The efforts to undermine Democratic governors who invoked stay-at-home orders are most pronounced in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, all three of which have divided government and are key to President Donald Trump's path to reelection.

A proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed against the estate of the perpetrator of Canada’s worst mass shooting, which left 22 people dead in several Nova Scotia communities last month.

Roughly 19 Canadian crew members aboard Holland America’s MS Koningsdam disembarked at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro, Calif. on Friday while another group of 53 aboard the Emerald Princess is hoping to do the same on Saturday at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Ontario health officials reported 346 new cases of COVID-19 on Saturday morning, the lowest number of new cases since April 6.

There is no time like the present to get creative. Photographer Stephanie Girard is normally bustling about on the set of different photoshoots across Los Angeles but with the ongoing...

As Jada Pinkett Smith suggested, "Grab a tissue!" If you needed a reason to cry happy tears, look no further than the newly released Mother's Day episode of the star's...

We love these products, and we hope you do too. E! has affiliate relationships, so we may get a small share of the revenue from your purchases. Items are sold by the retailer, not E!. One...

Break out the popcorn, because this Mother's Day weekend there are plenty of amazing films to watch! Tomorrow is Mother's Day (so if you are just remembering now, be sure to grab...

Kids, if you've ever wondered why it's a bad idea to have sex at your picturesque lakeside summer camp, look no further. While it didn't invent the idea of punishing teenagers...

The Canadian military is still determining how to raise the wreckage of a military helicopter that crashed into the Mediterranean Sea last week, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Thursday.

Coping with iffy audio quality, occasional feedback loops, new technology and MPs who speak too quickly has resulted in a steep increase in interpreters reporting workplace injuries, according to the union that represents some 70 accredited interpreters who translate English into French and vice versa.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that an agreement has been reached with all provinces and territories to top up the wages of some essential front-line workers including those in long-term care facilities where COVID-19 has spread among both residents and staff, with deadly impact. This comes as the military deployment to long-term care homes is being expanded.

Conservative leadership hopeful Peter MacKay is calling for use of the Magnitsky Act if specific individuals in China can be identified as having suppressed information related to COVID-19.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says it's a fundamental principle of life in Canada that no one should have to go to work if they don't feel safe doing so.

Justin Trudeau says there will be more support from the federal government to help certain sectors of the economy reeling from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

"To use that American expression, he almost took one for the team" Read our live coronavirus updates HERE

Follow our live coronavirus updates HERE Coronavirus: the symptoms

Jeremy Corbyn's allies have been accused of using a report to "smear whistleblowers" and "discredit allegations" of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party during his tenure.

The move comes after revelations that a party investigation claimed to have found "no evidence" of anti-Semitism complaints being handled differently to other forms of complaint.

Labour was embroiled in recriminations today over the leak of an internal report that apparently exonerated Jeremy Corbyn's team of failing to crack down on anti-Semitism and instead blamed his opponents for stoking up controversy to damage him.

Follow our live coronavirus updates HERE Coronavirus: The symptoms

Some 138 prison staff have also contracted the virus in 49 prisons as well as seven prisoner escort and custody services staff.

Legal action has been formally launched against Priti Patel following allegations of bullying from a top civil servant.

MPs have approved hybrid proceedings in the House of Commons with some MPs set to attend via video link amid the coronavirus lockdown.

Dominic Raab will today be grilled over the Government's handling of the coronavirus crisis amid calls for an inquiry into its "slow response".

Follow our live Covid-19 updates HERE

Sir Keir Starmer has called for Labour's inquiry into a leaked anti-Semitism dossier to be concluded in a "matter of months", ahead of a meeting of the party's ruling National Executive Committee.

The EU's chief negotiator has branded progress in post-Brexit talks disappointing and warned the "clock was ticking".

Securing more personal protective equipment was top of the agenda for the Prime Minister as he returned to work, his official spokesman said.

Priti Patel has reportedly been cleared of bullying members of staff after an official investigation.

The investigation into bullying accusations against Priti Patel must be released "as soon as possible", Labour has demanded.

Read the full interview HERE

Too many workers are still falling through cracks in the Covid rescue package, a former cabinet minister warned today as he called for the lockdown to be eased "as quickly as possible".

Jennie Formby has resigned as Labour's general secretary as new leader Sir Keir Starmer reshapes the party.

Sir Keir Starmer has urged the Prime Minister to form a "national consensus" on the next phase of the Government's coronavirus response as ministers work on plans to ease the lockdown.

Theresa May has hit out at world leaders for failing "to forge a coherent international response" to the coronavirus pandemic.

Admission that faster testing might have helped as UK hit by top death toll in Europe

Lockdown measures may start to be lifted on Monday "if we possibly can", Boris Johnson has announced.

Boris Johnson has set out a new target of 200,000 coronavirus tests a day by the end of May, as he admitted he "bitterly regrets" the crisis in care homes.

He also said he "bitterly regrets" the crisis in care homes, where staff have hit out at a lack of testing and PPE. The latest figures show that nursing home fatalities are continuing to rise, standing at 2,794 in the week to April 24, despite deaths in all settings beginning to fall.

Drake dropped a surprise 14-track mixtape and announced his next studio album will be released this summer.

Early in the morning on April 5, 2020, an article appeared on the website Medium with the title “Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret.” The article claimed that the pathology of COVID-19 was completely different from what public health authorities, such as the World Health Organization, had previously described. According to the author, COVID-19 strips the body’s hemoglobin of iron, preventing red blood cells from delivering oxygen and damaging the lungs in the process. It also claimed to explain why hydroxychloroquine, an experimental treatment often hyped by President Trump, should be effective.

The article was published under a pseudonym—libertymavenstock—but the associated account was linked to a Chicagoland man working in finance, with no medical expertise. (His father is a retired M.D., and in a follow-up note posted on a blog called “Small Dead Animals,” the author claimed that the original article was a collaboration between the two of them.) Although it was not cited, the claims were apparently based on a single scientific article that has not yet undergone peer-review or been accepted for publication, along with “anecdotal evidence” scraped from social media.1

While Medium allows anyone to post on their site and does not attempt to fact-check content, this article remained up for less than 24 hours before it was removed for violating Medium’s COVID-19 content policy. Removing the article, though, has not stopped it from making a splash. The original text continues to circulate widely on social media, with users tweeting or sharing versions archived by the Wayback Machine and re-published by a right-wing blog. As of April 12, the article had been tweeted thousands of times.

There is a pandemic of misinformation about COVID-19 spreading on social media sites. Some of this misinformation takes well-understood forms: baseless rumors, intentional disinformation, and conspiracy theories. But much of it seems to have a different character. In recent months, claims with some scientific legitimacy have spread so far, so fast, that even if it later becomes clear they are false or unfounded, they cannot be laid to rest. Instead, they become information zombies, continuing to shamble on long after they should be dead.

It is not uncommon for media sources like Medium to retract articles or claims that turn out to be false or misleading. Neither are retractions limited to the popular press. In fact, they are common in the sciences, including the medical sciences. Every year, hundreds of papers are retracted, sometimes because of fraud, but more often due to genuine errors that invalidate study findings.2 (The blog Retraction Watch does an admirable job of tracking these.)

Reversing mistakes is a key part of the scientific process. Science proceeds in stops and starts. Given the inherent uncertainty in creating new knowledge, errors will be made, and have to be corrected. Even in cases where findings are not officially retracted, they are sometimes reversed— definitively shown to be false, and thus no longer valid pieces of scientific information.3

Researchers have found, however, that the process of retraction or reversal does not always work the way it should. Retracted papers are often cited long after problems are identified,4 sometimes at a rate comparable to that before retraction. And in the vast majority of these cases, the authors citing retracted findings treat them as valid.5 (It seems that many of these authors pull information directly from colleagues’ papers, and trust that it is current without actually checking.) Likewise, medical researchers have bemoaned the fact that reversals in practice sometimes move at a glacial pace, with doctors continuing to use contraindicated therapies even though better practices are available.6

For example, in 2010, the anesthesiologist Scott Reuben was convicted of health care fraud for fabricating data and publishing it without having performed the reported research. Twenty-one of Reuben’s articles were ultimately retracted. And yet, an investigation four years later found half of these articles were still consistently cited, and that only one-fourth of these citations mentioned that the original work was fraudulent.7 Given that Reuben’s work focused on the use of anesthetics, this failure of retraction is seriously disturbing.

Claims with some scientific legitimacy continue to shamble on long after they should be dead.

But why don’t scientific retractions always work? At the heart of the matter lies the fact that information takes on a life of its own. Facts, beliefs, and ideas are transmitted socially, from person to person to person. This means that the originator of an idea soon loses control over it. In an age of instant reporting and social media, this can happen at lightning speed.

The first models of the social spread of information were actually epidemiological models, developed to track the spread of disease. (Yes, these are the very same models now being used to predict the spread of COVID-19.) These models treat individuals as nodes in a network and suppose that information (or disease) can propagate between connected nodes.

Recently, one of us, along with co-authors Travis LaCroix and Anders Geil, repurposed these models to think specifically about failures of retraction and reversal.8 A general feature of retracted information, understood broadly, is that it is less catchy than novel information in the following way. People tend to care about reversals or retractions only when they have already heard the original, false claim. And they tend to share retractions only when those around them are continuing to spread the false claim. This means that retractions actually depend on the spread of false information.

We built a contagion model where novel ideas and retractions can spread from person to person, but where retractions only “infect” those who have already heard something false. Across many versions of this model, we find that while a false belief spreads quickly and indiscriminately, its retraction can only follow in the path of its spread, and typically fails to reach many individuals. To quote Mark Twain, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” In these cases it’s because the truth can’t go anywhere until the lie has gotten there first.

Another problem for retractions and reversals is that it can be embarrassing to admit one was wrong, especially where false claims can have life or death consequences. While scientists are expected to regularly update their views under normal circumstances, under the heat of media and political scrutiny during a pandemic they too may be less willing to publicize reversals of opinion.

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed lives around the world at a startling speed—and scientists have raced to keep up. Academic journals, accustomed to a comparatively glacial pace of operations, have faced a torrent of new papers to evaluate and process, threatening to overwhelm a peer-review system built largely on volunteer work and the honor system.9 Meanwhile, an army of journalists and amateur epidemiologists scour preprint archives and university press releases for any whiff of the next big development in our understanding of the virus. This has created a perfect storm for information zombies—and although it also means erroneous work is quickly scrutinized and refuted, this often makes little difference to how those ideas spread.

Many examples of COVID-19 information zombies look like standard cases of retraction in science, only on steroids. They originate with journal articles written by credentialed scientists that are later retracted, or withdrawn after being refuted by colleagues. For instance, in a now-retracted paper, a team of biologists based in New Delhi, India, suggested that novel coronavirus shared some features with HIV and was likely engineered.10 It appeared on an online preprint archive, where scientists post articles before they have undergone peer review, on January 31; it was withdrawn only two days later, following intense critique of the methods employed and the interpretation of the results by scientists from around the world. Days later, a detailed analysis refuting the article was published in the peer-reviewed journal Emerging Microbes & Infections.11 But a month afterward, the retracted paper was still so widely discussed on social media and elsewhere that it had that highest Altmetric score—a measure of general engagement with scientific research—of any scientific article published or written in the previous eight years. Despite a thorough rejection of the research by the scientific community, the dead information keeps walking.

Other cases are more subtle. One major question with far-reaching implications for the future development of the pandemic is to what extent asymptomatic carriers are able to transmit the virus. The first article reporting on asymptomatic transmission was a letter published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine claiming that a traveler from China to Germany transmitted the disease to four Germans before her symptoms appeared.12 Within four days, Science reported that the article was flawed because the authors of the letter had not actually spoken with the Chinese traveler, and a follow-up phone call by public health authorities confirmed that she had had mild symptoms while visiting Germany after all.13 Even so, the article has subsequently been cited nearly 500 times according to Google Scholar, and has been tweeted nearly 10,000 times, according to Altmetric.

Media reporting on COVID-19 should be linked to authoritative sources that are updated as information changes.

Despite the follow-up reporting on this article’s questionable methods, the New England Journal of Medicine did not officially retract it. Instead, a week after publishing the letter, the journal added a supplemental appendix describing the progression of the patient’s symptoms while in Germany, leaving it to the reader to determine whether the patient’s mild early symptoms should truly count. Meanwhile, subsequent research14, 15 involving different cases has suggested that asymptomatic transmission may be possible after all—though as of April 13, the World Health Organization considers the risk of infection from asymptomatic carriers to be “very low.” It may turn out that transmission of the virus can occur before any symptoms appear, or while only mild symptoms are present, or even in patients who will never go on to present symptoms. Even untangling these questions is difficult, and the jury is still out on their answers. But the original basis for claims of confirmed asymptomatic transmission was invalid, and those sharing them are not typically aware of the fact.

Another widely discussed article, which claims that the antiviral drug hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin, when administered together, are effective treatments for COVID-19 has drawn enormous amounts of attention to these particular treatments, fueled in part by President Trump.16 These claims, too, may or may not turn out to be true—but the article with which they apparently originated has since received a statement of concern from its publisher, noting that its methodology was problematic. Again, we have a claim that rests on shoddy footing, but which is spreading much farther than the objections can.17 And in the meantime, the increased demand for these medications has led to dangerous shortages for patients who have an established need for them.18

The fast-paced and highly uncertain nature of research on COVID-19 has also created the possibility for different kinds of information zombies, which follow a similar pattern as retracted or refuted articles, but with different origins. There have been a number of widely discussed arguments to the effect that the true fatality rate associated with COVID-19 may be ten or even a hundred times lower than early estimates from the World Health Organization, which pegged the so-called “case fatality rate” (CFR)—the number of fatalities per detected case of COVID-19—at 3.4 percent.19-21

Some of these arguments have noted that the case fatality rate in certain countries with extensive testing, such as Iceland, Germany, and Norway, is substantially lower. References to the low CFR in these countries have continued to circulate on social media, even though the CFR in all of these locations has crept up over time. In the academic realm, John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor and epidemiologist, noted in an editorial, “The harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures,” published on March 19 in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, that Germany’s CFR in early March was only 0.2 percent.21 But by mid-April it had climbed to 2.45 percent, far closer to the original WHO estimate. (Ioannidis has not updated the editorial to reflect the changing numbers.) Even Iceland, which has tested more extensively than any other nation, had a CFR of 0.47 percent on April 13, more than 4 times higher than it was a month ago. None of this means that the WHO figure was correct—but it does mean some arguments that it is wildly incorrect must be revisited.

What do we do about false claims that refuse to die? Especially when these claims have serious implications for decision-making in light of a global pandemic? To some degree, we have to accept that in a world with rapid information sharing on social media, information zombies will appear. Still, we must combat them. Science journals and science journalists rightly recognize that there is intense interest in COVID-19 and that the science is evolving rapidly. But that does not obviate the risks of spreading information that is not properly vetted or failing to emphasize when arguments depend on data that is very much in flux.

Wherever possible, media reporting on COVID-19 developments should be linked to authoritative sources of information that are updated as the information changes. The Oxford-based Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine maintains several pages that review the current evidence on rapidly evolving questions connected to COVID-19—including whether current data supports the use of hydroxychloroquine and the current best estimates for COVID-19 fatality rates. Authors and platforms seeking to keep the record straight should not just remove or revise now-false information, but should clearly state what has changed and why. Platforms such as Twitter should provide authors, especially scientists and members of the media, the ability to explain why Tweets that may be referenced elsewhere have been deleted. Scientific preprint archives should encourage authors to provide an overview of major changes when articles are revised.

And we should all become more active sharers of retraction. It may be embarrassing to shout one’s errors from the rooftops, but that is what scientists, journals, and responsible individuals must do to slay the information zombies haunting our social networks.

Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall are an associate professor and professor of logic and philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. They are coauthors of The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread.

Lead image: nazareno / Shutterstock

References

1. Liu, W. & Li, H. COVID-19 attacks the 1-beta chain of hemoglobin and captures the porphyrin to inhibit human heme metabolism. ChemRxiv (2020).

2. Wager, E. & Williams, P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. Journal of Medical Ethics 37, 567-570 (2011).

3. Prasad, V., Gall, V., & Cifu, A. The frequency of medical reversal. Archives of Internal Medicine 171, 1675-1676 (2011).

4. Budd, J.M., Sievert, M., & Schultz, T.R. Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. The Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 296-297 (1998).

5. Madlock-Brown, C.R. & Eichmann, D. The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Science and Engineering Ethics 21, 127-137 (2015).

6. Prasad, V. & Cifu, A. Medical reversal: Why we must raise the bar before adopting new technologies. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 84, 471-478 (2011).

7. Bornemann-Cimenti, H., Szilagyi, I.S., & Sandner-Kiesling, A. Perpetuation of retracted publications using the example of the Scott S. Reuben case: Incidences, reasons and possible improvements. Science and Engineering Ethics 22, 1063-1072 (2016).

8. LaCroix, T., Geil, A., & O’Connor, C. The dynamics of retraction in epistemic networks. Preprint. (2019).

9. Jarvis, C. Journals, peer reviewers cope with surge in COVID-19 publications. The Scientist (2020).

10. Pradhan, P., et al. Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag. bioRxiv (2020).

11. Xiao, C. HIV-1 did not contribute to the 2019-nCoV genome. Journal of Emerging Microbes and Infections 9, 378-381 (2020).

12. Rothe, C., et al. Transmission of 2019-nCoV infection from an asymptomatic contact in Germany. New England Journal of Medicine 382, 970-971 (2020).

13. Kupferschmidt, K. Study claiming new coronavirus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed. Science (2020).

14. Hu, Z., et al. Clinical characteristics of 24 asymptomatic infections with COVID-19 screened among close contacts in Nanjing, China. Science China Life Sciences (2020). Retrieved from doi: 10.1007/s11427-020-1661-4.

15. Bai, R., et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. The Journal of the American Medical Association 323, 1406-1407 (2020).

16. Gautret, P., et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (2020).

17. Ferner, R.E. & Aronson, J.K. Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: What do the clinical trials tell us? The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2020).

18. The Arthritis Foundation. Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) shortage causing concern. Arthritis.org (2020).

19. Oke, J. & Heneghan, C. Global COVID-19 case fatality rates. The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2020).

20. Bendavid, E. & Bhattacharya, J. Is the coronavirus as deadly as they say? The Wall Street Journal (2020).

21. Ionnidis, J.P.A. Coronavirus disease 2019: The harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 50, e13222 (2020).

Social, cultural, economic, spiritual, psychological, emotional, intellectual: Everything is outside the box. And this new sheltered-in-place experience won’t fit into old containers.Photo Illustration by Africa Studio / Shutterstock

Many of us are stuck now, sheltered in our messy dwellings. A daily walk lets me appreciate the urban landscaping; but I can’t stop to smell anything because a blue cotton bandana shields my nostrils. Indoors, constant digital dispatches chirp to earn my attention. I click on memes, status updates, and headlines, but everything is more of the same. How many ways can we repackage fear and reframe optimism? I mop the wood-laminate floor of my apartment because I hope “ocean paradise” scented Fabuloso will make my home smell a little less confining. My thoughts waft toward the old cliché: Think outside the box. I’ve always hated when people say that.

To begin with, the directions are ineffectual. You can’t tell someone to think outside the box and expect them to do it. Creativity doesn’t happen on demand. Want proof? Just try to make yourself think a brilliant thought, something original, innovative, or unique. Go ahead. Do it. Right now. You can’t, no matter how hard you try. This is why ancient people believed that inspiration comes from outside. It’s external, bestowed on each of us like a revelation or prophecy—a gift from the Muses. Which means your genius does not belong to you. The word “genius” is the Latin equivalent of the ancient Greek “daemon” (δαίμονες)—like a totem animal, or a spirit companion. A genius walks beside us. It mediates between gods and mortals. It crosses over from one realm to the next. It whispers divine truth.

We are paralyzed by the prospect of chaos, uncertainty, and entropy.

In modern times, our mythology moves the daemons away from the heavens and into the human soul. We say, “Meditate and let your spirit guide you.” Now we think genius comes from someplace deep within. The mind? The brain? The heart? Nobody knows for sure. Yet, it seems clear to us that inspiration belongs to us; it’s tangibly contained within our corporeal boundaries. That’s why we celebrate famous artists, poets, physicists, economists, entrepreneurs, and inventors. We call them visionaries. We read their biographies. We do our best to emulate their behaviors. We study the five habits of highly successful people. We practice yoga. We exercise. We brainstorm, doodle, sign up for online personal development workshops. We do whatever we can to cultivate the fertile cognitive soil in which the springtime seeds of inspiration might sprout. But still, even though we believe that a genius is one’s own, we know that we cannot direct it. Therefore, no matter how many people tell me to think outside the box, I won’t do it. I can’t. 

Even if I could, I’m not sure thinking outside the box would be worthwhile. Consider the origins of the phrase. It started with an old brain teaser. Nine dots are presented in a perfect square, lined up three by three. Connect them all, using only four straight lines, without lifting your pencil from the paper. It’s the kind of puzzle you’d find on the back of a box of Lucky Charms breakfast cereal, frivolous but tricky. The solution involves letting the lines expand out onto the empty page, into the negative space. Don’t confine your markings to the dots themselves. You need to recognize, instead, that the field is wider than you’d assume. In other words, don’t interpret the dots as a square, don’t imagine that the space is constricted. Think outside the box! 

For years, pop-psychologists, productivity coaches, and business gurus have all used the nine-dot problem to illustrate the difference between “fixation” and “insight.” They say that we look at markings on a page and immediately try to find a pattern. We fixate on whatever meaning we can ascribe to the image. In this case, we assume that nine dots make a box. And we imagine we’re supposed to stay within its boundaries—contained and confined. We bring habitual assumptions with us even though we’re confronting a unique problem. Why? Because we are paralyzed by the prospect of chaos, uncertainty, and entropy. We cling to the most familiar ways of organizing things in order to mitigate the risk that new patterns might not emerge at all, the possibility that meaning itself could cease to exist. But this knee-jerk reaction limits our capacity for problem-solving. Our customary ways of knowing become like a strip of packing tape that’s accidentally affixed to itself—you can struggle to undo it, but it just tangles up even more. In other words, your loyalty to the easiest, most common interpretations is the sticky confirmation bias that prevents you from arriving at a truly insightful solution. 

At least that’s what the experts used to say. And we all liked to believe it. But our minds don’t really work that way. The box parable appeals because it reinforces our existing fantasies about an individual’s proclivity to innovate and disrupt by thinking in unexpected ways. It’s not true. 

Studies have found that solving the nine-dot problem has nothing to do with the box. Even when test subjects were told that the solution requires going outside the square’s boundaries, most of them still couldn’t solve it. There was an increase in successful attempts so tiny that it was considered statistically insignificant, proving that the ability to arrive at a solution to the nine-dot problem has nothing to do with fixation or insight. The puzzle is just difficult, no matter which side of the box you’re standing on.

Still, I bet my twelve-year-old son could solve it. Yesterday, we unpacked a set of oil paints, delivered by Amazon. He was admiring the brushes and canvases. He was thinking about his project, trying to be creative, searching for insight. “Think inside the outside of the box,” he said.  “What does that mean?” I pushed the branded, smiling A-to-Z packaging aside and I looked at him like he was crazy. “Like with cardboard, you know, with all the little holes inside.” 

He was talking about the corrugations, those ridges that are pasted between layers of fiberboard. They were originally formed on the same fluted irons used to make the ruffled collars of Elizabethan-era fashion. At first, single faced corrugated paper—smooth on one side, ridged on the other—was used to wrap fragile glass bottles. Then, around 1890, the double-faced corrugated fiberboard with which we’re familiar was developed. And it transformed the packing and shipping industries. The new paperboard boxes were sturdy enough to replace wooden crates. It doesn’t take an engineering degree to understand how it works: The flutes provide support; the empty space in between makes it lightweight. My son is right; it’s all about what’s inside the outside of the box.

Now I can’t stop saying it to myself, “Think inside the outside of the box.” It’s a perfect little metaphor. In a way, it even sums up the primary cognitive skill I acquired in graduate school. One could argue that a PhD just means you’ve been trained to think inside the outside of boxes. What do I mean by that? Consider how corrugation gives cardboard it’s structural integrity. The empty space—what’s not there—makes it strong and light enough that it’s a useful and efficient way to carry objects. Similarly, it’s the intellectual frameworks that make our interpretations and analyses of the world hold up. An idea can’t stand on its own; it needs a structure and a foundation. It needs a box. It requires a frame. And by looking at how those frames are assembled, by seeing how they carry a concept through to communication, we’re able to do our best thinking. We look at the empty spaces—the invisible, or tacit assumptions—which lurk within the fluted folds of every intellectual construction. We recognize that our conscious understanding of lived experience is corrugated just like cardboard. 

The famous sociologist Erving Goffman said as much in 1974 when he published his essay on “Frame Analysis.” He encouraged his readers to identify the principles of organization which govern our perceptions. This work went on to inspire countless political consultants, pundits, publicists, advertisers, researchers, and marketers. It’s why we now talk often about the ways in which folks “frame the conversation.” But I doubt my son has read Goffman. He just stumbled on a beautifully succinct way to frame the concept of critical thinking. Maybe he was inspired by Dr. Seuss. 

When my kids were little, they asked for the same story every night, “Read Sneetches Daddy!” I could practically recite the whole thing from memory: “Now, the Star-belly Sneetches had bellies with stars. The Plain-belly Sneetches had none upon thars.” It’s an us-versus-them story, a fable about the way a consumption economy encourages people to compete for status, and to alienate the “other.” If you think inside the outside of the box, it’s also a scathing criticism of a culture that’s obsessed with personal and professional transformation—always reinventing and rebranding. 

One day, Sylvester McMonkey McBean shows up on the Sneetches’ beaches with a peculiar box-shaped fix-it-up machine. Sneetches go in with plain-bellies and they come out with stars. Now, anyone can be anything, for a fee. McBean charges them a fortune; he exploits the Sneetches’ insecurities. He builds an urgent market demand for transformational products. He preys on their most familiar—and therefore, cozy and comforting—norms of character assessment. He disrupts their identity politics, makes it so that there’s no clear way to tell who rightfully belongs with which group. And as a result, chaos ensues. Why? Because the Sneetches discover that longstanding divisive labels and pejorative categories no longer provide a meaningful way to organize their immediate experiences. They’ve lost their frames, the structural integrity of their worldview. They feel unhinged, destabilized, unboxed, and confused.

Social, cultural, economic, spiritual, psychological, emotional, intellectual: Everything is outside the box.

It should sound familiar. After all, we’ve been living through an era in history that’s just like the Sneetches’. The patterns and categories we heretofore used to define self and other are being challenged every day—sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. How can we know who belongs where in a digital diaspora, a virtual panacea, where anyone can find “my tribe”? What do identity, allegiance, heredity, and loyalty even mean now that these ideas can be detached from biology and birthplace? Nobody knows for sure. And that’s just the beginning: We’ve got Sylvester-McMonkey-McBean-style disruption everywhere we look. Connected technologies have transformed the ways in which we make sense of our relationships, how we communicate with one another, our definitions of intimacy. 

Even before the novel coronavirus, a new global paradigm forced us to live and work in a world that’s organized according to a geopolitical model we can barely comprehend. Sure, the familiar boundaries of statehood sometimes prohibited migrant foot traffic—but information, microbes, and financial assets still moved swiftly across borders, unimpeded. Similarly, cross-national supply-chains rearranged the rules of the marketplace. High-speed transportation disrupted how we perceive the limits of time and space. Automation upset the criteria through which we understand meritocracy and self-worth. Algorithms and artificial intelligence changed the way we think about labor, employment, and productivity. Data and privacy issues blurred the boundaries of personal sovereignty. And advances in bioengineering shook up the very notion of human nature.

Our boxes were already bursting. And now, cloistered at home in the midst of a pandemic, our most mundane work-a-day routines are dissolved, making it feel like our core values and deeply-held beliefs are about to tumble out all over the place. We can already envision the mess that is to come—in fact, we’re watching it unfurl in slow motion. Soon, the world will look like the intellectual, emotional, and economic equivalent of my 14-year-old’s bedroom. Dirty laundry is strewn across the floor, empty candy wrappers linger on dresser-tops, mud-caked sneakers are tossed in the corner, and the faint yet unmistakable stench of prepubescent body odor is ubiquitous. Nothing is copasetic. Nothing is in its place. Instead, everything is outside the box. 

It’s not creative, inspiring, or insightful. No, it’s disorienting and anxiety-provoking. I want to tidy it up as quickly as possible. I want to put things back in their familiar places. I want to restore order and eliminate chaos. But no matter how hard I try, I can’t do it, because the old boxes are ripped and torn. Their bottoms have fallen out. Now, they’re useless. Social, cultural, economic, spiritual, psychological, emotional, intellectual: Everything is outside the box. And this new sheltered-in-place experience won’t fit into old containers.

Jordan Shapiro, Ph.D., is a senior fellow for the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop and Nonresident Fellow in the Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institution. He teaches at Temple University, and wrote a column for Forbes on global education and digital play from 2012 to 2017. His book, The New Childhood, was released by Little, Brown Spark in December 2018.

What is this pandemic doing to our minds? Polls repeatedly show it’s having an adverse effect on our mental health. Physical distancing, for some, means social isolation, which has long been shown to encourage depression. Previous disasters have been followed by waves of depression, exacerbated by financial distress. The situation also puts us in a state of fear and anxiety—anxiety about financial strain, about being lonely, about the very lives of ourselves and our loved ones.

This fear can also bring out some of the everyday irrationalities we all struggle with. We have trouble thinking about numbers—magnitudes, probabilities, and the like—and when frightened we tend toward absolutes. Feeling powerless makes people more prone to conspiracy theories. We naturally believe that big effects should have big causes, and we see with the current coronavirus, as we did with AIDS and SARS, conspiracy theories claiming that the virus was engineered as a weapon.

We are seeing the theory of “collective resilience,” an informal solidarity among people, in action.

These psychological ramifications can make us fail to behave as well as we should. We have what psychologists call a “behavioral immune system” that makes us behave in ways that, in general, make us less likely to catch infectious disease. Things we perceive as being risky for disease makes us wary. An unfortunate side effect is that it increases prejudice against foreigners, people with visible sores or deformities, and people we perceive as simply being ugly. Politically, this can result in xenophobia and outgroup distrust. Coronavirus-related attacks, possibly encouraged by the misleading term “Chinese virus,” have plagued some ethnic Asian people.

And yet, in spite of all of the harm the pandemic seems to be wreaking on our minds, there are also encouraging acts of kindness and solidarity. In turbulent times, people come together and help each other.

In the days after the World Trade Center fell, it wasn’t just the police, hospitals, and firefighters who came forward to help, it was normal citizens who often put themselves at risk to help other people out. An equities trader named Sandler O’Neill helped rescue a dozen people and then went back to save more. A tour guide at the Pentagon helped victims outside, and then went back in the burning building to help more. We find these kinds of behaviors in every disaster.

During this pandemic, we see the same thing. Some acts are small and thoughtful, such as putting encouraging signs in windows. Others have made games out of window signs, putting up rainbows for children on walks to count. Some show support for health care and other frontline workers, applauding or banging on pots on their balconies and at windows in a nightly ritual. Others are helping in more substantial ways. In the United Kingdom, over half a million people signed up to be a National Health Volunteer, supporting the most vulnerable people, who have to stay home.

John Drury, a professor of social psychology at the University of Sussex, England, who studies people’s behavior in disasters, has seen these acts of kindness in his own neighborhood over the past month. He and his neighbors set up a WhatsApp group to help one another with shopping. “I think that translates across the country and probably across the world,” Drury says. “People are seeing themselves as an us, a new kind of we, based on the situation that we all find ourselves in. You’ve got this idea of common fate, which motivates our care and concern for others.”

We have always been a social species who rely on each other for happiness and our survival.

Drury is the pioneer of a theory known as “collective resilience,” which he describes as “informal solidarity among people in the public.” Drury’s study of the 2005 London bombing disaster found that mutual helping behaviors were more common than selfish ones. This basic finding has been replicated in other disasters, including the crash of the Ghana football stadium and the 2010 earthquake and tsunami in Chile. In disasters, Drury says, people reach heights of community and cooperation they’ve never reached before.

It turns out that being in a dangerous situation with others fosters a new social identity. Boundaries between us, which seem so salient when things are normal, disappear when we perceive we’re locked in a struggle together, with a common fate, from an external threat. People go from me thinking to we thinking. Respondents in studies about disasters often spontaneously bring up this feeling of group cohesion without being asked. The greater unity they felt, the more they helped.

Popular conceptions of how people respond in a crisis involve helplessness, selfishness, and panic. In practice, though, this rarely happens. “One of the reasons people die in emergencies isn’t overreaction, it’s underreaction,” Drury says. “People die in fires mainly because they’re too slow. They underestimate risk.” The myth of panic can lead to emergency policies that do more harm than good. At one point during Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana governor at the time Kathleen Blanco warned looters that National Guard troops “know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so if necessary, and I expect they will.” A few days later, New Orleans police officers shot six civilians, wounding four and killing two.

People revert to selfishness when group identity starts to break down. Drury describes how people acted when the cruise ship, Costa Concordia sank off the coast of Italy in 2012. “There was cooperation until one point, when people got to the lifeboats and there was pushing,” Drury says. “Selfishness isn’t a default because many times people are cooperative. It’s only in certain conditions that people might become selfish and individualistic. Perhaps there isn’t a sense of common fate, people are positioned as individuals against individuals. After a period of time, people run out of energy, run out of emotional energy, run out of resources, and that goodwill, that support, starts to decline. They just haven’t got the resources to help each other.”

Perceptions of group behavior can shape public policy. It’s important that policymakers, rather than seeing groups as problems to be overcome, which can lead to riots and mob behavior, take account of how people in groups help one another. After all, we have always been a social species who rely on each other for happiness and our survival. And groups can achieve things that individuals cannot. This understanding couldn’t be more important than now. We can build on people’s naturally arising feelings of unity by emphasizing that we are all in this together, and celebrating the everyday heroes who, sometimes at great cost, go out of their way to make the pandemic a little less awful.

Jim Davies is a professor of cognitive science at Carleton University and author of Imagination: The Science of Your Mind’s Greatest Power. He is co-host of the Minding the Brain podcast.

Lead image: Franzi / Shutterstock

When I worked as a TV reporter covering health and science, I would often be recognized in public places. For the most part, the interactions were brief hellos or compliments. Two periods of time stand out when significant numbers of those who approached me were seeking detailed information: the earliest days of the pandemic that became HIV/AIDS and during the anthrax attacks shortly following 9/11. Clearly people feared for their own safety and felt their usual sources of information were not offering them satisfaction. Citizens’ motivation to seek advice when they feel they aren’t getting it from official sources is a strong indication that risk communication is doing a substandard job. It’s significant that one occurred in the pre-Internet era and one after. We can’t blame a public feeling misinformed solely on the noise of the digital age.

America is now opening up from COVID-19 lockdown with different rules in different places. In many parts of the country, people have been demonstrating, even rioting, for restrictions to be lifted sooner. Others are terrified of loosening the restrictions because they see COVID-19 cases and deaths still rising daily. The officials deciding what to open, and when, seldom offer thoughtful rationales. Clearly, risk communication about COVID-19 is failing with potentially dire consequences.

A big part of maintaining credibility is to admit to uncertainty—something politicians are loath to do.

Peter Sandman is a foremost expert on risk communication. A former professor at Rutgers University, he was a top consultant with the Centers for Disease Control in designing crisis and emergency risk-communication, a field of study that combines public health with psychology. Sandman is known for the formula Risk = Hazard + Outrage. His goal is to create better communication about risk, allowing people to assess hazards and not get caught up in outrage at politicians, public health officials, or the media. Today, Sandman is a risk consultant, teamed with his wife, Jody Lanard, a pediatrician and psychiatrist. Lanard wrote the first draft of the World Health Organization’s Outbreak Communications Guidelines. “Jody and Peter are seen as the umpires to judge the gold standard of risk communications,” said Michael Osterholm of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. Sandman and Lanard have posted a guide for effective COVID-19 communication on the center’s website.

I reached out to Sandman to expand on their advice. We communicated through email.

Sandman began by saying he understood the protests around the country about the lockdown. “It’s very hard to warn people to abide by social-distancing measures when they’re so outraged that they want to kill somebody and trust absolutely nothing people say,” he told me. “COVID-19 outrage taps into preexisting grievances and ideologies. It’s not just about COVID-19 policies. It’s about freedom, equality, too much or too little government. It’s about the arrogance of egghead experts, left versus right, globalism versus nationalism versus federalism. And it’s endlessly, pointlessly about Donald Trump.”

Since the crisis began, Sandman has isolated three categories of grievance. He spelled them out for me, assuming the voices of the outraged:

• “In parts of the country, the response to COVID-19 was delayed and weak; officials unwisely prioritized ‘allaying panic’ instead of allaying the spread of the virus; lockdown then became necessary, not because it was inevitable but because our leaders had screwed up; and now we’re very worried about coming out of lockdown prematurely or chaotically, mishandling the next phase of the pandemic as badly as we handled the first phase.”

• “In parts of the country, the response to COVID-19 was excessive—as if the big cities on the two coasts were the whole country and flyover America didn’t need or didn’t deserve a separate set of policies. There are countless rural counties with zero confirmed cases. Much of the U.S. public-health profession assumes and even asserts without building an evidence-based case that these places, too, needed to be locked down and now need to reopen carefully, cautiously, slowly, and not until they have lots of testing and contact-tracing capacity. How dare they destroy our economy (too) just because of their mishandled outbreak!”

• “Once again the powers-that-be have done more to protect other people’s health than to protect my health. And once again the powers-that-be have done more to protect other people’s economic welfare than to protect my economic welfare!” (These claims can be made with considerable truth by healthcare workers; essential workers in low-income, high-touch occupations; residents of nursing homes; African-Americans; renters who risk eviction; the retired whose savings are threatened; and others.)

In their article for the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, Sandman and Lanard point out that coping with a pandemic requires a thorough plan of communication. This is particularly important as the crisis is likely to enter a second wave of infection, when it could be more devastating. The plan starts with six core principles: 1) Don’t over-reassure, 2) Proclaim uncertainty, 3) Validate emotions—your audience’s and your own, 4) Give people things to do, 5) Admit and apologize for errors, and 6) Share dilemmas. To achieve the first three core principles, officials must immediately share what they know, even if the information may be incomplete. If officials share good news, they must be careful not to make it too hopeful. Over-reassurance is one of the biggest dangers in crisis communication. Sandman and Lanard suggest officials say things like, “Even though the number of new confirmed cases went down yesterday, I don’t want to put too much faith in one day’s good news.” 

Sandman and Lanard say a big part of maintaining credibility is to admit to uncertainty—something politicians are loath to do. They caution against invoking “science” as a sole reason for action, as science in the midst of a crisis is “incremental, fallible, and still in its infancy.” Expressing empathy, provided it’s genuine, is important, Sandman and Lanard say. It makes the bearer more human and believable. A major tool of empathy is to acknowledge the public’s fear as well as your own. There is good reason to be terrified about this virus and its consequences on society. It’s not something to hide.

Sandman and Lanard say current grievances with politicians, health officials, and the media, about how the crisis has been portrayed, have indeed been contradictory. But that makes them no less valid. Denying the contradictions only amplifies divisions in the public and accelerates the outrage, possibly beyond control. They strongly emphasize one piece of advice. “Before we can share the dilemma of how best to manage any loosening of the lockdown, we must decisively—and apologetically—disabuse the public of the myth that, barring a miracle, the COVID-19 pandemic can possibly be nearing its end in the next few months.”

Robert Bazell is an adjunct professor of molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at Yale. For 38 years, he was chief science correspondent for NBC News.

The version published in China Daily omitted a reference to the illness originating in China and spreading to the rest of the world. The piece was published in full on the authors' websites.

Visitors' health status will be checked on a smartphone app before they enter the park. Once inside, they will be required to wear face masks at all times unless they are eating.