The virus is surging again. Here’s how to be your own contact tracer if you get sick.
As the pandemic crests into the second half of its third year, highly transmissible, immunity-evading Covid-19 variants are fueling another spike in infections. While Covid-19 fatigue and official case data might indicate a modest wave of positive cases, at-home test results are largely unaccounted for in published data. Just as the infrastructure of testing has largely turned to the individual given the closure of many public testing sites, so has contact tracing. In the event someone tests positive for Covid-19, the responsibility has now fallen onto that person to inform their network.
“These conversations, compared to a few years ago, are not only much more widely accepted,” says Donald Yealy, chief medical officer at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, “they’re actually expected more. It’s an act of kindness to share that.”
By telling those you’ve recently interacted with that you’ve gotten sick, you’re empowering them with the knowledge to get tested and to isolate, hopefully to further prevent spread — especially to older or immunocompromised people.
Who to tell
You don’t need to alert everyone in your contacts list that you’ve come down with Covid-19, but you should inform the people who are most likely to have picked up the virus from you, Yealy says: People you were within six feet of indoors — masked or unmasked — as well as people who were within arm’s reach outdoors during the two-day period before you started exhibiting symptoms, or the two-day period before you took a test, if you don’t have symptoms.
While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says to inform anyone who you were around for 15 minutes or more during a 24-hour period, “the virus does gain a foothold more easily now,” Yealy says. “Think of how close was I and for how long? If you’re really close together, within feet of each other or in physical contact, you don’t even need that 15-minute period.” Think: intimate partners, roommates, live-in family members, co-workers, friends you recently saw, your child’s teacher (if your kid has tested positive), hosts of a party or wedding you attended.
Party hosts or organizers of events with more than a few people should tell as many attendees as possible whether they’ve come down with Covid-19 or another guest has. “We often don’t know all of the health conditions of [other attendees],” Yealy says. “We really can have a difficult time quantifying how much and how close the contact. I would advise on sharing the information more widely.” For example, when etiquette expert Lizzie Post, co-president of the Emily Post Institute and author of a number of etiquette books, tested positive for Covid-19 after attending a friend’s Fourth of July party, she texted her host the news, who then informed the rest of the attendees.
If you were at the same event as someone older, or who you knew had underlying health conditions, even if you didn’t necessarily interact with them, “I’d let them know, because their risk of getting infected is higher,” Yealy says.
Of course, there are people you may not know — servers at a restaurant, friends of friends at a party — but you should make the best effort to contact every person you were in close proximity with, Yealy says.
When to share
If you’re feeling sick enough to warrant testing, you should start to inform your network that you could potentially have Covid. Given the relative accessibility of rapid tests, you could have a diagnosis fairly quickly after developing symptoms. But if you’re waiting on an appointment or results from a PCR test, you can still tell your roommates you’ve been exposed, for example, or are under the weather in the interim. Yealy cautions anyone against attending social events, work, or school if they have respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms of any kind.
Of course, once you get a positive diagnosis, whether from a rapid or PCR test, you should work your way through your close contact list. The sooner you let your network know, the better, since available treatments and antivirals are often most effective early in the infection.
How to inform your network
When it comes to the actual message and its mode of delivery, communicate with your contacts the same way you normally would. Prefer text over phone calls? Go for it. Do you typically email book club members? Opt for email. “Get in touch with people in the most common way you communicate with them usually, because that’s what they’re most likely to pay attention to,” Post says.
Be as straightforward as possible in your delivery and stick to the facts: tell them when you tested positive and if you had any symptoms. Post suggests saying something along the lines of “I wanted to let you know I tested positive for Covid-19 today. It seems like when we last saw each other was in the window of when I could’ve picked it up and spread it to others.” The same approach applies to everyone, from friends and family to your boss or children’s school. “I would keep it very factual and direct,” Yealy says.
While we might feel inclined to apologize for exposing others, remember you didn’t intend to get sick, says marriage and family therapist Abby Krom. Accidents happen. “We do have a tendency to blame ourselves, because it is hard to acknowledge that we’re not in control,” she says. “So it’s almost easier to feel in control even if you’re blaming yourself.” If you suggested indoor dining plans despite your friend’s preference for eating outside, for example, then you can say something along the lines of, “I minimized the risk and I realize that was wrong,” Krom suggests.
If you’re informing guests of your event on behalf of another guest who got sick, do not name them, and say “I just wanted to let you know another guest tested positive.”
Managing reactions
While a Covid-19 diagnosis is mired in much less shame than two years ago — an estimated 82 percent of people in the United States have come down with the virus at least once, after all — some people may get less-than-positive reactions when sharing the news. When people are angry or scared, their knee-jerk reaction might be to respond harshly; “How could you be so careless?” or “I was supposed to go to my cousin’s wedding. I can’t believe you’d jeopardize that.”
Take a beat to consider if what they’re saying is true: Were you being careless? Were you knowingly jeopardizing their health or travel plans? “Our instinct is to apologize or take the blame, but that’s not a healthy instinct because it might not be our responsibility,” Krom says. You might need to allow the person space to cool off. Then, to pick up the conversation later, say, “I can tell you were really upset with me. Are you still feeling that way? Can we talk more about that?” Krom suggests.
Another reaction might be genuine curiosity: A friend who inquires about where you think you might’ve caught Covid-19 or to describe your symptoms. Post says it can be helpful for your network to have access to this information so they can determine when they should test and whether they should start to inform their networks of a possible exposure. However, you’re under no obligation to divulge everything, Krom says. Try replying with “I’m a little overwhelmed myself and I’m still digesting the news,” if you’d prefer not to share.
The reality, Post says, is most people will be understanding and thankful for the insight. Out of the nearly two dozen people she informed of her Covid diagnosis, no one was upset. “I definitely felt guilty about the party I had been at and the fact that I had to tell these people, ‘I might have exposed you to Covid,’ and they were really gracious about it,” Post says. “So be gracious if someone tells you they have it. Don’t go to the fear-first mode. Go to information and questions. Get curious, get investigative.”
Even Better is here to offer deeply sourced, actionable advice for helping you live a better life. Do you have a question on money and work; friends, family, and community; or personal growth and health? Send us your question by filling out this form. We might turn it into a story.
Margaret Sullivan and I talk about my new book, The Paradox of Democracy.
It seems like we’re living through a uniquely perilous time for democracy. The threats from disinformation, authoritarianism, and populist movements are all around us, seemingly all the time. And because so much of the disruption is happening online, it all feels very new.
I just co-authored a book with Zac Gershberg, a professor at Idaho State University, called The Paradox of Democracy, and we argue that these threats aren’t new at all, and in fact they’re not threats to democracy in the way we typically think — they’re threats to a certain kind of democracy we’ve gotten used to over the past century or so.
One reason for the turmoil has been a massive shift in our media environment. Digital technologies in particular have introduced more voices and platforms, and that means more conflict and anarchy. All of these changes highlight a contradiction at the core of every democratic culture: The very freedom on which it depends — the freedom of expression — can be used to undermine it from within. This is a pattern that has recurred throughout history, going all the way back to ancient Greece.
I wanted to discuss all of this on Vox Conversations, so I invited Margaret Sullivan, a media columnist at the Washington Post and a former public editor for the New York Times, to join me for an episode. We had a bit of fun with this one — this time, I sat in the guest’s seat and had Sullivan pose the questions to me. Sullivan has spent a ton of time thinking about the intersection of media and democracy, and she also has a forthcoming book called Newsroom Confidential that touches on many of these issues. We talk about the role and limits of free speech, the distinction between liberalism and democracy, and how we might bolster democratic values in our polarized media environment.
Below is an excerpt of our conversation, edited for length and clarity. As always, there’s much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow Vox Conversations on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Margaret Sullivan
There are a lot of books out there right now about democracy, but your book comes at things from quite a different angle. I wonder if you could take us through the thesis as a starting point.
Sean Illing
The angst and fear we have about Twitter and online conspiracy theories and misinformation mirror disruptions we’ve seen in earlier periods of democratic history, especially when we experience massive changes in our media environment.
In ancient Athens, in Rome, free speech and rhetoric were vital to the birth of democracy, but both of those cultures were upended by sophistry and spectacles and crowd-pleasing demagogues.
In the 15th century, the printing press was born and that led to the mass production of books and newspapers, and it helped spawn the Enlightenment as well as the democratic revolutions of the 18th century. But it also paved the way to catastrophic religious conflicts across the continent.
In the 19th century, we have another huge revolution in media and we get the telegraph and then the penny press. These things were essential to spreading liberal democratic norms, but they were also essential in giving early platforms to nativists and nationalists, and that helped prepare the ground for fascism in the 20th century, which wasn’t possible without the new mass media of radio and film. Later in the century, we get TV, and that totally transformed our political culture.
The thing to notice about all these examples is not just that they’re enabled by these revolutions in communications. They also demonstrate the paradox that I’m trying to get at in this book, which is that new media technologies can be used for good or bad ends and there are no guarantees on which way it will go. Facebook gave us both the Arab Spring and QAnon. But when these big revolutions happen, they upend and disrupt democratic cultures over and over again.
Margaret Sullivan
You use the term “liberal democracy” a lot in an attempt to differentiate it from democracy as such. What do you mean by that? We should define the terms here.
Sean Illing
Democracy and liberalism are very different things, even though they’re often mixed up together. We think democracy is fundamentally a decision to open up the public sphere and let people speak freely. It really is a culture of open communication, which is why we say that democracy is largely free expression and its consequences.
Democracy is not just a body of institutions or practices, or just a process for choosing leaders. To say that a state is democratic is actually to say relatively very little about how it’s governed. And the book is trying to remind people that instruments of democracy — free expression, an open media environment — can be turned against it.
When we’re talking about liberalism, we’re talking about the defense of minority rights, the rule of law, the peaceful acceptance of transfers of power, and all the institutions and cultural norms that sustain those things.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23906644/Gershberg_Illing_Paradox_9780226681702_jkt_KQ.jpg)
Margaret Sullivan
Part of what you’re saying is that democracy is a communication free-for-all, right? It’s a circus in which anyone can say anything. Should there be limits on speech in that case?
Sean Illing
That’s the question, isn’t it? What does free speech actually mean? We take our cues from the ancient Greeks. They had dueling conceptions of free speech. There was what they called isegoria, which is the right of everyone to participate in a public debate, and that was in conflict with what they called parrhesia, which is the right to speak without limits.
Now, doesn’t that sound familiar? Doesn’t that exactly describe the discourse we’re having now about free speech and its limits? And just like back then, there’s no simple answer. The tension here is precisely the defining tension of democracy. When you let anyone speak, you don’t know what they’re going to say. You don’t know who will be persuaded of what or how they’ll be persuaded, and you don’t know what the consequences of all that will be. But when speech is truly free, everything is kind of up for grabs.
Margaret Sullivan
One thing I’ve wondered about reading your book is how concerned you are about the current state of American democracy, and really the state of global democracy. You come at it from a different point of view, suggesting this is just what democracy looks like, but how worried are you?
Sean Illing
Oh, I’m worried. I think the failure to see this distinction is making it more difficult for us to defend the liberal democracy that we have. Many of us want democracy to be a battle of ideas and policies, rooted in facts and evidence-based discourse.
But I really do see democracy as a competition of communication styles, where every imaginable kind of rhetoric and bullshit artistry and demagoguery is allowed to flourish. And that means it’s a fight, not just between arguments but between clashing rhetorics, between ways of thinking. And it is always, whether we recognize it or not, a battle for power.
So one concern I have is that I don’t think the Democratic Party in this country gets this. I really don’t. Even when they hold power, they seem incapable of exercising it. Why is that? There are probably lots of reasons. But one is that they can’t stop believing that democracy should be practiced in a certain way, and in a certain manner, and in accordance with certain rules. And I think that’s because they’re devoted to liberal democracy.
The Republicans are not devoted to liberal democracy. They’re actually willing to play dice with democracy. Republicans are saying, Look, almost half the country will follow us no matter what we do. Many of them only consume media that affirms their biases anyway. So let’s just seize and exercise power by any means necessary. The overturning of Roe v. Wade is an obvious recent example.
Margaret Sullivan
Right, that’s where you really see it happening —
Sean Illing
Trump’s great contribution was to show the Republican Party what’s actually possible if you stop caring about the liberal democratic game and just go after power. So Democrats accept the constraints of liberalism, and Republicans ruthlessly exploit the advantages our media and our political system afford them. They’re playing different games.
I’m not claiming that liberal democracy is dead. I would never claim that. I mean, it’s a possibility. But I am saying that the age of liberal democracy is over. And that means that this long postwar period of mostly stable liberal democracy was a period in which a gatekeeping media system managed a norms-driven discourse. And that is over.
Now, everyone has the power of mass communication. Now, information is impossible to contain, impossible to control. Now, the state and the elites can’t dictate the stories a society’s telling about itself. There is no monoculture; there is no shared public discourse. It’s a kind of choose-your-own-adventure information space, where you can shop for your preferred version of reality.
Margaret Sullivan
Do you even think these can be addressed? Or do we have to just sit back and let it happen? I’ve spent a lot of time calling out both the right-wing media and the mainstream media for their failures and flaws. Sometimes it gets a response, but I don’t know if it’s changing anything. But can anything change this?
Sean Illing
I think it’s very difficult because the problems begin with our ecology, with the technology that’s governing our politics. To the extent that the problem is at that level, it’s not a simple fix. It may not be fixable at all.
The reason why we think communication should be at the center of how we think about democracy is because it’s so central to how we co-create our world. The world is big, and we don’t have direct access to most of it. So we are relying on imperfect communication technologies to help us understand it. Media ecologists have been pointing out for years that certain kinds of media tend to create certain kinds of social and political environments. And if that’s true, then students of democracy, which is a form of politics uniquely grounded in expression, should probably take this more seriously than we have so far.
But the problems here really are structural. We can’t do anything about the fact that Republicans and Democrats often inhabit opposing epistemological worlds. You and I can’t transcend that problem. We just can’t.
Margaret Sullivan
I want to ask you for at least one thing that could be done in order to move this situation in a good direction. I mean, you talk in your book about state-sponsored revival of local print news, for example. What else is there?
Sean Illing
Well, the thesis of the book is that these core problems are baked into the structure of democracy. But, sure, there are a few things that I hope would bolster our democratic culture.
First, people like to talk about resuscitating civics education, and I have to say I think that’s mostly a waste of time. I mean, it’s fine to teach people how bills become laws. But we’re talking about a world in which people are overwhelmed with choices and bullshit. They should be taught about communication technologies and the rhetorical techniques they rely on so they have some chance of recognizing when and how they’re being manipulated. This sort of media literacy should be universally taught in secondary education.
Second, democracy has to be participatory or it’s meaningless. John Stuart Mill made a very useful distinction between “active” and “passive” citizenship. Today, I think a lot of people feel estranged from the political process; they feel reduced to being spectators of their own democracy. But it’s only through real engagement, real discussion and collective action, that we become members of a democratic community.
And this connects directly with the last thing I’ll say: We have to do something to reinforce local journalism — and, by extension, local politics. We know that citizens trust local news more than national news because it’s more connected with their lived experience. And we know that local newspapers have always been crucial catalysts for the sorts of social connections that make up the backbone of democracy.
What we have now is highly nationalized politics. And a nationalized politics is a more abstract, more narrativized politics, fueled by cable news and social media, and that grinds everything down to the most simplistic right-left tribalism possible. And we think that local, decentralized media should be seen as a right of all citizens. The press clause of the First Amendment affirms the right of access to newspapers. This is something that can be subsidized, federally. And it’s something in principle that Democrats and Republicans should be able to get behind.
Just to be super clear, we know this won’t solve all our problems, not even close. And we know that even a reinvigorated local print media will never be the dominant source of news in the 21st century. But it can at least offer some kind of counterbalance to the fragmented, polarizing impact of broadcast and digital media.
I’m hoping that what we’ve seen in the last several years is a reminder of how fragile this whole thing is. Democracy demands ethical commitments from the public and from politicians. And I think we’ve learned that the values that undergird those commitments — tolerance, respect for minority rights, respect for rule of law, a love of truth and justice — we bring those values to democracy. We force our democracy to bend to those principles. They’re not inherent to democracy itself.
And there are people within our democracy who are mobilizing against those values. And that contest for power is inescapable. But there are lots of examples of people recognizing the threats and mobilizing against them. It’s an ugly, messy affair, but it’s not all bleak.
To hear the rest of the conversation, click here, and be sure to subscribe to Vox Conversations on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Democrats say the reason is over unrelated pending bills
Republicans blocked a bill on Wednesday that many saw as a bipartisan slam dunk, which aimed to expand certain benefits for veterans due to toxic exposure they experienced while deployed, leaving many veterans and their supporters shocked.
The PACT Act, a bill that would have expanded the Department of Veterans Affairs health care to presume veterans whose military service included exposure to burn pits— large trenches dug to burn and dispose of sewage, medical waste and other trash— to be victims of exposure to toxic substances and fumes when they present with certain illnesses. The bill would have removed the burden of proof veterans currently need to show in order to receive assistance.
Both houses of Congress previously passed the bill with the Senate voting 84-14 in June in favor but the the bill was forced into another vote after “administrative issues” were found in its text. After changes were made, it was expected to breeze through Congress and be signed into law by Biden.
However, 25 Republican senators flipped their vote and blocked the bill on Wednesday.
Supporters and activists, such as former talk show host John Stewart, who had gathered at the Capitol hoping for a celebration following the bill’s passing instead were met with frustration. On Thursday, Stewart and others joined lawmakers such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to forcefully call out Republicans for voting down the bill.
“They don’t have to hear it, they don’t have to see it, they don’t have to understand that these are human beings. Do we get it yet, these aren’t heroes, these are men and women,” Stewart said in a speech at the Capitol on Thursday.
With the final tally in the Senate on Wednesday at 55-42 (three abstaining) the exact reason why Republicans flipped, they claim has nothing to do with the bill’s focus, but rather how the funds would be allocated and managed.
Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who lead opposition to the bill, expressed his desire for wanting an amendment focused on budgetary spending.
Tonight, the Senate voted to give us the chance to fix a completely unnecessary budget gimmick in the underlying text of the PACT Act. This gimmick allows $400B in spending completely unrelated to veterans care. pic.twitter.com/TAuE12G8l0
— Senator Pat Toomey (@SenToomey) July 27, 2022