Coronavirus Means It's Even More Urgent to Fix California's Housing Crisis Rent and eviction freezes can create more problems than they solve and can’t last forever. Failing to build more housing will ultimately make the pandemic’s toll worse. by Michael D. Tanner and David Hervey

For Californians who have long opposed building more housing in their communities, COVID-19 has provided a new and seemingly convincing argument: density is dangerous. Some have even suggested that the pandemic vindicates proponents of “single‐​family sprawl” or justifies a moratorium on new housing legislation, which are views these observers would likely hold regardless of the current crisis.

At first glance, the argument against density seems correct, but evidence suggests there are other factors at play. A virus that transmits person to person is much more likely to spread in areas where large numbers of people congregate. That’s one reason why urban centers like New York City, Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles have been hit hard. And, it is the logic behind social distancing. But, as with so many anti‐​housing arguments, there is less here than meets the eye.

Simply look at those Asian countries that have done a far better job of containing the virus than we have, despite extreme density. For example, Seoul, South Korea is about 50 percent denser than NYC but has had less than one percent as many cases per capita. Likewise, extremely dense Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taipei have held their infection rates to much lower levels than cities in this country. Undoubtedly, previous experience with infectious diseases like SARS improved not only governments’ responses to the current crisis but also individuals’ responses, vastly outweighing any effect density may have had.

Turning to Europe, we also find the link between density and infections to be weaker than expected. Berlin, for instance, is about four times as dense as France’s Ile‐​de‐​France region (which includes Paris) and only slightly less dense than London but has only about half as many COVID-19 cases as either, on a per capita basis. Density clearly wasn’t the central determinant here: other factors had a much bigger impact.

Even looking at New York City and its surrounding environs shows a muddled picture, with less dense Westchester and Suffolk counties showing higher infection rates than extremely dense Manhattan. And, in California, San Francisco has a lower infection rate than Los Angeles, despite being about six times denser. Perhaps even more surprisingly, San Francisco’s infection rate is about the same as Kansas’ (2.24 cases per thousand San Franciscans versus 2.54 cases per thousand Kansans).

In addition, we should remember that California’s lack of affordable housing creates its own kind of density, one that is even more conducive to the virus’s spread. There is a big difference between people in their own apartments in a dense multi‐​family structure and several roommates jammed together in a tiny space because it is all that is available or affordable.

A study of COVID-19 cases in New York showed that crowding (generally defined as more than one resident per bedroom) contributed to higher rates of COVID-19, while density, in general, did not. The data from California also indicates this: San Diego County, with about 7% of households living in crowded homes, has a lower rate of coronavirus infections than either Los Angeles or San Francisco counties, which have higher rates of crowding. Conversely, Los Angeles County, with a higher rate of crowding (about 11%) has the highest infection rate of the three counties. San Francisco’s crowding rate is only slightly higher than San Diego’s. at 7.1%, and this helps explain its similarly‐​low infection rate.

California’s lack of affordable housing also contributes to the state’s growing homelessness crisis. Yet, the homeless are both extremely vulnerable to infection and a potential source of spread to the population at large. In addition to makeshift efforts to get the homeless off the streets by housing them in hotels or other temporary fixes, California would be well‐​served by ensuring a bigger supply of affordable housing.

Moreover, the economic toll from the pandemic and “shelter in place” orders will fall most heavily on California’s poorest citizens, many of whom are already one missed paycheck away from homelessness. Rent and eviction freezes can create more problems than they solve and can’t last forever. Failing to build more housing will ultimately make the pandemic’s toll worse.

In turns out that the evidence of the impact of California’s excessive housing regulations is far stronger and more convincing than arguments about density and coronavirus. We know that strict zoning and density regulations prevent the construction of affordable housing in America’s urban areas. We also know that many of these laws are part of America’s history of institutional racism and segregation. The COVID-19 crisis does not change these facts.

Perceptions and expectations, whether they are accurate or not, have a way of shaping future behavior and policymaking. Housing affordability will remain a problem for America’s cities long after the current crisis subsides. We can’t afford to let misinterpretations of the pandemic’s causes get in the way of long‐​term efforts to relax the outdated restrictions that prevent affordable housing in so many of California’s cities.

Post-Coronavirus Asia: A Land of Great Power Tensions Set to Boil Over? Discussion has flourished about what kind of "new" world will emerge after the coronavirus pandemic recedes. There is nothing new about hoping a global crisis will generate peace and cooperation, and nothing new about how it will turn out. The world will go on as before because nothing has changed geopolitically in the last few months other than major trends have accelerated. A quick tour around the Indo-Pacific region shows continued tension and conflict. by William R. Hawkins

Discussion has flourished about what kind of "new" world will emerge after the coronavirus pandemic recedes. There is nothing new about hoping a global crisis will generate peace and cooperation, and nothing new about how it will turn out. The world will go on as before because nothing has changed geopolitically in the last few months other than major trends have accelerated. A quick tour around the Indo-Pacific region shows continued tension and conflict.  

On May 8, a gun battle erupted when Chinese troops crossed the border into Muguthang Valley in Sikkim province, a long-disputed region under Indian control but which Beijing claims is being illegally occupied. Tensions have been rising since January. In April, a Chinese “surveillance” ship rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing boat in a disputed area of the South China Sea. Both countries claim sovereignty over what Hanoi calls the Hoang Sa archipelago and Beijing calls the Paracel islands. Besides sitting across vital shipping lanes, the islands also mean access to potentially rich undersea energy and mineral resources. Beijing has claimed Sikkim and the entire South China Sea as its territory based on the long past historical domination of these areas by Imperial China. 

On May 4, the Ministry of National Defense confirmed that China will establish an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea, to match the one they have in the East China Sea where they have disputes with Japan. An ADIZ requires all aircraft to identify themselves, the point of which is to acknowledge the official expansion of Chinese airspace over the expanded maritime domain it claims. 

The United States, along with other maritime powers including Japan, India, the United Kingdom, and France have conducted "freedom of navigation" operations to demonstrate their rejection of Beijing's territorial claims. On April 28, the People’s Liberation Army boasted it had “expelled a US warship that trespassed into Chinese territorial waters off the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea.” The story in Global Times, the media outlet of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, featured a photo of a Chinese warship firing a missile, but no shots were fired in the confrontation.  By its own accounts, all the PLA did was “organize naval and aerial forces to follow the U.S. guided missile destroyer USS Barry.” They warned it to leave the area and claimed it had been expelled when all it did was complete its transit through the area. A bold PLA claim for propaganda purposes that further raised tensions. As the Global Times story asserted, “US warships and aircraft have been frequently operating in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Taiwan Strait recently. Chinese troops will resolutely fulfill their duty, safeguard national sovereignty and security as well as peace and stability in the South China Sea.” In Beijing’s view, it is the United States and its allies who are provoking conflict by upholding international law.

The Taiwan Strait deserves mention as tensions are mounting there in the wake of the re-election of President Tsai Ing-wen. She leads the Democratic Progressive Party which is based on Taiwanese nationalism. The DPP has been growing in strength as younger generations have come to identify themselves as Taiwanese, not Chinese. Taiwan has been governed from Beijing for only four years (1945 to 1949) out of the last 125. A May 11 article in the South China Morning Post claimed that Beijing was trying to tap down rising “nationalist fervor” on Chinese social media calling for an invasion of Taiwan. The article also noted, “recently a number of commentators and retired military commanders have called for Beijing to retake control of the island….Some former military leaders have argued that the United States – which is bound by law to help the Taiwanese government defend itself – is presently unable to do so because all four of its aircraft carriers in the Pacific have been affected by the Covid-19 outbreak.” After the U.S. aircraft carriers Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan had to return to port to handle flu cases among their crews, China sent its carrier Liaoning with its escorts through the “first island chain” into the Pacific to demonstrate it was the local superpower. The United States responded by bringing in reinforcements and stepping up its operating tempo to counter any perception of weakness. 

A previous SCMP article cited Chinese strategists as fearing an invasion of the democratic island would be too costly and that Beijing will have to mobilize greater strength to do so. However, a lengthy essay published on May 12 by the PLA reported “The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) has carried out combat readiness patrols in the Taiwan Strait region on many occasions…since February this year” and that its troops “are determined and capable of thwarting all ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist activities.” The article carried a direct threat to America at its conclusion, stating in bold type. “The Taiwan question is China's core interest and the bottom line of China that cannot be challenged” and that if the United States “repeatedly probes and even breaks through China's bottom line, it will eventually bring fire to itself.” President Xi Jinping is adamant that Taiwan “must and will” be absorbed into the mainland and during his tenure in office if possible. 

Further north, Japan has released its 2020 East Asian Strategic Review. The report proclaims a "free and open Indo-Pacific" that goes beyond the Japan-U.S. alliance to expand military cooperation with South Korea, Australia, India, and within ASEAN. It has already signed “Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements” with the armed forces of Australia, the UK, Canada, and France. Another is pending with India. It also uses military aid to build ties within Southeast Asia. These efforts are all meant to build a coalition to contain a China that is threatening islands that form a strategic link between Tokyo and Taipei.

The carrier Ronald Reagan, which is based in Japan, is now back at sea. And to fill in the gap while the carrier Theodore Roosevelt recovers in Guam, the amphibious assault carrier America (which now embarks F-35B fighters) and the guided missile cruiser Bunker Hill have been operating off the coast of Malaysia near an area in dispute between Indonesia and China, and also showing the flag off Vietnam. China’s aggression in Southeast Asia is not confined to the sea. Beijing has built a series of dams at the headwaters of the Mekong River to produce electricity for southern China. But these dams also give Beijing leverage over Southeast Asian lands which depend on the Mekong for rice irrigation and fishing. Food security is already jeopardized by drought and has been further endangered by erratic water flows from the Chinese dams.

China has reacted strongly to an Australian demand for an investigation into the origin of the coronavirus outbreak. Beijing is threatening trade with Canberra. The Global Times stated on May 13 how China views commerce as a part of foreign policy, “When the world enters the buyer's market, China has the right to select trading partners that can maximize its interest.”   

The United States has increased its backing for those resisting Chinese aggression since “the pivot” from the Middle East to the Pacific Rim instituted by the Obama administration. President Barack Obama was, however, reluctant to strike at the economic roots of Beijing’s rise. President Donald Trump has focused on international economics, targeting the outsourcing of American jobs and production capacity to China and Beijing’s theft of intellectual property. He has based his case on national security grounds. The pandemic has highlighted to the American public the dangerous dependency the United States has fallen into with China for a variety of strategic goods starting with medicine and including electronics, steel, auto parts and a host of critical supply chains. Efforts to decouple from China in key areas are underway led by the State and Commerce departments.

It is hoped that many of these industries can be brought back to America but even if they are merely diverted to trading partners who are allies or otherwise aligned with the United States, the gain to security will be substantial. New Delhi is putting itself forward, sending out invitations to 1,000 American firms doing business in China asking them to shift operations to India. Trump has been actively courting Prime Minister Narendra Modi on a variety of high-tech projects and arms sales. India has been designated a Major Defense Partner of the United States.

The Japanese government is also offering incentives to its firms to shift critical production out of China. Business firms may resist efforts to put national security ahead of private profits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce still says its “policy and advocacy efforts are guided by the belief that commercial engagement and the expansion of trade and investment ties between the United States and China benefit both countries and their business communities.” However, just as the pandemic has postponed the Chamber’s eleventh China Business Conference, the international situation will require commerce to follow the flag and adjust to a world that will operate on the basis of great power competition for the foreseeable future. 

Drug Dealers Reveal How They are Adapting to Coronavirus While the COVID-19 lockdown might have brought most parts of the economy to a halt, it seems to have had little affect on drug dealers. by Tammy Ayres and Craig Ancrum

While the COVID-19 lockdown might have brought most parts of the economy to a halt, it seems to have had little affect on drug dealers. They have even found opportunity in the situation. They wear personal protective equipment (PPE) to avoid infection, finding a neat way to cover their faces to avoid police surveillance in the process.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not diminished the supply of and demand for illicit drugs in the UK – particularly cannabis and cocaine. And while it might be difficult to see the attraction of using stimulants and party drugs like MDMA and cocaine in the confines of your own home during lockdown, users seem to be taking full advantage of the extra time on their hands. One 47-year-old told us:

I’ve been using sniff regularly for most of my adult life so the lockdown hasn’t changed anything for me. To be honest, I probably been doing more than usual as I’ve got more time on my hands and I’m not spending as much on other shit. Anyway, it makes me feel good and there’s not much around at the moment to make anyone feel good.

In fact, both drug users and dealers reported that sales and use had actually increased during COVID-19. One dealer, aged 40, said:

It just goes with having a drink for a lot of people. People are at home bored and that, getting mortal and sniffing passes the time. I’ve also got a few Cracky Chans [crack users] and they get through it the same.

 The large number of domestic cultivators has meant the supply of cannabis has seen no disruption. And despite initial worries by some dealers that their supply from overseas might dry up, which has been documented in relation to some other substances (for example, synthetic cannabinoids), there does not appear to be a shortage of heroin or cocaine, unlike other more mundane consumer goods like paracetamol, pasta and toilet paper).

Initially the drug users we spoke to were panic stockpiling drugs, and although this seems to have abated, drug dealers and users alike seemed genuinely surprised that drugs had been easier to buy than many (legal) everyday products.

Masking up

Drug dealers have been heeding government advice and taking the necessary precautions to protect themselves and their customers against COVID-19. Dealers have been wearing masks, gloves and protective eyewear, alongside a hood to conceal their identity as they continue to run their businesses during lockdown:

The [police] know most of us round here so covering your face has meant you have less chance of being pinched even if they see you, you can get away without um recognising you and turning up at your flat. Everyone I know is wearing them.

 Talking about his delivery process, a user told us:

There’s no physical contact whatsoever. He calls me when he’s outside, I go down and he opens the boot, I put the money in one box and take my gear from the other. We have a little chat and that’s it, he’s gone. I took the piss with him at first as I thought it was over the top but now it’s just normal.

Others told us about the changes they’ve made when actually taking drugs:

I’ll tell you one thing mate, I wouldn’t be snorting with a note… could be hoovering corona straight up your shnoz [nose]. Use a straw, me, then hoy [throw] it straight out. Best way.

 Dealers use disinfectant and hand sanitiser and try as much as possible to cover their meetings with customers as “essential travel” or even combine them with genuinely essential travel:

Mainly now when I’m going to go to the shops anyway. I’ll arrange to meet people there. When it first kicked off I would walk the dog and get them to meet me on route but it was … dead sus so I just bite the bullet and drive. Sometimes I go check on me mam and dad as they are meant be self-isolating.

 Timing was key for another:

I’m always dead careful anyway, [since COVID-19] … I meet people at the likes of Tesco car park, Aldi or somewhere, shopping for essentials you know (laughs). I like to do it at busy times, teatime or morning going to graft time … I always have hand sanitiser in the car, use it loads. I wear gloves as well but I always have done if passing something over, don’t want forensics on the bags just in case.

Although drugs are still considered the preserve of young people, our research shows they play an equally important part in the lives of older, middle-aged adults. Most of the dealers we spoke to make a living entirely from drug supply and had a nice but not extravagant lifestyle, using the money to buy “life’s little luxuries” without getting themselves further into debt.

Despite these unprecedented times, a state of national lockdown and speculation that things will never be the same again, drug use and drug dealing seem to remain business as usual. 

Fact: Alcohol Can Make Coronavirus Worse The World Health Organisation has warned that heavy alcohol consumption increases the risk of respiratory failure, one of the most severe complications of COVID-19. by Sally Casswell

New Zealand has won international praise for its strict lockdown conditions and public health response to COVID-19, but there’s one glaring blindspot.

Last month, the World Health Organisation released a new factsheet on alcohol and COVID-19, warning that heavy alcohol consumption increases the risk of respiratory failure, one of the most severe complications of COVID-19.

Yet alcohol was sold as an essential item, along with food, during New Zealand’s level 4 lockdown, even though almost half of all alcohol in New Zealand is drunk in heavy and binge drinking sessions.

While this isn’t a simple health issue to address – and lockdown might not have been the time to do it – it is an issue we can’t ignore. Alcohol is a risk factor not just for COVID-19 but many other conditions, including cancer.

The World Health Organisation on alcohol and COVID-19

The World Health Organisation’s comprehensive factsheet stresses that alcohol weakens the immune system and heavy drinking increases the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome, which leads to widespread inflammation in the lungs.

This link between heavy alcohol consumption and respiratory disease is not well known, despite a systematic review, published in 2018, which concluded there is comprehensive evidence for it.

It is missing from the burgeoning research effort to quantify other COVID-19 risk factors such as smoking.

This global health blindspot is reminiscent of the lack of awareness of alcohol as a cause of cancer, even though the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer stated in 2011 that alcohol is a class one carcinogen – meaning it’s a known cause of cancer.

Despite this, alcohol supply was an essential service during New Zealand’s lockdown. This raised concerns, but they focused largely on the increased risk of intimate partner violence and likely impact on families in stressful lockdown situations. Potential effects on drinkers, such as an increased risk of dependence, were also discussed – but not the health risks from heavy drinking specifically associated with COVID-19.

Access to alcohol during lockdown

So why did the New Zealand government decide access to alcohol was essential during the lockdown? Given wine and beer are sold in supermarkets in New Zealand and supermarkets were selected to operate as essential businesses, it was unlikely wine and beer sales would be restricted – although some countries such as Thailand have banned alcohol sales.

The question for New Zealand then became one of access to spirits and ready-to-drink premixed alcohol beverages. These have never been sold in supermarkets, but the decision was complicated by the fact there are some geographical areas, known as Licensing Trusts, where alcohol is not sold in supermarkets but only through local bottle shops.

One option would have been to allow only beer and wine sales from Licencing Trust outlets to create a level playing field with supermarkets elsewhere, but the government chose not to do this. As a consequence, people travelled outside of their area to buy spirits.

The government then allowed online sales of alcohol, initially restricted to existing online-only alcohol businesses but then extended to other premises, provided they consulted with their local council authorities. This increased potential availability from about 250 online-only businesses to around 1,000 physical bottle shops. And social media were used to promote online sales.

Alcohol as an ordinary commodity

One element of the government’s decision to treat alcohol supply as an essential service will have been concern for business interests. A second may have been concern for heavy drinkers and the possibility of withdrawal symptoms if they could not access alcohol. The latter is questionable given ongoing beer and wine sales and the availability of addiction support services online.

A third element was undoubtedly a framing of alcohol as an “ordinary commodity”. But this is not how alcohol is consumed in New Zealand. Almost half is consumed as heavy and binge drinking (defined as eight or more cans of premixed alcoholic drinks for men, and six or more cans for women).

For heavy drinkers, premixed drinks are a source of cheap alcohol, and there is every reason to expect much of the spirits and premixed drinks ordered online during this current period of restricted access will be consumed in this way.

Heavy drinking contributes to several diseases that likely exacerbate the effects of COVID-19. The government’s decisions projected the idea of alcohol supply as an essential business, and it appeared to favour commercial interests over public health.

This approach has influenced New Zealand’s policy response for many decades, before the present government took office. Evidence-based recommendations made by the New Zealand Law Commission in 2010 and supported by subsequent inquiries have not been implemented, despite more than 800 deaths that can be attributed to alcohol and NZ$7.8 billion in costs each year.

Going forward into a post-pandemic world, we should learn from the government’s science-based response to the threat of coronavirus to inform our response to persistent and ongoing harms from the marketing and over-supply of cheap alcohol.

Why Calling Coronavirus the ‘Invisible Nature’ Seems Natural President Donald Trump has called the coronavirus an “invisible enemy” that’s “brilliant” and “tough and smart,” adding that we are “tougher and smarter.” by Stewart Guthrie and Michaela Porubanova

President Donald Trump has called the coronavirus an “invisible enemy” that’s “brilliant” and “tough and smart,” adding that we are “tougher and smarter.”

CNN host Chris Cuomo, recovering from the virus, attributed malicious intent to it, saying it “wants us to lay down.” He warned his audience not to cooperate.

Other people called the coronavirus “sneaky,” “tricky,” “merciless,” “cruel” and “vicious.” One reporter wrote that in a nursing home, the virus “found” the people who were most frail.

Speaking of the coronavirus as if it were a person, then, is common. But why do we all do it, despite knowing that the virus is just a tiny bundle of inanimate genetic material?

As cognitive scientists who study the human mind we suggest that this tendency to see human features everywhere is an innate human characteristic, one that automatically alerts you to signs of other people – and helps you make sense of a confusing world.

It’s human nature to see human features everywhere

Attributing human characteristics to nonhuman things and events is called anthropomorphism or personification. Philosophers and psychologists suggest that it is a human universal, found among all of us, regardless of culture or upbringing. For instance, philosopher David Hume wrote in the 18th century that “We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds; and… ascribe malice or good-will to every thing, that hurts or pleases us.” Most recently, people find “enemies” in viruses.

They do so, Hume wrote, because the world is complex and unpredictable, and often threatens you with unexpected calamities such as earthquakes, floods and plagues. In order to predict and control these dangers, he said, people want to understand their causes, but often cannot. Baffled, they resort to the most familiar explanations, those based on their own experiences and those of other people.

This habit often results in the mistake of thinking you see persons, or features of persons, where they don’t exist, as with the new virus. But having a human-like model–indeed, having any model–to apply to such a mysterious, invisible and dangerous entity as the coronavirus provides some measure of apparent control, and thus comfort.

And although people may not consciously believe that the coronavirus is like a person, their language and behavior suggest that they do so unconsciously.

The assumption that persons and features of persons may be present is spontaneous and irrepressible. For example, 16th-century Italian artist Giuseppe Arcimboldo painted a series of faces composed of various objects. In one work, “Winter,” you can’t help seeing a face in a tree stump, perhaps reflecting a face that the artist had imagined in a real stump. It is virtually impossible not to see the face emerging from Arcimboldo’s assemblage of objects.

The upside of anthropomorphizing

Interpreting many phenomena as human in origin is the safest bet, while dismissing them as irrelevant may be dangerous if you’re wrong.

When you find possible traces of humans – faces in stumps, voices in the wind or footsteps in a house’s creaks – it opens a wide repertoire of important possibilities. Is it an enemy who might harm me? A friend who will comfort me?

Thus, a high sensitivity to human-like features and a low threshold for deciding they are present have evolutionary advantages. Their disadvantage is that you’re often mistaken, when no human feature is really there. But most such mistakes are less consequential than missing someone you need to see, whether friend or foe.

Humans, then, are a special stimulus for us, and cognitive neuroscience provides further evidence of it. For example, infants are born ready to recognize a face – or anything resembling one – and by a few months of age, infants prefer a block that “helps” another block up a slope to one that “hinders” it. So babies are born ready to see shapes as human anatomy, and quickly see even inanimate objects as having social relationships. People never outgrow this tendency, and throughout life see aspects of ourselves in cliff “faces,” river “mouths” and mountain “majesties,” and purpose and meaning everywhere.

Scanning for human features in the environment – and ending up anthropomorphizing – appears built into human beings. It is supported by what neuroscientists call the social brain, an evolved “person network.”

This brain network is activated by any stimulus that even suggests a person, such as a stick figure or emoji. For instance, part of this network, the fusiform face area, responds both to a human face and to anthropomorphized car headlights, grill and bumper.

No wonder it’s so easy to talk about the coronavirus as human-like. Anthropomorphic narratives provide models of the virus and its behavior that feel familiar and accessible. They’re a way to grasp these unseen beings, and this grasp, illusory or not, provides a bit of the confidence and sense of control so crucial to mental well-being.

Coronavirus Reality: Why Shopping Will Not Return to Normal The new economic reality will have a profound impact on retail. by Jessica Vredenburg and Megan Phillips

So you finally hit the shops and cafes after weeks of lockdown.

After disinfecting your hands, following the arrows around the shop or to your table, taking care to avoid others where possible and, in some cases, providing your contact tracing details – how enjoyable was the experience, really?

The return to shopping and eating out has certainly come as welcome relief in those countries lucky enough to be opening up. The malls are open! You can book your favourite restaurant! Goodbye home cooking, hello table service!

And for the retail and hospitality industries, among the hardest hit during the COVID-19 pandemic, the return to trading couldn’t come fast enough.

The return to normal trading, however, could still be a way off.

The new economic reality will have a profound impact on retail. Some of the routines developed during lockdown, such as cooking and baking at home or foregoing daily takeaway coffees, may continue post-pandemic if money is tight.

Shopping as a sensory experience will change

As well as the public spacing, tracing and hygiene rules, customers may also notice an absence of certain favourite experiential elements. Is a trip to Mecca Cosmetics as enjoyable when you can’t sample the products? Will Peter Alexander still smell like a cosy bedroom or the disinfectant used to clean the store?

As consumers, our senses play a major role in how much we enjoy retail experiences. Retailers have long employed the art of store atmospherics to encourage us to stay and spend.

Atmospherics – such as scent, music, touch, temperature and crowding – all help create an engaging sensory experience for shoppers and patrons. Research suggests customers will stay longer, spend more, feel better, and be more satisfied in a retail environment they find pleasing to their senses.

The new COVID-19 environment has changed all that.

Will shoppers now prefer a reassuring freshly cleaned smell? The Hyatt hotel chain’s “seamless” scent (evocative of home and comfort) was an integral part of its brand experience. But the rival Hilton chain has just announced its CleanStay initiative in partnership with the manufacturer of Lysol disinfectant.

Keep the noise down and don’t touch

In New Zealand, tips on how to stay safe under its COVID-19 alert level 2 include restaurants and bars turning down the music volume. Raised voices, it seems, generate a wider “moist breath zone” that may increase viral spread.

Reduced sound levels might help anxious consumers relax, but what will the atmosphere be like in a painfully quiet pub or restaurant? It could influence customer perceptions of the establishment, which in turn affect financial returns. Studies have found people bought more drinks in a bar when the music was louder than usual.

Retail guidelines in New Zealand recommend consumers only touch and try on merchandise they intend to buy. In the US, no touch retailing seems increasingly likely.

Such measures confound conventional retail theory, which suggests the more consumers touch, sort through, sample and try on, the more they buy. The removal of testers for products such as cosmetics, for example, significantly changes the shopping experience.

Don’t stand so close to me

Retailers in countries entering winter will also need to think quite literally about the atmosphere in their stores. Warmer temperatures tend to create a relaxing environment that encourages shoppers to linger. And physical warmth can even enhance the perceived value of products. But poorly ventilated or air-conditioned indoor spaces have been identified as potential hot spots for the spread of COVID-19.

Will warmer stores subconsciously affect the way shoppers react? Restaurateurs and retailers will be hoping not.

Paradoxically, the advice to keep our distance in public can lead to perceived crowding – a psychological state based on the number of individuals in a store, the extent of social interactions and the configuration of merchandise and fixtures. Higher levels of perceived crowding can lead to less positive emotions and decreased satisfaction.

Shoppers may simply choose not to enter. If they do, they might feel on edge or even overwhelmed if they are trying to keep a safe distance from others. When personal space is invaded or when personal space zones are relatively large, it can lead to intolerance or even leaving.

The customer is always right

Ultimately, if retailers and hospitality service providers want customers to return in greater numbers the goal will be to minimise the perceived risks of infection. Emotionally taxing environments can negatively affect consumer behaviour, so managing the emotional component of the retail or dining experience becomes an even more crucial part of the overall value offered.

Adapting so-called “retail theatre” to include sanitation, hygiene, and keeping consumers calm will create a new kind of psychological comfort for the COVID-19 age. But how far will some go to give themselves an edge over competitors?

From pool noodles, mannequins and glass boxes to inner tubes, will these innovative adaptations draw in the crowds or make people run in the opposite direction?

How readily customers become comfortable with the etiquette of post-pandemic shopping will dictate how effectively retail and hospitality can provide that vital sense of well-being. In time, the words “retail” and “therapy” may again sit comfortably in the same sentence.

The Battle for Hong Kong is the Decisive Battle of our Time New legislation proposed by the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing is set to allow mainland authorities to directly target anti-government protests in Hong Kong. The effect will be that the Hong Kong authorities would lose local autonomy over this area of policing, practically dismantling one of the core pillars of the “one country, two systems” arrangement between the island and the mainland. To put more bluntly, Beijing is asserting the right to a monopoly on the use of force in Hong Kong, on its own terms—as opposed to the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. by Azeem Ibrahim

New legislation proposed by the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing is set to allow mainland authorities to directly target anti-government protests in Hong Kong. The effect will be that the Hong Kong authorities would lose local autonomy over this area of policing, practically dismantling one of the core pillars of the “one country, two systems” arrangement between the island and the mainland. To put more bluntly, Beijing is asserting the right to a monopoly on the use of force in Hong Kong, on its own terms—as opposed to the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. 

The proposed piece of legislation is likely to be waved through the legislative bodies in Beijing without much discussion, and the only thing standing between Hong Kong and the imposition of de facto direct rule is the response of the people of Hong Kong and of the international community.

There are a number of reasons why this is happening now. First and foremost, both Hong Kongers and the international community are currently more preoccupied with the coronavirus global pandemic. To their credit, Beijing was quite effective at taking control over the pandemic situation after its belated original response, but now they are looking to press their advantage in global affairs, as they are now in a position to exercise initiative while other powers are on the back foot, and absorbed with the domestic handling of the spread of the virus. If ever there was an opportune time for Beijing to press this issue, now would be it.

Secondly, even though the mainland Chinese authorities did manage to take control of the pandemic situation sooner than most other countries, the fact of the matter remains that in the first two months since the emergence of the virus, they bungled it—bungled it badly. And despite the furious propaganda offensive carried out by the regime both domestically and abroad, most Chinese citizens are likely more upset with their leadership in the wake of the pandemic than they might have otherwise been. 

As an authoritarian, non-democratic regime, the Communist Party derives its legitimacy from claims of a competent government in the public interest. And the fiasco of failing to contain the virus when it first emerged in Wuhan strikes directly at the heart of the legitimacy of the regime. So, the Chinese government probably saw it imperative to re-engage their domestic audience in some kind of nationalistic project, to get them back on side. The most immediate, hot-button issue for both the Chinese government and for many private citizens on the mainland is the status of Hong Kong and Taiwan—with Hong Kong fresh in their minds following the winter of protests against Beijing in the island nation. 

However much we may be distracted by the global pandemic at the moment, we cannot afford to let this pass. If Beijing is allowed to effectively take over Hong Kong by force and crush local democracy, this event will undoubtedly be remembered as the end of the era of liberal democracies on the global stage. Many others will follow, and the next will certainly be Taiwan—a vital U.S. ally and a keystone to American Pacific security. If Beijing is allowed to take Hong Kong in this manner, Taiwan’s days will be numbered. And even in an age of precipitous decline of American global power, it is difficult to imagine how China might take Taiwan without inviting a direct war with the United States. 

This all sounds unduly alarmist, but so did those who rang the alarm bells when Nazi Germany re-took the Rhineland in 1936. Once a power with imperial ambitions gets a certain kind of momentum, they will be difficult to stop by any means other than war, and an authoritarian regime at the top of such a power will find themselves equally difficult to stop that momentum, lest they lose domestic legitimacy and perhaps see their entire regime crumble.

Xi Jinping, as a Han nationalist, is happy to play with this fire. But the rest of us have seen this movie before and know how it will end. One only needs to look at the mass incarceration of millions of Uighurs to see how Xi deals with any form of dissent: a fully-fledged cultural genocide. We must stop this here and now. If we fail, we may be setting in motion events that will be much, much more disastrous than even the current pandemic.