coronavirus .
But because of homophobia , that won ’ t happen .
New research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) describes an experimental treatment for those dying from Covid-19 called convalescent plasma transfusion .
The procedure starts with collecting blood from people who have recovered from the virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their blood , proteins made by the immune system that can bind to and neutralize the virus .
Once the blood donation is collected , researchers remove all the cells , and the result is plasma : a protein-rich solution that contains the anti-Covid-19 antibodies .
This plasma is then transfused into the bloodstream of patients dying from the virus .
The thinking goes that the antibodies in the plasma will bind to the coronavirus , neutralize it , and help the patient recover .
Similar strategies have been used for infectious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1918 flu pandemic .
In the JAMA study , five critically ill patients were treated with the intervention , and by 12 days after the treatment , none had detectable virus in their bloodstream .
A second study of 10 patients in the journal PNAS showed similar promise .
The data we have so far on the treatment ’ s efficacy are preliminary , and we still need high-quality controlled trials .
But it could save lives .
Researchers are so excited about this approach as a potential treatment that there are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
In collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration , the Red Cross is actively recruiting plasma donors who have recovered from the disease .
You can sign up here .
That is , unless , you ’ re gay .
The current FDA policy is discriminatory and not based in science The FDA says I can ’ t donate blood or plasma because I ’ m gay .
In 1985 , during the AIDS epidemic , the FDA placed a lifetime blood donation ban on all men who have ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was created to prevent blood banks from collecting blood that contains HIV .
Since the AIDS crisis though , the US has instituted extensive procedures to test blood donations for infectious diseases , including HIV , to minimize this risk .
It ’ s true that gay and bisexual men account for a large proportion of new HIV infections each year .
It ’ s also true that tests to screen blood aren ’ t perfect .
The risk of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion isn ’ t zero .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem is that being gay isn ’ t the real risk factor here .
Why should a monogamous gay man who has sex only with his husband be barred from donating blood when a heterosexual man who had condomless sex with 100 female partners in the past three months can ?
The latter is at dramatically greater risk of HIV infection .
In 2014 , Sen. Tammy Baldwin ( D-WI ) led more than 75 members of Congress in calling for an end to the ban , joining extensive lobbying from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration for a change .
In 2015 , the Obama FDA reduced the lifetime ban to a 12-month ban on gay sex before donating .
Earlier this month , the FDA shortened the ban to three months of abstinence from sex with other men , due in large part to the drastic drop in blood donations since the start of the coronavirus pandemic .
( Just prior , Baldwin and other senators , including Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders , Cory Booker , and Kamala Harris , submitted another letter to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy entirely . )
The new FDA guidance is a good but insufficient step forward .
It ’ s still going to leave out the vast majority of men who have sex with men .
And it still promotes the internalized homophobia many gay men experience from growing up in a homophobic society : You can only be good and pure if you don ’ t have gay sex .
This is psychologically damaging , unscientific , and wrong .
The rules need to change and be based on scientific behavioral risk factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on recent sex between men , we need to explore an approach that asks all donors about their recent behaviors , including condom use , number of partners , and use of preexposure prophylaxis , which we know is highly effective in preventing HIV , ” explains Dr. Julia Marcus , an assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School , where she studies the epidemiology of HIV .
Such risk-based screening systems have been successfully implemented in Spain , Chile , Argentina , and South Africa .
As written , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science .
They simply discriminate against gay and bisexual men .
America desperately needs more blood donations , and lifting this ban could save lives Plasma donations are critical .
If the experimental treatment works , countless deaths from Covid-19 could be prevented .
But in addition to plasma , the US also has a dire shortage of whole blood .
Due to social distancing , there have been 150,000 fewer blood donations since the pandemic began .
More blood is leaving the blood banks than is coming in .
This blood is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bleeding out , cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy , and children with sickle cell disease , to name a few in-need groups .
Federal officials have been begging the public to donate blood .
They should know that gay men like me are ready to roll up our sleeves and help .
America is in the midst of a public health crisis .
Old homophobic policies are making it worse : leaving trauma victims without donor blood and withholding plasma donations that could potentially save people dying from the coronavirus .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban and save lives .
When they do , I ’ ll be the first in line .
Jack Turban MD ( @ jack_turban ) is a resident physician in psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Share All sharing options for: I want to donate plasma for an experimental Covid-19 treatment. Because of homophobia, I can’t.
A few weeks ago, I came down with a mild cough and a runny nose. I heard seasonal allergies were starting early and didn’t think much of it.
The next day, I was exhausted and had a splitting headache. As a doctor, I was required to get tested for Covid-19 before I could go back to work in the emergency room. The result was positive.
Fortunately, I’m already back to feeling like myself. I was one of the lucky people with relatively mild symptoms.
Now that I’m well, my blood could be used as an experimental cure for the new coronavirus. But because of homophobia, that won’t happen.
How plasma transfusions could treat coronavirus patients
New research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) describes an experimental treatment for those dying from Covid-19 called convalescent plasma transfusion. The procedure starts with collecting blood from people who have recovered from the virus. These donors have Covid-19-fighting antibodies that circulate in their blood, proteins made by the immune system that can bind to and neutralize the virus.
Once the blood donation is collected, researchers remove all the cells, and the result is plasma: a protein-rich solution that contains the anti-Covid-19 antibodies. This plasma is then transfused into the bloodstream of patients dying from the virus.
The thinking goes that the antibodies in the plasma will bind to the coronavirus, neutralize it, and help the patient recover. Similar strategies have been used for infectious diseases going as far back as the 1918 flu pandemic.
In the JAMA study, five critically ill patients were treated with the intervention, and by 12 days after the treatment, none had detectable virus in their bloodstream. A second study of 10 patients in the journal PNAS showed similar promise. The data we have so far on the treatment’s efficacy are preliminary, and we still need high-quality controlled trials. But it could save lives.
Researchers are so excited about this approach as a potential treatment that there are now at least 10 clinical trials ongoing around the world. In collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration, the Red Cross is actively recruiting plasma donors who have recovered from the disease. You can sign up here. That is, unless, you’re gay.
The current FDA policy is discriminatory and not based in science
The FDA says I can’t donate blood or plasma because I’m gay. In 1985, during the AIDS epidemic, the FDA placed a lifetime blood donation ban on all men who have ever had sex with men.
The policy was created to prevent blood banks from collecting blood that contains HIV. Since the AIDS crisis though, the US has instituted extensive procedures to test blood donations for infectious diseases, including HIV, to minimize this risk. It’s true that gay and bisexual men account for a large proportion of new HIV infections each year. It’s also true that tests to screen blood aren’t perfect. The risk of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion isn’t zero. But it is currently around 1 in 1.5 million.
The problem is that being gay isn’t the real risk factor here. Why should a monogamous gay man who has sex only with his husband be barred from donating blood when a heterosexual man who had condomless sex with 100 female partners in the past three months can? The latter is at dramatically greater risk of HIV infection.
In 2014, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) led more than 75 members of Congress in calling for an end to the ban, joining extensive lobbying from LGBTQ rights organizations in putting pressure on the administration for a change. In 2015, the Obama FDA reduced the lifetime ban to a 12-month ban on gay sex before donating.
Earlier this month, the FDA shortened the ban to three months of abstinence from sex with other men, due in large part to the drastic drop in blood donations since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. (Just prior, Baldwin and other senators, including Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris, submitted another letter to the FDA asking them to end the discriminatory policy entirely.)
The new FDA guidance is a good but insufficient step forward. It’s still going to leave out the vast majority of men who have sex with men. And it still promotes the internalized homophobia many gay men experience from growing up in a homophobic society: You can only be good and pure if you don’t have gay sex. This is psychologically damaging, unscientific, and wrong.
The rules need to change and be based on scientific behavioral risk factors. “Instead of a blanket ban on recent sex between men, we need to explore an approach that asks all donors about their recent behaviors, including condom use, number of partners, and use of preexposure prophylaxis, which we know is highly effective in preventing HIV,” explains Dr. Julia Marcus, an assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, where she studies the epidemiology of HIV. Such risk-based screening systems have been successfully implemented in Spain, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa. As written, the FDA rules aren’t supported by science. They simply discriminate against gay and bisexual men.
America desperately needs more blood donations, and lifting this ban could save lives
Plasma donations are critical. If the experimental treatment works, countless deaths from Covid-19 could be prevented. But in addition to plasma, the US also has a dire shortage of whole blood.
Due to social distancing, there have been 150,000 fewer blood donations since the pandemic began. More blood is leaving the blood banks than is coming in. This blood is desperately needed for trauma victims who are bleeding out, cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, and children with sickle cell disease, to name a few in-need groups.
Federal officials have been begging the public to donate blood. They should know that gay men like me are ready to roll up our sleeves and help.
America is in the midst of a public health crisis. Old homophobic policies are making it worse: leaving trauma victims without donor blood and withholding plasma donations that could potentially save people dying from the coronavirus. It’s time for the FDA to lift the ban and save lives. When they do, I’ll be the first in line.
Jack Turban MD (@jack_turban) is a resident physician in psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital.