Tools

The invention of Essex: how a county became a caricature

From Loadsamoney and ‘Basildon man’ to Towie and Brexit – Essex has long been held up as both the authentic England and the crudest, stupidest symbol of Englishness.

By Tim Burrows

As a child growing up in the 80s and 90s in Southend, a sprawling seaside town in south-east Essex, I noticed that people on TV often laughed at the very word Essex. Some years later, in 2016, my wife, Hayley, crossed the border into Albania from Montenegro while travelling with an old friend who, like us, grew up in the county. The border guard asked where they were from – and when they told him, his response was quickfire: “I’ve heard a lot about Essex girls,” he said. “But I’m sure you are not like that.”

Thousands of kilometres from Essex, the border guard had not only heard of this county in south-east England, but even knew what it had come to signify: a land of crass consumerism, populated by perma-tanned chancers and loose women with more front than Clacton-on-Sea.

Continue reading...
Load more
Read full article on: theguardian.com
Video shows Pennsylvania officer with knee on man's neck
The clip has prompted protests and a demand from the local Black Lives Matter group to suspend the officers involved.
cbsnews.com
What it's like to be an American in Europe right now
US expat Blane Bachelor moved to Germany at the start of the pandemic and can only look on in despair as coronavirus besieges her homeland while Europe begins to emerge from its apparently successful lockdowns.
edition.cnn.com
What it's like to be an American in Europe right now
I was 25 years old and teaching English in Barcelona in September 2001 when terrorists crashed two airplanes into the World Trade Center. With no TV or internet in my crummy apartment, I watched the news every night at the home of a student who'd become a dear friend, struggling to process the terrifying footage and what this awful event meant for my home country -- and for me, thousands of miles away from my family and loved ones.
edition.cnn.com
Spanish judge blocks Catalonia from confining 156,000 people in Covid-19 outbreak area
edition.cnn.com
600,000 people brave heat and Covid-19 spike to vote in Hong Kong opposition primary
edition.cnn.com
Power Up: Trump breaks with health officials as pandemic worsens in key states
Testing is lagging as Florida sets infection record.
washingtonpost.com
1 person is missing and 4 injured in a suspected electrocution incident at an Arizona marina
One person is missing and four others were injured in what is believed to be an electrocution incident at an Arizona lake Sunday.
edition.cnn.com
1 person is missing and 4 injured in a suspected electrocution incident at an Arizona marina
One person is missing and four others were injured in what is believed to be an electrocution incident at an Arizona lake Sunday.
edition.cnn.com
Dangerous heat wave impacting nearly 50 million
A 2000 mile stretch of land from the panhandle of Florida to California is under some type of heat advisory or warning. CNN meteorologist Pedram Javaheri let's us know how hot it will feel in this region with the detailed forecast.
edition.cnn.com
Trump ally Andrezj Duda wins Poland's presidential election
Incumbent Polish President Andrezj Duda - an ally of US President Donald Trump - has been reelected in a narrow win over his challenger Rafal Trzaskowski, according to the National Election Committee and state broadcaster TVP. CNN's Frederik Pleitgen reports.
edition.cnn.com
ShowBiz Minute: Preston, Keough, Rivera
Kelly Preston, actor and wife of John Travolta, has died at the age of 57; Grandson of Elvis Presley has died at age 27, agent says; The search to find Naya Rivera resumed on Sunday and will now include boats and expand to nearby cabins. (July 13)       
usatoday.com
UK pub installs electric fence at the bar to ensure patrons socially distance: report
A pub in the United Kingdom has put up an electric fence at the bar to make sure patrons socially distance, according to multiple reports on Sunday.
foxnews.com
Johnny Depp says he couldn’t have hit Amber Heard with cast on after severing finger
Johnny Depp told a London court Monday that he got a “painful” MRSA infection from severing his finger during a vicious fight with ex Amber Heard — and insisted he couldn’t have beat her with his injured hand in a cast. Depp, giving his fifth day of evidence in his libel suit against The Sun...
nypost.com
Kelly Preston, actress and wife of John Travolta, dead at 57
Actress Kelly Preston died after losing her battle with breast cancer, her husband John Travolta said in a post on Instagram Sunday. She was 57 years old.
edition.cnn.com
Ferrari implodes as Leclerc and Vettel collide and retire from Styrian GP
edition.cnn.com
Zindzi Mandela, daughter of Nelson and Winnie, dead at 59
JOHANNESBURG — Zindzi Mandela, the daughter of South African anti-apartheid leaders Nelson Mandela and Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, has died aged 59. State television South African Broadcasting Corporation has reported that Mandela died at a Johannesburg hospital early Monday morning. The cause of her death has not been announced. She had been South Africa’s ambassador to Denmark...
nypost.com
Atlanta Braves to keep name, look into famed 'tomahawk chop' celebration
The Atlanta Braves announced on Sunday that the team won't be changing its nickname, but will review the tomahawk chop, a well-known sports celebration that normally gets fans excited during games, according to a report.
foxnews.com
China announces sanctions against Rubio, Cruz over Uighur Muslims
China on Monday announced sanctions against a number of U.S. officials, including Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, in retaliation for legislation intended to punish senior Chinese officials over the alleged treatment of the Uighur Muslim minority in Xinjiang, according to multiple reports.
foxnews.com
China Sanctions Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Over Xinjiang Legislation
The moves come three days after the U.S. sanctioned a top member of China’s ruling Communist Party and three other officials over alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang
time.com
Editorial: Prop. 66 promised to speed up executions. It hasn't. We should abolish the practice
Prop. 66's failure to speed up California executions is more proof that we must end the barbaric practice. It is immoral, and it just doesn't work.
latimes.com
What a nonresident should know about buying a home in the U.S. for her children
Foreigners buy homes in the United States all the time, but it's usually difficult to do so with a mortgage, as most buyers would.
washingtonpost.com
State, local governments wrestle over quickly dwindling coronavirus aid, complicating talks on next federal bill
A $150 billion federal program designed to help states, cities and counties respond to the coronavirus pandemic has pit governments against each other, forcing them to scrap over the fast-dwindling, limited aid.
washingtonpost.com
More shows are making sure viewers know where to get help if they need it. Thank ‘13 Reasons Why.’
The Netflix series "13 Reasons Why" made missteps in its first season. Mental health experts helped them do better.
washingtonpost.com
Mike Huckabee: Biden-Bernie economics — Here's how they'll hurt businesses, workers, families
Biden’s big-government agenda would strangle the economy and leave entire communities destitute. 
foxnews.com
John Roberts Is Just Who the Supreme Court Needed
In 2007, at the end of his first term on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts told me in an interview for this magazine that he would make it his highest priority to protect the Court’s institutional legitimacy. “There ought to be some sense of some stability,” he said, “if the government is not going to polarize completely. It’s a high priority to keep any kind of partisan divide out of the judiciary as well.” Roberts said he would try to persuade his colleagues to put institutional legitimacy first by encouraging them to converge around narrow, bipartisan decisions to avoid 5–4 partisan splits. “I think the Court is also ripe for a similar refocus on functioning as an institution,” Roberts emphasized, “because if it doesn’t it’s going to lose its credibility and legitimacy.”In the Supreme Court term that ended on Thursday, Roberts decisively and impressively achieved his goal. At a time of greater partisan conflict between the president and Congress than any time since the Civil War, as Americans are questioning the legitimacy of all three branches of the federal government, Roberts worked to ensure that the Supreme Court can be embraced by citizens of different perspectives as a neutral arbiter, guided by law rather than politics. He helped persuade all but two of his colleagues to unite in two decisions ruling against President Donald Trump’s efforts to fight subpoenas from Congress and the New York County district attorney. He also joined 7–2 majorities in two cases involving religious liberties and a 6–3 majority in a historic decision extending federal antidiscrimination protections to LGBTQ individuals. And, in cases where 5–4 splits were unavoidable, he joined the more liberal justices in voting to maintain an important precedent protecting abortion rights and in forbidding the president to repeal the “Dreamers” program without following regular administrative procedures. During this term, Roberts also presided neutrally over a presidential impeachment trial, and criticized both Trump and Senator Charles Schumer of New York for attacking judges in partisan terms.In the process, he became, as the Washington University law professor Lee Epstein told The New York Times, the most powerful chief justice since Charles Evans Hughes in 1937. By the end of the term, the Court had avoided 5–4 splits in many of the hot-button cases, and Roberts was with the majority in all of the 5–4 decisions but one. He achieved the goal he set for himself at the beginning of this tenure: resisting what he called the “personalization of judicial politics” by converging around legally narrow, bipartisan decisions, in the tradition of his own hero, Chief Justice John Marshall.[Adam Serwer: Roberts wanted minimal competence, but Trump couldn’t deliver]To understand the success of Roberts’s strategic vision, let’s begin with what he said he would try to achieve in 2007. In our interview, he expressed concern that a public focus on the number of 5–4 decisions would undermine public confidence in a nonpartisan judiciary, leading to “a steady wasting away of the notion of the rule of law.” Pointing out that the officials in Congress and the White House were functioning over time more as polarized individuals than as members of deliberative institutions, he said, “I think it’s bad, long-term, if people identify the rule of law with how individual justices vote.” In reaction to this personalization, Roberts said he would emphasize what he called the “team dynamic” to his colleagues: that it was in their institutional interest to join narrow, unanimous decisions rather than broad 5–4 decisions. “You do have to put people in a situation where they will appreciate, from their own point of view, having the Court acquire more legitimacy, credibility, that they will benefit from the shared commitment to unanimity in a way that they wouldn’t otherwise,” he said.Roberts repeatedly achieved near unanimity this year by persuading his liberal and conservative colleagues to agree to narrow holdings. Consider Roberts’s opinions for the Court in the two subpoena cases. Trump v. Vance, significantly, begins and ends with an account of how Chief Justice Marshall ordered his rival President Thomas Jefferson to obey a subpoena in the Aaron Burr trial because of his conviction that the president does not “stand exempt from the general provisions of the Constitution.” The Court unanimously agreed with Roberts’s conclusion that the president is not absolutely immune from a state criminal subpoena, but disagreed over the proper standard that courts should apply in evaluating subpoenas to the president. The four liberal justices joined Roberts’s decision that the president does not need heightened protection against state subpoenas to fulfill his duties. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh concurred, but would have required the prosecutor to show a specific need for the information; Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, and would have required an even higher standard.In Trump v. Mazars, six justices joined Roberts in creating a new test for how courts should evaluate congressional subpoenas for a president’s personal papers, in this case financial records; only Justices Alito and Thomas, in dissent, would have held that Congress had no power to issue the subpoenas. In both Vance and Mazars, Roberts rejected the broad positions of the Trump administration and its investigators, and persuaded a majority of the court to accept a narrower, intermediate position. In doing so, Roberts successfully balanced the interests of the president, Congress, and the courts, while avoiding making the Court a partisan friend or foe of the president, just as Marshall did in his conflicts with Jefferson.[Adam Serwer: The Roberts court completes Trump’s cover-up]Although complete unanimity eluded Roberts in the subpoena cases, the Court achieved it in another politically charged decision, Chiafalo v. Washington, in which Justice Elena Kagan held for all nine justices that states may penalize members of the Electoral College for failing to vote for the presidential candidates to whom they’ve been pledged. The case represents the clearest victory for Roberts’s vision that the Court should try to be unanimous in politically charged cases to preserve its institutional independence. As Roberts told me, Marshall could “have got on the Court and said, ‘I’m the last hope of the Federalists; we’re out of Congress; we’re out of the White House; and I’m going to pursue that agenda here.’ And he would have not only damaged the Court but could have smothered it in the cradle. But instead he said, ‘No, this is my home now, this is the Court, and we’re going to operate as a Court, and that’s important to me,’ and as a result he made the Court the institution that it has become.”In two 7–2 religious-liberty cases, two liberal justices were willing to join the conservatives in decisions that were narrower than some of the conservatives would have preferred. In Little Sisters of the Poor, Justice Thomas wrote for the Court that the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury had the authority under the Affordable Care Act to exempt employers with sincere religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage. Justices Kagan and Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment but wrote separately to clarify that they thought the regulations might later be found to violate the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement of reasoned decision making. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School, Justice Alito wrote for the Court that the “ministerial exception,” which excuses religious institutions from following antidiscrimination laws, applied not only to ministers but also to teachers in parochial schools. Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.When we spoke years ago, Roberts emphasized that he was more interested in institutional legitimacy than methodological purity. He observed that the less successful chief justices—such as Harlan Fiske Stone, the former dean of Columbia Law School‚ who was chief from 1941 to 1946—had approached the job more like law professors than as leaders of collegial courts. “A justice is not like a law professor, who might say, ‘This is my theory … and this is what I’m going to be faithful to and consistent with,’ and in twenty years will look back and say, ‘I had a consistent theory of the First Amendment as applied to a particular area,’” he explained. Instead of nine justices moving in nine separate directions, Roberts said, “it would be good to have a commitment on the part of the Court to acting as a Court, rather than being more concerned about the consistency and coherency of an individual judicial record.”Roberts’s focus on teamwork rather than methodological purity was obvious in the landmark 6–3 Bostock decision, in which he and the liberal justices joined Gorsuch’s textualist opinion holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination “because of sex,” includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status. Roberts himself is not always a textualist. In King v. Burwell, where Roberts held for a 6–3 Court that the tax credits of the ACA are available to individuals in states that have a federal exchange, Roberts emphasized that “oftentimes the meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” But in both cases, avoiding a 5–4 partisan split on contested questions of national politics was more important than rigid methodological consistency.[Garrett Epps: What ‘because of sex’ really means]In the same spirit, Roberts in our interview praised his predecessor, William Rehnquist, for joining decisions as chief that he may have objected to as an associate justice when the legitimacy of the Court required it. “I think there’s no doubt that he changed; as associate justice and chief, he became naturally more concerned about the function of the institution,” Roberts told me. “He had settled views on Miranda, yet he’s the one who appreciates that it had become part of the law, that it would do more harm to uproot it, and he wrote that opinion as chief for the good of the institution.”Roberts showed the same concern when he concurred with the liberal justices in the 5–4 June Medical Services decision, refusing to allow Louisiana to require that all doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Although Roberts had been in dissent in a nearly identical case arising from Texas in 2016, he stressed the importance of avoiding the perception that the Court would overturn precedents based on nothing more than a change in personnel. Quoting Justice Robert H. Jackson, he wrote: “The constraint of precedent distinguishes the judicial method and philosophy from those of the political and legislative process.” Roberts also expressed a concern for precedent in one of his only dissents of the term, when he joined Justices Alito and Kagan in objecting to the Court’s Ramos decision holding that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires unanimous verdicts to convict defendants of serious offenses.When Roberts joined the four liberals in holding that Trump’s executive order repealing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program violated the Administrative Procedure Act, many observers recalled a similar decision last year, in which he joined the same five-justice coalition in holding that the Trump administration couldn’t add a citizenship question to the Census without following proper administrative procedures. In both cases, he underscored the “reliance interests” he had invoked in the June Medical abortion case. To avoid a perception of pure partisanship, he said, agencies of government are “required to assess the existence and strength of any reliance interests, and weigh them against competing policy concerns.”Roberts also joined the liberals in voting to deny injunctive relief in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom, in which the church challenged the California governor’s order limiting capacity in places of worship to prevent spreading the coronavirus. Of the five justices denying the injunction without comment, Roberts was the only one to write separately, highlighting his understanding of the judiciary’s limited role. “Our Constitution principally entrusts ‘The safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the States ‘to guard and protect,’” he wrote, adding that they “should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.”Roberts also kept the judiciary out of controversies by managing the “shadow docket”—that is, the cases the Supreme Court decides not to hear—to avoid entangling the Court in partisan politics. Over Justice Thomas’s dissent alone, the Court voted 8–1 to refuse to hear contentious cases involving Second Amendment gun rights and qualified immunity for police officers. Because four votes are required for the Court to hear a case, the conservative justices, unsure of how Roberts would ultimately vote, may well have decided not to take the risk.[Eric Schnurer: Congress is going to have to repeal qualified immunity]Roberts was not successful in keeping the Court out of politics completely. His most notable failure was the 5–4 decision with the memorable name Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, in which he wrote for the five conservative justices that a Wisconsin court could not order election officials to count absentee ballots received after Election Day. Invoking the COVID-19 crisis, Justice Ginsburg wrote in dissent that “the Court’s suggestion that the current situation is not ‘substantially different’ from ‘an ordinary election’ boggles the mind.” In a more recent order, the Supreme Court, by the same margin, said Alabama did not have to loosen voting restrictions as a district judge had ordered, in light of the pandemic. Both decisions were based on the principle that courts should generally avoid changing the rules right before an election. Still all nine justices agreed not to reinstate a lower court’s decision to require Texas to let all eligible voters cast a ballot by mail—at least for now. Disputes over absentee ballots in the months leading up to the presidential election may test Roberts’s determination to keep the courts above partisan politics like no case since Bush v. Gore. His ability to avoid involving the Court in resolving a close election will be the ultimate test of the success of his vision.Why was Roberts more successful in fulfilling his vision in 2020 than in previous years? When we spoke at the end of his first term, he emphasized that his colleagues’ willingness to embrace institutional legitimacy as a priority would determine how he fared. He suggested that the greatest obstacle would be Anthony Kennedy, then the swing justice, who was more inclined to sweeping, principled decisions than to narrow, pragmatic ones. Now that Roberts, rather than Kennedy, is the median and swing justice, he has more flexibility in drafting decisions that his liberal and conservative colleagues are more likely to join. Moreover, all of the justices are clearly aware of the attacks on the legitimacy of the courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular—from Trump assailing “Obama judges” to frustrated progressives threatening court packing. In this fragile time for American democracy, Roberts’s determination to learn the lessons of history—he noted when we spoke that most chief justices have been failures—has been impressively vindicated. During our interview, Roberts approvingly quoted the observation of Chief Justice Hughes that “Marshall’s preeminence was due to the fact that he was John Marshall.” In following the examples of Marshall and Hughes, Roberts is establishing his own preeminence by working with his colleagues to maintain the Court’s bipartisan legitimacy at a time when the other branches have lost their own.
theatlantic.com
Trump says his economic policies have been good for African Americans. Look closer.
Trump’s policies and programs — notably regarding the Minority Business Development Agency and the Small Business Administration — have not helped black economic development.
washingtonpost.com
Dear Care and Feeding: I Think I’ve Turned My Daughter Into a Greedy Material Girl
Parenting advice on material girls, teething woes, and speech delays.
slate.com
The photographer using vivid symbolism to celebrate the history of black resistance
In two separate images by the Dakar, Senegal-based photographer Omar Victor Diop, two Black figures -- a man and a woman -- lie curled against a dark expanse, one surrounded by a splash of technicolored Skittles, the other against ocher stalks of rice.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Nicole Thea, 24-year-old YouTube star, dies along with unborn child
YouTube star Nicole Thea has died at the age of 24, along with her unborn baby.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
The photographer using vivid symbolism to celebrate the history of black resistance
In his series "Liberty," the Senegalese photographer pays homage to events linked to Black protests across eras and countries by embodying its figures.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
The Herd-Immunity Illusion
Editor’s Note: The Atlantic is making vital coverage of the coronavirus available to all readers. Find the collection here. Edward Lorenz was just out of college when he was recruited into World War II. He was assigned to be a weather forecaster, despite having no experience in meteorology. What Lorenz knew was math.So he started experimenting with differential equations, trying to make predictions based on patterns in data on past temperatures and pressures. One day, while testing his system, he repeated a simulation with a few decimals rounded off in the data. To his surprise, a radically different future emerged.He called this finding “the butterfly effect.” In a complex model, where each day’s weather influences the next day’s, a tweak in initial conditions can have wild downstream consequences. The butterfly effect became central to the emerging field of chaos theory, which has since been applied to economics, sociology, and many other subjects, in attempts to deconstruct complex phenomena. That field is now helping predict the future of the pandemic—in particular, how it ends.[Read: How the pandemic will end]Chaos theory applies neatly to the spread of the coronavirus, in that seemingly tiny decisions or differences in reaction speed can have inordinate consequences. Effects can seem random when, in fact, they trace to discrete decisions made long prior. For example, the United States has surpassed 125,000 deaths from COVID-19. Having suppressed the virus early, South Korea has had only 289. Vietnam’s toll sits at zero. Even when differences from place to place appear random, or too dramatic to pin entirely on a failed national response, they are not.There is enormous variation even within the U.S., which could also seem chaotic. Some places took limited measures and were barely hit; others locked down but suffered greatly. New York City has been slowly reopening since early June, but despite that—and despite mass outdoor gatherings in the throes of civil unrest over the past six weeks—the city has not seen even a small increase in daily reported cases. By contrast, other cities that have attempted to reopen have seen incapacitating surges.But just as barely predictable meteorological events arise from totally predictable laws of physics, the complex dynamics of a pandemic center on an extremely limited set of concepts in basic viral biology. Early failures to test and shut down in the U.S. have been amplified through the butterfly effect. Current decisions will be as well.When phenomena appear chaotic, mathematical modelers make it their job to find the underlying order. Once models can accurately describe the real world, as some now do, they gain the predictive power to give clearer glimpses into likely futures.In mid-February, the Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch told me that this virus could infect most people in the United States if the country’s leaders did not take action. At the time, the U.S. had only a handful of confirmed cases. Few people were imagining the future Lipsitch saw—in which millions, even hundreds of millions, of Americans could fall ill. This was, at least in part, because we weren’t testing for the virus.[Read: You’re likely to get the coronavirus]Lipsitch even received some criticism from scientists who felt uncomfortable with his estimate, since there were so little data to go on. Indeed, at that point, many futures were still possible. But when a virus spreads as quickly and effectively as this one was spreading in February—killing many while leaving others who had few or no symptoms to spread the disease—that virus can be expected to run its course through a population that does not take dramatic measures.Now, based on the U.S. response since February, Lipsitch believes that we’re still likely to see the virus spread to the point of becoming endemic. That would mean it is with us indefinitely, and the current pandemic would end when we reach levels of “herd immunity,” traditionally defined as the threshold at which enough people in a group have immune protection so the virus can no longer cause huge spikes in disease.The concept of herd immunity comes from vaccination policy, in which it’s used to calculate the number of people who need to be vaccinated in order to ensure the safety of the population. But a coronavirus vaccine is still far off, and last month, Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that, because of a “general anti-science, anti-authority, anti-vaccine feeling,” the U.S. is “unlikely” to achieve herd immunity even after a vaccine is available.Back in February, Lipsitch gave a very rough estimate that, absent intervention, herd immunity might happen after 40 to 70 percent of the population had been infected. The idea of hitting this level of infection implied grim forecasts about disease and death. The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 is now very roughly 1 percent overall. In the absolute simplest, linear model, if 70 percent of the world were to get infected, that would mean more than 54 million deaths.But the effects of the coronavirus are not linear. The virus affects individuals and populations in very different ways. The case-fatality rate varies drastically between adults under 40 and the elderly. This same characteristic variability of the virus—what makes it so dangerous in early stages of outbreaks—also gives a clue as to why those outbreaks could burn out earlier than initially expected. In countries with uncontained spread of the virus, such as the U.S., exactly what the herd-immunity threshold turns out to be could make a dramatic difference in how many people fall ill and die. Without a better plan, this threshold—the percentage of people who have been infected that would constitute herd immunity—seems to have become central to our fates.Some mathematicians believe that it’s much lower than initially imagined. At least, it could be, if we choose the right future.Gabriela Gomes studies chaos. Specifically, patterns in nonlinear dynamics. She was drawn to the field by something called frailty variation—why the same diseases manifest so differently from one person to the next. She uses mathematics to deconstruct the chains of events that can lead two people with the same disease to have wildly different outcomes.So with all its apparently chaotic eccentricities, the coronavirus was an ideal challenge for Gomes, a professor at the University of Strathclyde, in Glasgow, Scotland. For the past few months, she has been collaborating with an international group of mathematicians to run models that incorporate the many variations in how this virus seems to be affecting people. Her goal has been to move as far away from simple averages as possible, and to incorporate as many of the disparate effects of the virus as possible when making new forecasts.In normal times, herd immunity is calculated based on a standardized intervention with predictable results: vaccination. Everyone is exposed to the same (or very similar) immune-generating viral components. We are able to calculate what percentage of people need that exposure in order to develop meaningful immunity across the population.This is not the case when a virus is spreading in the real world. Instead, the complexities of real life create what modelers refer to as heterogeneity. People are exposed to different amounts of the virus, in different contexts, via different routes. A virus that is new to the species creates more variety in immune responses. Some of us are more susceptible to being infected, and some are more likely to transmit the virus once infected. Even small differences in individual susceptibility and transmission can, as with any chaos phenomenon, lead to very different outcomes as the effects compound over time, on the scale of a pandemic. As Gomes explains, “There doesn’t need to be a lot of variation in a population for epidemics to slow down quite drastically.”[Read: A devastating new stage of the pandemic]In a pandemic, the heterogeneity of the infectious process also makes forecasting difficult. When you flip a coin, the outcome is linear—not affected by the flips prior. But in dynamic systems, the outcomes are more like those in chess: The next play is influenced by the previous one. Differences in outcome can grow exponentially, reinforcing one another until the situation becomes, through a series of individually predictable moves, radically different from other possible scenarios. You have some chance of being able to predict the first move in a game of chess, but good luck predicting the last.That’s exactly what Gomes’s work attempts to do. She describes a model in which everyone is equally susceptible to coronavirus infection (a homogeneous model), and a model in which some people are more susceptible than others (a heterogeneous model). Even if the two populations start out with the same average susceptibility to infection, you don’t get the same epidemics. “The outbreaks look similar at the beginning. But in the heterogeneous population, individuals are not infected at random,” she told me. “The highly susceptible people are more likely to get infected first. As a result, the average susceptibility gets lower and lower over time.”Effects like this—“selective depletion” of people who are more susceptible—can quickly decelerate a virus’s spread. When Gomes uses this sort of pattern to model the coronavirus’s spread, the compounding effects of heterogeneity seem to show that the onslaught of cases and deaths seen in initial spikes around the world are unlikely to happen a second time. Based on data from several countries in Europe, she said, her results show a herd-immunity threshold much lower than that of other models.“We just keep running the models, and it keeps coming back at less than 20 percent,” Gomes said. “It’s very striking.”If that proves correct, it would be life-altering news. It wouldn’t mean that the virus is gone. But by Gomes’s estimates, if roughly one out of every five people in a given population is immune to the virus, that seems to be enough to slow its spread to a level where each infectious person is infecting an average of less than one other person. The number of infections would steadily decline. That’s the classic definition of herd immunity. It would mean, for instance, that at 25 percent antibody prevalence, New York City could continue its careful reopening without fear of another major surge in cases.[Read: A guide to staying safe as states reopen]It doesn’t make intuitive sense, Gomes admits, but “the homogenous models just don’t make curves that match the current data,” she said. Dynamic systems develop in complex and unpredictable ways, and she believes that the best we can do is continually update models based on what is happening in the real world. She can’t say why the threshold in her models is consistently at or below 20 percent, but it is. “If heterogeneity isn’t the cause,” she said, “then I’d like for someone to explain what is.”At Stockholm University, Tom Britton, the dean of mathematics and physics, thinks that a 20 percent threshold is unlikely, but not impossible. His lab has also been building epidemiological models based on data from around the globe. He believes that variation in susceptibility and exposure to the virus clearly seems to be reducing estimates for herd immunity. Britton and his colleagues recently published their model, demonstrating the effect, in Science.“If there is a large variability of susceptibility among humans, then herd immunity could be as low as 20 percent,” Britton told me. But there’s reason to suspect that people do not have such dramatically disparate susceptibility to the coronavirus. High degrees of variability are more common in things such as sexually transmitted infections, where a person with 100 partners a year is far more susceptible than someone celibate. Respiratory viruses tend to be more equal-opportunity invaders. “I don’t think it will happen at 20 percent,” Britton said. “Between 35 and 45 percent—I think that would be a level where spreading drops drastically.”Models like Britton’s and Gomes’s also assume that, after infection, people obtain immunity. This is a clear caveat that all the researchers make. COVID-19 is a new disease, so no one can be sure that infected people become immune reliably, or how long immunity lasts. But Britton noted that there are no clear instances of double infections so far, which suggests that this virus creates immunity for at least some meaningful length of time, as most viruses do.Lipsitch also believes that heterogeneity is important to factor into any model. It was one reason he updated his prediction, not long after we spoke in February, of what the herd-immunity threshold would be. Instead of 40 to 70 percent, he lowered it to 20 to 60 percent. When we spoke last week, he said he still stands by that, but he is skeptical that the number lands close to the 20 percent end of the range. “I think it’s unlikely,” he said, but added, “This virus is proving there can be orders-of-magnitude differences in attack rates, depending on political and societal decisions, which I don’t know how to forecast.”“I think we all agree that heterogeneity is important,” says Kate Langwig, a professor at Virginia Tech. She studied at Harvard under Lipsitch, and was also mentored by Gomes. Biological variations in susceptibility could come down to factors as simple as who has more nose hair, or who talks the loudest and most explosively, and Langwig shares the belief that these factors can create heterogeneity in susceptibility and transmission. Those effects can compound to dramatically change the math behind predictions for the future.But she declines to endorse any particular numeric threshold for herd immunity. She’s not comfortable with the idea of a single number at all. What’s important to her, rather, is that people are not misled by the idea of herd immunity. In the context of vaccination, herd-immunity thresholds are relatively fixed and predictable. In the context of an ongoing pandemic, thinking of this threshold as some static concept can be dangerously misleading.[Read: The U.K.’s coronavirus ‘herd immunity’ debacle]“During the last few months, we’ve started talking about ‘natural herd immunity’ and what would be used to block future waves,” says Shweta Bansal, an associate professor at Georgetown University who studies how social interactions influence infectious diseases. She worries that many people conflate academic projections about reaching herd immunity with a “let it run wild” fatalism. “My view is that trying to take that route would lead to mass death and devastation,” she says.Indeed, letting a new, rapidly spreading virus run unchecked in a population with zero immunity could mean that nearly everyone in a given location gets infected. With vaccination, the herd-immunity threshold is vital to guiding policy and medical practice: If about 90 percent of people are vaccinated against measles, for example, then, accounting for waning antibodies and variable immune responses, it’s safe to assume that 60 or 70 percent are protected and the population isn’t at risk of an outbreak. But that concept doesn’t clearly apply when a highly contagious virus hits a population with zero immunity. Left totally unchecked, Bansal says, the percentage of infected people could go even higher than 70 percent.By definition, dynamic systems don’t deal in static numbers. Any such herd-immunity threshold is context-dependent and constantly shifting. It will change over time and space. It varies depending on the basic reproduction number, R0—the average number of new infections caused by an infected individual. During the early stage of an outbreak of a new virus (to which no one has immunity), that number will be higher. The number is skewed by super-spreading events, such as when one person in a choir infects 50 others. And the number in a dense city such as New York should be expected to be higher than that in rural Alaska. “Within certain populations that lack heterogeneity, like within a nursing home or school, you may even see the herd-immunity threshold be above 70 percent,” Bansal says. If a population average led people in those settings to get complacent, there could be needless death.[Read: The U.S. is repeating its deadliest pandemic mistake]For all the mysteries of how this virus affects our bodies and immune systems, and all the heterogeneity involved in the complex modeling of outcomes, Bansal believes that heterogeneity of behavior is the key determinant of our futures. “That magic number that we’re describing as a herd-immunity threshold very much depends on how individuals behave,” Bansal says, since R0 clearly changes with behaviors. On average, the R0 of the coronavirus currently seems to be between 2 and 3, according to Lipsitch. But if we all sealed ourselves in isolation pods today, the R0 would drop to zero. There would be no more deaths.“COVID-19 is the first disease in modern times where the whole world has changed their behavior and disease spread has been reduced,” Britton noted. That made old models and numbers obsolete. Social distancing and other reactive measures changed the R0 value, and they will continue to do so. The virus has certain immutable properties, but there is nothing immutable about how many infections it causes in the real world.What we seem to need is a better understanding of herd immunity in this novel context. The threshold can change based on how a virus spreads. The spread keeps on changing based on how we react to it at every stage, and the effects compound. Small preventive measures have big downstream effects. In other words, the herd in question determines its immunity. There is no mystery in how to drop the R0 to below 1 and reach an effective herd immunity: masks, social distancing, hand-washing, and everything everyone is tired of hearing about. It is already being done.Essentially, at present, New York City—where I live—might be said to be at a version of herd immunity, or at least safe equilibrium. Our case counts are very low. They have been low for weeks. Our antibody counts mean that a not-insignificant number of people are effectively removed from the chain of transmission. Many more can be effectively excluded because they’re staying isolated and distanced, wearing masks, and being hygienically vigilant. If we keep living just as we are, another big wave of disease seems unlikely.[Read: Don’t close parks. Open up the streets.]Lipsitch stands by the February projection that Americans are likely to get the coronavirus, but not because that’s the only possible future. In other countries, it isn’t the case. “I think it no longer seems impossible that Switzerland or Germany could remain near where they are in terms of cases, meaning not very much larger outbreaks, until there’s a vaccine,” he said. They seem to have the will and systems in place to keep their economies closed enough to maintain their current equilibrium.Other wealthy countries could hypothetically create societies that are effectively immune to further surges, where the effective herd-immunity threshold is low. Even in the U.S., it’s not too late to create a world in which you are not likely to get the coronavirus. We can wear masks and enable people to stay housed and fed without taking up dangerous work. But, judging by the decisions U.S. leaders have made so far, it seems that few places in the country will choose to live this way. Many cities and states will push backwards into an old way of life, where the herd-immunity threshold is high. Dangerous decisions will be amplified by the dynamic systems of society. People will travel and seed outbreaks in places that have worked tirelessly to contain the virus. In some cases, a single infected person will indirectly lead to hundreds or thousands of deaths.We have the wealth in this country to care for people, and to set the herd-immunity threshold where we choose. Parts of the world are illuminating a third way forward, something in between total lockdown and simply resuming the old ways of life. It happens through individual choices and collective actions, reimagining new ways of living, and having the state support and leadership to make those ways possible. For as much attention as we give to the virus, and to drugs and our immune systems, the variable in the system is us. There will only be as much chaos as we allow.
1 h
theatlantic.com
Employers Are Sick of the Pandemic. Employees Are Paying the Price.
Companies have started to make their workers go back to the office for no good reason.
1 h
slate.com
It Wasn’t Roberts That Changed This Term. It Was the Cases SCOTUS Heard.
The chief justice did not change his views.
1 h
slate.com
Memphis man shoots cousin over Penny Hardaway argument: police
Well, that escalated quickly.
1 h
foxnews.com
Federal firefighters battling blaze on naval ship that could last for days
Federal and Navy firefighters are continuing to battle a blaze aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard more than 15 hours after the fire first broke out Sunday morning.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Trump ally Duda declared winner of Poland's closely-run presidential race
Poland's incumbent President Andrzej Duda has been declared the winner of this weekend's tightly fought and divisive election.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Trump ally Duda declared winner of Poland's closely-run presidential race
Poland's incumbent President Andrzej Duda is set to be re-elected after narrowly beating his opponent, Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, in the weekend's tightly fought election.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
The Case Against Ghislaine Maxwell
The socialite linked with Jeffrey Epstein is expected to appear in court Tuesday to face charges of facilitating the abuse of teenage girls.
1 h
nytimes.com
Two-bedroom, two-bathroom condo in Rockville lists for $340,000
AFFORDABLE HOME OF THE WEEK | The condo is about a half-mile from both the Rockville Metro station and Rockville Town Center.
1 h
washingtonpost.com
Poland's Nationalist President Narrowly Wins Reelection
President Andrzej Duda's victory further empowers Poland's ruling Law and Justice party which has worked to weaken the country's independent judiciary and free press.
2 h
npr.org
Federal officers severely wounded a Portland protester. Local leaders blame Trump.
The protester, 26-year-old Donavan LaBella, suffered a fractured skull and required facial reconstruction surgery after a less-than-lethal munition hit him in the head.
2 h
washingtonpost.com
Bull riding, Whac-a-Mole, prisoner release: News from around our 50 states
How the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting every state      
2 h
usatoday.com
Manchester City overturns 2-year ban from Champions League
Manchester City successfully overturned its two-year ban from the Champions League on Monday.
2 h
foxnews.com
Lakers G Rajon Rondo breaks thumb in practice, out 6-8 weeks
Rajon Rondo broke his right thumb in practice with the Los Angeles Lakers in Florida.
2 h
foxnews.com
Fans welcomed to World TeamTennis matches in West Virginia
Tennys Sandgren celebrated a game-clinching point in pandemic-appropriate fashion, retrieving the ball himself in the absence of ball kids, and exchanging an awkward fist-to-elbow bump with a teammate as the World TeamTennis season started before mask-wearing fans on Sunday.
2 h
foxnews.com
Leicester jeopardizes Champions League hopes with collapse
In the top four since September, Leicester's Champions League hopes are no longer so certain.
2 h
foxnews.com
We'll be living with masks for years, pandemics expert predicts
Johns Hopkins' Eric Toner also says he thinks the U.S. will need another lockdown to try to curb the COVID-19 pandemic.
2 h
cbsnews.com
Depp in witness box for 5th day at lawsuit over abuse claims
Johnny Depp is expected to wrap up his evidence at his libel trial against a tabloid newspaper that accused him of abusing ex-wife Amber Heard
2 h
washingtonpost.com