The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Last fall, the end of the pandemic seemed tantalizingly close. After the Delta wave subsided, businesses began to relax their mask policies. Most Americans had received at least one vaccine. People bought plane tickets for holiday travel. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, University of California, San Francisco, infectious disease specialist Monica Gandhi declared, “Covid-19 will soon become endemic—and the sooner the better.” Once this coveted state of endemicity happens, Gandhi wrote, we can all look forward to “a full return to normal.”

Since then, politicians have increasingly used “endemic” and “normal” interchangeably. In November, when Tennessee ended its state of emergency, politicians explained the transition as a response to when “the virus becomes endemic.” California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the looser guidelines he unveiled in February 2022 a response to an “endemic” virus. After two years of masks, tests, and fights with friends and family over differing levels of Covid caution, many people seem to casually hear what they want in the term: Endemic means the end of the pandemic.

But the science itself is not so simple. In a January opinion piece for the journal Nature, Aris Katzourakis, an evolutionary virologist at the University of Oxford, explained that “endemic” has a precise meaning to epidemiologists: A disease reaches an endemic state when “the proportion of people who can get sick balances out the ‘basic reproduction number’ of the virus, the number of individuals that an infected individual would infect.” In other words, endemic’s only “true dictate” is, as the Atlantic noted, “a modicum of predictability” in the spread of the disease. Crucially, Katzourakis said, nowhere in this definition is it implied that the disease is mild. He noted that malaria, endemic in many parts of the world, killed 600,000 in 2020. Tuberculosis, another endemic disease, killed 1.5 million. “As an evolutionary virologist, it frustrates me when policymakers invoke the word endemic as an excuse to do little or nothing,” Katzourakis wrote.

Endemic’s broader definition hints at the issue here. Something is endemic when it is prevalent in a particular group. It descends from the Greek endēmos, meaning native to a certain people. That’s true of endemic viruses too. They have vastly different consequences for different groups within a single geographical area. Anne Sosin, a public health researcher at Dartmouth College, points to HIV as an example. A breakthrough treatment, antiretroviral therapy, became available to Americans in 1996. But in other parts of the world, a quarter of a century later, patients still have limited access to it. Here in the United States, HIV affects a disproportionate number of African Americans: In 2019, 42 percent of the people diagnosed with the disease were Black. Covid, too, has had an outsize effect on Black and Brown Americans—and Sosin worries that politicians may use “endemic” as an excuse to avoid confronting the racial dynamics of the virus. “If we don’t aggressively target those disparities,” she says, “we’re laying the groundwork for a very inequitable endemic state.”

If the last two years have taught us anything, it’s that this ever-changing virus challenges us to respond and adapt as new variants arise. After Gandhi’s comments about an “endemic” virus, trends reversed. Omicron raged, with daily death tolls breaking records. Undeterred, some politicians maintained that the virus, now endemic, could fade into the background. “When you have an endemic respiratory virus, the default has got to be, you live your life,” said Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in January. In a February letter, a group of 70 House Republicans urged President Joe Biden and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to “accept that Covid-19 is endemic, recognize that current heavy handed government interventions are doing more harm than good, and immediately begin the process by which we unwind” Covid protections and “get back to normal.”

Covid doesn’t have to control us. Nor does it have to cause more mass death. But if we really do want to learn to live with the virus, “endemic” can’t mean “complacent.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate