All right, it is time for another running book review. And not just any running book, but in my opinion the most important running book ever written. And that is Daniel's running formula. And it's the fourth edition. All right, so I'm obviously a huge fan of this book. And so I saw that there was a new edition that came out. I read this one a few years ago, third edition, made a review as well. When I saw that the fourth edition was that I was like, I need to get my hands on that ASAP. So I actually sent an email to the human kinetics, the publisher, and asked them if they wanted to send me a book for reviewing it. And they did. So full disclosure, I did receive this book for free, but I am an honest fan of the whole system and the book. And I'm going to give you an honest review. You can of course check out human kinetics. There's a link in the description if you want to check out some of their books. They got a lot of good books. So let's take a look at the book, why it's awesome. And then we'll also talk about what's different in the new book compared to the first book or the third edition, actually. This is the most important running book ever written. Why? I have to say that in a simple way. Because it gives you a precise, scientifically valid prescription on how to train to become a better runner. Okay?  This book actually takes your recent race performances. And from that calculates the different paces that you should run at. And of course Jack Daniels, the author, explains very well what type of training you should do to become a better endurance athlete. And at what type, what kind of intensities you should train at. And exactly why you should train at that particular intensity and not another intensity, for example. So it sort of takes a lot of that sort of guesswork and stuff out of training and just gives you a really solid prescription that works. Has worked for me, has worked for a lot of people. All right. I am a certified V dot coach. That's Jack Daniels certification for coaches. And if you're interested in my coaching, there's a link in description as well. So if you want to get an online coach that sort of specializes in the whole V dot system, then please hit me up there. Anyway, so let's just look at the index here or the contents just to get an idea of the different chapters. So essentials of running success, training principles and tips, physiological and personal training profiles, types of training and intensities, V dot system of training. So different, you know, you learn a lot about different concepts of training, good principles to stick to how training works, you know, what happens in the body and why do you get faster or slower. And there's a lot of cool visual sort of figures and stuff that sort of shows you in very simple terms like how different types of training work. And then of course, there's the famous V dot tables, which, you know, you have a race performance and then you find your V dot number. And then it will give you equivalent performances on other distances. And also the different intensities that you should train at for best possible effect. There's also a bunch of plans in here, training plans. They look a little daunting perhaps, because there's a lot of numbers and stuff in there, but they're actually very simple. Compared to other plans and stuff, this is like the simplest, and in my opinion, the most effective way to train. And so the latter chapters in the book are called things like 800 meters, 5k to 10k marathon, right? So it's just a chapter on a specific distance and how to train for that distance. Of course, most of endurance training is pretty similar across the board. But there are of course nuances between, you know, someone training for an 800 meter versus a marathon, although there are a lot of similarities too. So it's just overall a really, really good system for training. Who should not get this book? Well, I think pretty much everyone should get it actually. But if you are a beginner runner or someone who is interested only in running without really worrying about the pace, not even running with a running watch, you don't care about your performance or anything you just want to run to be healthy and you want to be out of nature, probably this book is not the book for you. This book is probably more geared towards the performance oriented runner. Someone who's interested in improving their performance. Maybe if you like numbers, right? If you like measuring things and keeping track of data from your training and just science. Okay, so yeah, anyone interested in improving their running performance, definitely get this book. There's also a platform actually called the V.02 platform for coaches. I use it myself, but you can also use it just as an athlete for free where you can plan your training. And if you're my client and I'll plan your training in that calendar and we can interact there as well. There's a link to that in the description as well, the V.02 platform. So awesome book, awesome book. What's different though in this book compared to the third edition? Well, it's mostly very similar. Okay, it's mostly exactly the same. But there are a few minor differences here and there. I'm not going to go through all of them. So for example, in the third edition, there's a half marathon chapter. Whereas in the fourth edition, there's a 15k to 30k chapter more, you know, generally applying to all those distances. And that program, the 15k to 30k program is a little different from the other program. So it's just a very simple approach. So I've heard Jack say about his approach in these in the books that he wants to give people a lot of different options in terms of how to train. So what you'll see is throughout the book, you'll see that there's a lot of a lot of times he repeats himself, but maybe in a slightly different way. So he's just sort of it's this is a sort of download from his brain to yours, right? And he's a running expert and a physiologist as well. So it's just he's just giving you a lot of different options on how to train. And it's I think it's really good. There's different pictures in the new book. So he's changed out the pictures. That makes sense. Freshen it up a little bit. I haven't studied the exact training plans yet to say if there's any differences of the details in the plan. But even if there is, it's still going to be mostly the same. Plus, you know, the goal is never really with this system or any plan to follow it exactly. It's to give you an idea of this is how you could train. But then you have to optimize it to fit you and your training at any given time along your training cycle. And so there's no need worrying about the details too much in a situation like this more just giving you an overview and then making your own plan or copying this plan and then adjusting it to fit you. Some of the big changes is that there's a new chapter on ultramarathons, ultrodistance. It's not really a very in-depth chapter on how to train for ultrodistance. It's basically an interview with Magdalena Boulay, one of the good ultrarunners from the US. So it's a good interview with her where she sort of lays down the general framework of how to train for ultrodistances. There's also a chapter on triathlon, which again is not like super in-depth, but it's just a general discussion on how to train and a sample schedule for triathlon but with the Jack Daniels style programming. Also very good. Every now and then through the book I came across subtle changes in the wording or how something is explained and sometimes there's some additional information which I really enjoyed. I mean I've read this book a lot of times. I've been looking through this book and reading this book over and over and over and over again for years because it's just absolutely epic. And so I notice when I look at these little details and stuff and yeah I'm happy about it. Anytime I can get a slightly different view on the same thing from Jack Daniels I'm very happy because that means that I can understand a little bit more of how he's thinking and his approach to running. Of course you never want to be stuck with just one approach so it's not like I'm blind to everything else. I just look at Jack Daniels. I look at a lot of different other coaches as well. I have my own opinions. Some of my opinions differ slightly from Jack Daniels's obviously. I have a broad perspective on the situation but it's just I've never come across someone who has, who I agree with as much as I do with Jack Daniels. Let's just put it that way. Some of the tables from another third edition is not in the fourth edition etc. I would say probably if you're as big a fan of Jack Daniels as I am you should have both these. Maybe I should actually probably get my hands on the first and the second edition too just to just to broaden my perspective even more. I think we'll leave it at that. Let's just say that if you are interested in training as optimally as possible and if you like numbers and if you like precision and science then I urge you to get this book and study it. Take it slow. Read through it. Try to understand what you're reading. Look at the numbers. Spend time looking at the plans and get an understanding for the whole system because I really truly believe that as a runner that system is the most powerful system out there. All right that's it. A little bit of a long video even though I didn't even get into the details of what the book is all about. I guess I'll leave that up to you yourself. Remember check out my coaching website. Check out Human Kinetics the publisher if you want to buy the book and also the the V.02 coaching training platform as well. All those links are in the description as well as my Instagram and Strava and stuff like that. Post a comment below if you have any questions or if you have some thoughts you wanted to share about the latest edition. Thanks for watching as always and stay tuned for more. Thanks. Bye.


This video has kindly been sponsored by Likewise. If you've never heard of Likewise before, it's an app that recommends books, TV shows, and movies based on the ones that you already like.  I know that feeling when you've just finished a good book or a movie and you feel empty inside, craving that same experience. Powered by a combination of smart technology and recommendations from real people, the Likewise app will give you the best recommendations possible, and you can even set these recommendations to be daily recs. All you have to do is tell the app the genres and titles that you enjoy, and Likewise gives you personalized recommendations. You can even save all of your favorites so that you never forget what you've watched. This watchlist feature is one of my favorite features of the app. Another really cool feature is the Today card. Like I said, there are daily recs, and the Today card lets you swipe through a bunch of different recommendations. Like Tinder, but for movies and shows. I recently added a bunch of movies that I've watched, and Likewise recommended me to watch Shiva Baby, and it did not disappoint at all. What a great film. Look, this app is really cool, and it's helpful. It's also completely free, so if you are interested in Likewise, you can click the link in the description to download it. So thank you to Likewise for sponsoring this video. With the superhero genre more popular than ever, I find it crazy to think that Megamind came out 12 years ago. It's a movie that's tailor made for Today in a few ways, from its subversion to the genre to its uncanny villain, Titan. I want to look at the contrast between Megamind and Metro Man, and hone in on why the portrayal of Titan worked so well. Megamind explores good versus evil through Megamind himself's simplistic idea of morality. To him, it's very clear, very binary. It's black and white. It's Metro Man or Megamind. Good or evil. But as the film unfolds, we see what it has to say about these ideas, and the characters that embody them. To compare and contrast Megamind and Metro Man, the 5 minute introduction to this film tells us almost everything we need to know about the two aliens, and telling us why they are the way that they are. For Megamind, from the moment his parents told him that he was destined for something, Destiny has had an iron grip on his life. For him, Destiny is a big part of his chosen morality, and society is the second part of that. The timeless debate about nature and nurture rules Megamind's character. Nature versus nurture rules Metro Man as well. Having been raised in a prison, Megamind's ideas of good and bad were always different, but this environment didn't cause him to become evil. In fact, it seemed to be the opposite. Megamind was showered with love, attention, and care by all the prisoners, and with that he developed the capacity to help others, as he helps the prisoners break free. In school, Megamind wants to make friends, and he tries to impress his classmates by making popcorn, just like Metro Man. He wants to be selected for games, just like the other kids. He wants to be a normal kid, but the world has never let him be normal. He's blue, bald, and has a massive head. These kids, the prison, the warden have already decided Megamind's fate for him, based on his upbringing, and the way he looks. He never had a chance. As a child, Megamind was already calling himself evil. When the only home he knows is prison, and the only clothes he wears aside from his evil costume is an orange jumpsuit, this makes a lot of sense. Metro Man on the other hand is the palatable alien, tailor made for society, white, a full head of hair, and a large chin that's considered nice. Unlike Megamind, he never truly does show that he wants to do good, or even that he wants friendship, but it's given to him. But because he's good looking and has visibly useful powers, Metro Man is afforded the gift of not only being normal, but being adored, and he simply takes advantage of the things that he is afforded. Though Megamind did nothing wrong in burning the popcorn, Metro Man gets praised for putting Megamind in the corner. From that moment, he was seen as a hero by his peers, and he acted accordingly. Metro Man has had the fame, the attention, the spotlight since the day he arrived in Metro City, almost as if it was his destiny. But how breaks this mold? And he is the person and the warning sign to Megamind that the world doesn't exist in black and white, and his house true self is revealed, Metro Man's is as well, when he faked his death. But Metro Man isn't suddenly evil because he didn't want to be a hero anymore. He's just tired. From the day he landed in Metro City, his purpose has been carved out for him, and he was happy to fit in, until he decided to look inwards and realize that he wasn't truly happy. Is it selfish to become music man in the middle of a villain terrorizing Metro City? Of course. But not evil. Hal exists as the one true evil in this movie, because when he is given power, he begins to act on what he believes he is owed. Attention from the girl. Megamind is a movie that subverts any and all expectations, and that includes its primary antagonist Hal, the unassuming villain. One of the reasons why Hal is a great villain is because of that very subversion that this film brights itself on. If we take Spider-Man for example, who is probably the most popular superhero right now, the one idea that is so clear in this story is that anybody can wear the mask, anybody can be a hero, and of course with power comes responsibility. But Megamind demonstrates a remarkably realistic idea that anybody can be a villain as well. I watched this movie for the first time just a few weeks ago, and I paid very little attention to Hal. He is the run of the mill typical nice guy. He tries to say all the right things to try and attract Roxanne and she is uninterested in him. And these are moments that seem harmless. Hal seems harmless. But when you look at these moments more intently, they show us exactly who Hal is. In our introduction to him, he turns her back on her to make a speech about how if he was Metro Man, he wouldn't let her get kidnapped, and that he'd have an eye on her at all times. Which leads her to get kidnapped. On the day after Metro Man's death, after their news report, the first thing Hal does is ask Roxanne out. He knows that she really admires Metro Man and looks up to him. The day before during Metro Man Day, she is the one who writes that his heart is an ocean that's inside a bigger ocean. She herself wrote those words about a man who clearly inspires her. Hal might not have any accomplishments, but he isn't dumb. He was smart enough to realize Mega Mind was Metro Man by the way he said metrosity. He knows that she's been through a traumatic experience when he feels threatened by Bernard and his and Roxanne's relationship. He's smart enough to pick up on subtleties like that, but when it comes to understanding why Roxanne didn't like him, and accepting that idea, he is unable. Hal doesn't actually care about her. He's in love with the idea of being with her, and the affirmation that this relationship would give him about himself. When Mega Mind and Minion get to Hal's apartment, that has pizza boxes, leftover pizza, and coffee on the ground, whose shelves are held up by cinder blocks and whose TV is mounted up on top of a large speaker, the signs are there. He rats out his own neighbor when he believes he's about to get robbed. He wears bite me, game over, and air 404 t-shirts. Not to say these shirts are bad, but Hal has a certain image, an image that is trending towards a certain group of people who hate women. It's important to stress that it's an image that seems harmless, and when he gets these powers, he lives up to that image. One of the first things he does upon mastering these abilities is use his ex-revision to stare into Roxanne's home, and to watch her. Because Hal, like others, believes that she and Metroman were a thing, Hal acts on that, saying that he must need to save her a few times, as if she's so shallow that that's all it takes for her to fall in love. And when Roxanne rejects him for the final time, he responds by saying that she is supposed to be with him. Hal feels entitled to her, he even later tells Megamind that he stole his girlfriend. He tells the world that Roxanne ferociously ripped out his heart.  This idea becomes even more interesting when we compare and contrast the way Megamind treated Roxanne, versus the way Hal does. Even when Megamind was playing the role of the villain to Metroman, Roxanne was never in real danger, nor did she ever feel like she was. But when Hal announces himself as Titan, there's real fear in her eyes, because she now sees the real Hal, even if she doesn't want to believe it. Secondly, as Bernard, Megamind made real efforts to learn who Roxanne was. Past the Superficials like work, Megamind learned that Roxanne is a truly good person, who now wants to fight against evil, against Megamind. He cleans up the entire city to impress her, he does things that she likes. Megamind is empathetic and emotional, and that's her type. He is everything that Hal isn't. Her type is good people. Even when Roxanne rejects Megamind, he accepts it. He's remorseful even, when he's venting to the warden in the prison. When Roxanne rejects Hal, he abducts her, and is one of the reasons why he ultimately turns evil. He clearly says that he was only in the gig to get the girl, and when he couldn't have her, he turns to villainy. Hal never once treated Roxanne like an actual person. To him, she was just a trophy, an accessory that he could flaunt, and one that could pleasure him. Nothing more. Upon being given power, he quickly used his abilities to forcefully try and take what he thought he deserved. And because he was so unassuming, so harmless, so easy to look past, I think that's what makes him a great villain. Because we never realize it until it's too late. Megamind and Metraman go on to prove that fate, destiny, is to be dictated by one's self and not by the world around us. That you can be whoever, whatever you want to be. Megamind proves that love, admiration, companionship isn't a fixed idea. The good guy never got the girl, and nor did he ever want her. The nice guy who believed he was owed the girl didn't get her. Megamind did, because he cared for her and for his city, because he wanted to be a good person. Megamind was truly a kind person, a hero, and that's why Roxanne chose him.


Welcome to our second event of this year's Racial Foundations of Public Policy Speaker Series, hosted by the Center for Racial Justice at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. I am Celeste Watkins Hayes, Director of the Center and Interim Dean here at the Ford School. I'm also a Professor of Public Policy and Sociology here at U of M. At the Ford School and the Center for Racial Justice, we seek a world in which people are able to achieve their full human potential, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class and other categories that have been used to divide and systematically marginalize people. We train leaders here who understand the critical role of public policy in improving our world. We recognize the power of public policy to bolster or undercut our life opportunities and experiences and we see policy analysis as a critically important tool for us to measure, reflect, historically examine and help us define the way forward. This Racial Foundations of Public Policy Series augments the work that is already being done at the Ford School in the area of social equity. At the Center for Racial Justice, we seek to illuminate evidence-based solutions and support the change makers who advocate for sound, just and fair public policies. We take an intersectional approach seeking to expand knowledge and highlight strategies and tools that address the complex intersections between public policy and race, gender, sexuality, class and other social categories. As we examine the fraud histories and consequences of some of our policies and the transformative power of others, we learn a valuable lesson. Effective and just public policy can only be achieved if we bring diverse perspectives to the table. This fall, the CRJ will feature a cadre of scholars to deliver virtual presentations and conversations with me on the historical roots and contemporary currents of race and reproductive justice, health policy, LGBTQ rights and housing policy. Our esteemed speakers this semester have included Melissa Murray from NYU Law, Steven Thrasher from Northwestern who is here with us today, Bianca Wilson from UCLA and John Robinson from Princeton. We encourage you to review our website for the dates of those events. Now I am truly delighted to introduce you to today's speaker, Dr. Steven Thrasher. Steven Thrasher holds the inaugural Daniel Ranberg Chair at Northwestern's Medill School, the first journalism professorship anywhere to focus on LGBTQ scout research. He is also on the faculty of Northwestern's Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Well-Being. An interdisciplinary scholar who's received grants from the Alfred P. Sloan and Fork Foundations, Dr. Thrasher is an internationally recognized expert on race, social epidemiology and the criminalization of disease who has addressed universities and medical institutions around the world. In 2020, he served as a national surrogate to presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders advising the campaign on its healthcare priorities. He's written about HIV, COVID-19 and the Monkeypox epidemics for the New York Times, Guardian, Atlantic and BuzzFeed News, as well as numerous scholarly journals. His first book, The Viral Underclass, The Human Toll When Inequality and Disease Collide was published in August by Celadon Books and McMillan Publishing to wide acclaim. The book has received star reviews from Kirkus Reviews, Booklist and Publishers Weekly, was named one of the best books of August by Apple and Amazon, was named one of the best politics and current affairs books of the fall by Publishers Weekly, was named a must read editors pick by USA Today and is currently a finalist for the 2022 Paz Best in Literature Award for the best depictions in HIV AIDS literature and is a long list finalist for the American Library Association's 2023 Andrew Carnegie Medal for Excellence in Nonfiction Literature. Stephen holds a PhD in American Studies and you can find him on Twitter where he is an avid Twitter love to follow his feed, to follow his work. So Stephen, thank you so, so much for being with us. We are so honored to have you, colleague and friend and congratulations on the success of the book and thank you for raising these issues and for elevating these issues and I'm so excited to be in conversation with you today. Well, thank you so much, Dean Watkins Hayes. It's great to be reconnected with you and I've been thinking lately a lot about how we first met at the Blackness and AIDS panel that we did in 2016 at the American Studies Association and it's just been really great to be connected to you and a number of scholars who really care about AIDS and race and thank you for all the ways that you've inspired me and happy to be in conversation with you. Oh, you are welcome. We're gonna have a great conversation. So I would love for you to talk about the book, the viral underclass. I would love for you to talk about the book and to tell us the story of how you came to write this book given all of your other work and all of your experiences. How did you get to this place, to this point, to be writing the viral underclass? Well, it's been about an eight-year journey in one sense. It really began, or the seeds for it began when I was still a full-time journalist in 2014 and an editor at BuzzFeed News, Mark Shuse, who's edited work about AIDS for a long time. I said he had a story he wanted me to look into about a young man named Michael Johnson who'd been arrested for HIV transmission and exposure. He was accused of exposing or transmitting HIV to six different men. He was 21 or 22 at the time and he was facing life in prison. And so I went and started a report on that story and learned about the criminalization of HIV and found out that it's really bad public policy, that it dissuades people from getting tested, it doesn't help, just punishes sickness without making the health better for the public in any way. And it's also very racially utilized. I found out that the majority of people in most jurisdictions who are prosecuted for HIV are black, even in places like Canada where they're only 3% of the population. And that was certainly the case in Missouri. So I started reporting on this case and I found out that Michael was not the sort of monster that he'd been portrayed who was intentionally trying to transmit HIV to people, but he was really sitting at the intersection of a lot of the terrible things in our society, homophobia, racism. He was a very successful college athlete who was only a year from graduation, but he couldn't really read. And so he was very much a scapegoat for all these kind of overlapping systems and the anxieties about HIV and AIDS. And I wrote a feature about that. My editor said, I think that you'll be working on this for a long time. I don't know if he knew I'd still be working on it eight years later. But then I went to Ferguson later that fall when I was starting my PhD program that I was writing for The Guardian. And then an editor had heard that I had already been to St. Louis working on this other story and they wanted me to go because I had some land of the land. And I asked the HIV people that I had worked with on the previous story about Michael Johnson, what I should be looking for. And they told me that they'd been in the Canfield Green Apartment complex, that there had been some new transmission of HIV in the area and Ferguson had this higher rate of HIV and AIDS. So I started really understanding that there was this relationship between HIV infections, HIV infections that would progress onto AIDS diagnoses, which can take many years. And also concentrations of black poverty and police violence. And I started kind of working with a map around that, which eventually became the basis of my dissertation, which was called infectious blackness that I did in American studies. I was trained under medical anthropologist. There was in conversation with a lot of sociologists. I brought in some journals that was very much an interdisciplinary project about understanding HIV criminalization and the criminalization of sickness as illustrating a kind of systemic racism. I mean, intersected with homophobia and other things, but I was primarily writing about how it intersected with racism. And so then I came to Northwestern and I began my job at the Medill School of Journalism. I was trying to think about what kind of book I would write. I was pleased to learn that as someone with my home tenure line in a journalism school, I could actually write a book for a trade press. And I was trying to think about, what exactly the form of it would take? Was it gonna primarily be kind of a narrative story about Michael Johnson or was it gonna be about race in some other way when COVID happened? And the COVID pandemic happened like right when I was getting ready to start pitching my book. And I didn't know at the time, am I gonna lose my job at Northwestern since I'm sort of the last tired? I didn't know whether people would still be buying books. My agent, Tanya McKinnon, had had no meetings. This was in the weeks where sort of nobody was doing any business and we were all locking down those of us who could and not going out. But she said quite rightly, she thought eventually people are gonna watch everything they can on Netflix and they're gonna keep reading books, which is actually what happened. Book sales went up a lot that year. And she asked to look at my dissertation again at that point and she saw this phrase, the viral underclass that I had named the last chapter of my dissertation. And I'd use this phrase, this phrase comes from an activist, I think you probably have met or talked at some point, Sean Stroup, who's an activist about stopping the criminalization of HIV. And he'd originally used it to describe the phenomenon through which people living with HIV are just living under a separate set of laws. In the history of the United States, we do have times where people are explicitly governed under racist laws that name race and this happens with anti-miscegenation laws and things like that. But for the most part, the laws in the US don't explicitly say if you're black, you're subjected to this law and if you're white, you're subjected to that law. But that's the case with HIV. People living with HIV, even infants who are born with HIV are living under this different set of laws. And so that's how Sean coined the term viral underclass. And I've heard activists using it and that's why I ended my dissertation this way. This is sort of the last scene in my dissertation. Michael Johnson had been approved to get out eventually from prison early, but he was still locked up. It was gonna be about another year before I actually got out. And I met these activists at a conference who were planning how to roll back the laws around HIV. And some people were calling for the abolition of the laws and saying that was the only way that fairness could be achieved. And some people wanted to just modernize them and say, people who are living with what's called a detectable viral load with an amount of virus in their system that they could transmit to others, maybe they should still be able to be prosecuted, but people who have an undetectable viral load who are taking HIV medication should not be able to be prosecuted. And they thought that there would be more success with that. And so these activists were saying, that's creating this viral underclass of people who still have a viral load. And the reason they don't have, the reason they have a viral load is because they're poor, often black, at homeless. Those are the reasons why they still have this viral load and it would be unfair to use it, to use that as a way to still prosecute them. So after talking to Tanya about it and then eventually selling my book to my wonderful editors that sell it on books, I wanted to use the viral underclass as an analytic to write about kind of the past and things I reported on and dynamics I was seeing, but also to write about the COVID-19 pandemic. And I came to this kind of clearly in sort of an aha moment when I started realizing that the people who were getting COVID-19 and dying in those early days, I was in New York where there were sirens constantly, there were hundreds of people dying a day. And the parts of the city where the people actually dying were the same maps where people still get HIV at high rates and diabetes. And so I started trying to understand like why do these extremely different viruses, they're so different in the way they move and the way they behave, but it's the same kind of people getting them. And so I wanted to use the viral underclass as an analytic to write about how unwide is that the same kinds of populations are affected by these different viruses. And the big move for me from the dissertation project was understanding it through primarily a vector of race, which is a very important one and it's still the first one that I use in the book. But I looked at 12 different vectors through which the viral underclass has produced races the first one, but I also write about how the law acts as a vector, how ableism acts as a vector, how austerity is a vector in different countries around the world. I try to have a little bit of an international analysis, even though a lot of it's about the US and even speciesism, the way that we interact with other species can be a vector to how those underclasses produce. So that's how I came to the work. Very interesting. So one of the things that I'm really interested and I'm packing with you is when we talk about health inequities, we often use terms like social determinants of health. We argue that those kinds of larger structural factors, racism, homophobia, sexism, but then we also talk about material conditions like poverty, homelessness, homelessness, lack of access to healthcare, give way to health disparities. Whether we're seeing disparities in rates on the basis of race, when we're talking about HIV, COVID, et cetera. And what I hear you saying is an additional layer of analysis where you're saying, yes, there is this relationship between social determinants of health and health disparities or what I like to call injuries of inequality, but you're arguing that the people who find themselves on the receiving end of that, then become criminalized and find themselves in a situation where there's a criminalization element to their illness that we have not fully accounted for in our conversations around public health. It's not just the experience of health disparity, it's health disparity and the additional criminalization of experience around that disparity, around that injury of inequality. So I wonder if you can talk about that thread in historical context because what you're pointing to is that that is not a new relationship when we look at other illnesses, when we look at how this has played out over time. So and one of the things that we'd like to do is kind of trace the historical genealogies around, how do we end up at this stage? How do we end up to the place where illness is criminalized in this kind of way and we see these disparities play out? So I just wonder if you can trace that for me in historical context, was HIV the first time that we saw that? And what other illnesses does it remind you of when you think about that relationship? Sure, I was just writing down some notes. So historically kind of where I begin in the book is with the transatlantic slave trade and I've thought a lot throughout the pandemic about language itself. I have a particularly one colleague, Steven Muldrum and I were thinking in the beginning of everything happening with COVID about the way that language that public health people use and even scientists use was sort of circulating through social media. This is very much our pandemic of COVID is like a viral pandemic that's also happening through viral media, which is creating other dynamics. And so one of the words we would hear would be host and vector. And sometimes scientists are using them in ways that are disrespectful, but a lot of times they're using them sort of in a way that they're talking to each other in ways we don't wanna carry into the public conversation. We should never think of human beings as a host. We shouldn't reduce one another to that even though two lab workers might kind of be talking about the way that a virus has to replicate inside a host. And so I really like to think about vectors as systems, sometimes they're physical places. And I'm sure you're familiar with the story of the quote unquote patient zero, a French Canadian flight attendant who was incorrectly blamed for bringing HIV to North America. The vector in that case is sort of international travel and homophobia and not knowing how to help people when they were trying to get help with the disease that was completely new. And so the Atlantic slave trade is one of the biggest vectors of disease transmission in human history. And that doesn't mean that that's the fault of the enslaved people. Capital would come from Europe. It would go to Africa. They would convert the capital into human beings. So human beings would be put onto the ships. The ship itself was an enormous vector by itself. Maybe 20, 25% of people don't even live in the crossing or if they're quarantined, many more die of disease then. And the colonizers are bringing together sort of all these people very quickly who have not built up a mutiny to different kinds of pathogens. So that is an enormous vector and there's a long history that comes from that process and an unfair relationship with blackness is considered out of that by a lot of whiteness in America but the vector itself is the slave trade. And so I kind of move from that historically through a lot of different health disparities that happen as you were noting throughout US history. A very kind of important moment was there was a smallpox outbreak in a campaign to deal with it after the Civil War and it would have almost created something like universal healthcare and a lot of white people didn't want it because they didn't want black people to also get it. But the criminalization element happens at various stages through US history. I understand it primarily through HIV and AIDS. The story of Mary Mallon of course is very important to had typhoid and she was a Irish immigrant in a period of time to quote another scholar, a period of time before the Irish were white or considered white in the United States and she was a working class person. So that allowed dynamics about how she was treated. I start to understand it mostly through HIV and AIDS. And I think a lot about the ways that the law itself produces, it produces a criminalization but it also produces a kind of scientific understanding. I'm sure you know that Bruno Latour died earlier this week and he was a thinker that was very helpful in the understanding science and technology studies and the way these things affect each other. So kind of on the good end of things is my colleague, your former colleague, I mean still colleagues just at different universities as Stephen Epstein at Northwestern writes about the activist group Act Up and the work that they did to push the government and to push scientists and corporations to change the way that vaccine trials happened and treatment trials happened in such a way that they converted a process that took 10 years that could maybe be done in one year. And we're all benefits, all of us who, the billions of people have been vaccinated around the world for COVID-19 are beneficiaries of this work that they did where as activists, they affected the scientists, the scientists affected the law and regulations and so on and so forth. With HIV criminalization, I saw a very, very different thing happening that's quite unfortunate where a kind of scientific knowledge is produced by the law in a very bad way. So the HIV, the AIDS law of Missouri that was involved in the Michael Johnson case was written in the 1980s and it was written in a time where AIDS was considered a death sentence and it hadn't been updated for decades and the prosecutor in the case that I was covering who was a very, very effective prosecutor, I didn't really like him personally but he was an extremely good prosecutor with what he was trying to do. He absolutely kept any new knowledge about AIDS out of the courtroom and the defense kept trying to say, don't treat this as life in prison, don't treat this as a death sentence. It can be treated with a pill a day, people live their normal length of lives once they're properly medicated for the most part. And so he kept that knowledge out and so the jury eventually sentenced Michael to 30 years they sentenced him to 30 years in prison. And that became a way that the state sort of reinforced that this was true. Those jurors believed it was true. A lot of news media coverage believed it was true. And so that creates a kind of scientific understanding that will have effects throughout the rest of the society. And it criminalizes it very much treats HIV as a criminal matter. And I'm seeing the law criminalize things like this in very, very dangerous and scary ways right now. For example, if anyone happened to catch and I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it the interview that John Stuart did with the attorney general of the state of Arkansas he's grilling her in a way that journalists should but it took Stuart to do it about this law that Arkansas passed banning gender affirming care for minors and that care happened in consultation with parents and doctors and all kinds of people but the state of Arkansas has made it illegal. Florida is doing something similar. They've also effectively made it so that people living on Medicaid cannot get access to gender affirming treatment either so effectively it's making it so the poor can't get that kind of treatment. And there that makes the process of being a trans person healthy and well under standards that have been understood and studied for about four decades and are approved of by all the major medical organizations and all the LGBT organizations the state has made those illegal. And so that not only creates a bad health counts outcomes in general it creates a very, very specific bad health comes for people in particular in terms of viruses. If you were getting or were wanting to get hormone treatment through your healthcare provider then you would get that safely with sterile syringes under a doctor's support. If you're not getting it from there then the odds are that you will get it somewhere in the contraband market which immediately ups the likelihood of you getting HIV hepatitis things of that nature and also just not getting the other healthcare that you need. And then you can also be criminalized for it. The act of trying to become healthy in ways that we've understood now for decades for trans people is now criminalized. So that's kind of that's one of the major ways that I was thinking through this book and applies to black people in a disparate way but as I write about in some chapters it's not only black people and particularly things like the opioid crisis and poor parts of the United States, austerity budgets in European countries. A lot of these things make the ability to stay healthy and well for people criminalized. So that's another important piece of the argument that's so interesting. So you're saying that when we talk about the viral underclass it's not just people who have experienced health challenges that then fall under high levels of surveillance and kind of punitive action like the Michael Johnson case but it's also people who because of their social status find themselves excluded from healthcare systems and services in ways that raise there and elevate their risk for infection and exposure to illness. So I think this is so and then it becomes potentially a cycle in terms of a person who is getting gender affirming care but doing so in a way that potentially exposes them to HIV and then they're kind of in the cyclical dynamic in terms of potentially being prosecuted around HIV transition laws that are still active in several states. And I wonder why haven't we seen that kind of criminalization with something like COVID? There was a brief moment in time where there was conversation around do you prosecute people who aren't wearing masks or people where you can point to a case of transmission. So I wonder if you can talk about this in the context of the situation of the pandemic of COVID what's different? How do we think about that in the context of your argument around the viral underclass? Sure, so I think that some ways we have criminalized COVID and I do think with HIV and also with monkeypox there's particularly sexualized and racialized ways that they have a lot of stigma and that some ways it was reflected in the law. As you were saying at the beginning of COVID many countries around the world have made various things with COVID criminalized and in the US the biggest ways we had it were brief times with masking where it was almost entirely in New York City 49 or 50 cases were all black people. Quarantine and- Where people were prosecuted for not having the mask. They're prosecuted for not having the mask for having to be in by curfew. There were these horrific stories of black essential workers one I think was a nurse practitioner who was beaten by the police in the middle of the night coming from his job. So there were ways that that happened. And this may be, I might write an afterward on the paperback version of the book but one thing I'm thinking specifically around the law is that this STS frame I was talking about it creates a form of scientific understanding that has incorrect still has real material consequences. So for example, when the CDC shifted from a 10 day window to a five day window for how long that you should not be, you know you could quarantine after your exposure and there was another paper this week that showed that that's really not good. It should still be 10 days. So when the CDC says five days and it's over I'm now starting to hear stories of parents whose kids are testing positive on day six, seven and eight and they're being threatened with currency and similar with people's jobs that if you're, you know if you're sick with COVID for five days and then you're still sick on day six, seven or eight and you're testing positive and your job says CDC says five days come back to work that is kind of a criminalization of the sickness and it's certainly making it so that people could be punished financially if not actually through the criminal courts. Something similar has happened with monkeypox as well where people were getting month long quarantines and just absolutely breaking down because they were not getting any financial support. And so, and that way the state's putting them in a position where they're saying the person has to stay at home and quarantine which is somewhat for their health. My friends who've had monkeypox say it was pretty horrific in terms of pain. So they probably wouldn't wanna be out and around but if you don't have work that you can do from home or if you're too sick to work during that time you're basically being punished. The person's staying home to protect the rest of the population and so the society should be financially supporting them. So if you say to someone you get this diagnosis and you have to lose your income for a month that's also putting people at heightened risk for things like eviction and hunger and things that could lead to further damages to health but also could lead to a kind of criminalization. Most people in the United States cannot afford to live without a month of their earnings without other bad things happening in their life. So one of the things that I think is so helpful about your book is to really help us to understand the importance of thinking very critically about criminalization efforts. And I wonder what do you say to people who say, well, deterrence is an important public health tool. And that strategy is really important for us to be able to encourage people to do behaviors that we think are in the interest of public health. How would you respond to that argument? The deterrence of the stick, if you will, is sometimes more powerful than the carrot, I guess is another way to phrase it. Yeah, so deterrence is important and the unfortunate thing that happens with HIV criminalization, other things too, but this is the one I'm most familiar with is that prosecutions create deterrence to actually getting tested. So most HIV laws in the US, and you can say there's sort of a similar analogy with COVID or monkeypox as well, but most HIV laws are predicated upon, if you know your status, if you know that you're HIV positive, then you can be prosecuted. If you don't disclose your status before you engage with inactivities with people through which they could become positive themselves. It's most commonly applied to sex and injection drug use, but at its sort of most insidious end, it's been tacked on as a sentence enhancer with quote unquote, blue lives matter laws that have cropped up in the last few years in such a way that if somebody is HIV positive, they're arrested by the cops and the cop bangs are heading against the sidewalk and they start bleeding. They can actually be charged with attempted murder of a police officer. That's obviously a way that, no, that's not gonna happen. There's no way that that would lead to transmission. But the primary way that it plays out is people are prosecuted for not disclosing their status and you can't be prosecuted if you don't know your status. So it's yet another barrier of stigma that makes it harder for people to become aware of their status. The people that I worked with in St. Louis for years, they've done this work, it's very difficult work to get people tested for HIV. They were mostly poor black young men and gay men who they were trying to get tested because they're the most at risk. And these young men see somebody arrested and sentenced to prison for life effectively, like do not wanna get tested even more so. Like their numbers went really down once they saw that. And so we want people with infectious disease to know that they can come forward and they're going to be taken care of. And we had some moments that that happened here in the United States, they weren't long enough. But we had some moments where people were becoming infected with COVID when New York City where I spent a good chunk of the pandemic, they could call and the city would deliver food to you, would bring anything to you that you needed. If you are sick or someone in your family needed to quarantine, they eventually took months to view this, it was too long. They eventually made free hotel rooms available to you or your family to quarantine with COVID so that you didn't infect other people. And that's what we need to have when anyone has an infectious disease. We need to know that they're not gonna feel shamed. They're not gonna be financially harmed. You have no incentive to test regularly if you know you're going to lose your way to earn a living. If you make people have to have a decision between am I going to eat and have a roof over my head or am I going to work while I'm sick? They're probably going to choose to work while they're sick and we can't sort of say that's just their ethical fault.  That is the carrot, I guess. But I do think that a lot of people don't understand that the major problem with deterrence with criminalizing sickness is you make it so that people don't want to know. And we want people to know. We want them to know with monkey pox and we want them to know with monkey pox and not think I'm facing, I could lose a month's earning, therefore I'm not gonna get tested. We want them to know like come forward, you won't be judged, you will be taken care of and that's the best way to actually stop transmission through the public body. So when I think about policy prescriptions that come out of your book, it's very clear that decriminalization is a really important prescription that you offer and what I also read in your work and hear you saying is the importance of safety nets as another really important public health strategy. And I wonder if you can talk a little bit more, as you know I write a lot about health safety nets and it's one of the kind of key things that I think about in my work and I wonder if you can talk about safety nets. You talked about the examples of giving people access to housing, making sure that they have economic sustenance and I wonder why you think we are so reluctant to provide safety nets? Why is it such a politically controversial idea and are there specific ways that we can make the argument or push for certain strategies and certain safety nets that could be effective? So I wonder if you could essentially what I'm asking you to talk about is what is the political resistance to it and then what are the actual prescriptions you would offer in terms of what kind of safety net you think would be most effective? Safety nets, what do you think would be most effective? Sure, so the way that people are averse to them and want to avoid them and kind of see safety nets as toxic, it's just something that happens under sort of neoliberal capitalism, the idea that everything must be paid for, people should take on risks themselves and not collectively, even though, and we see this time and time again where it would make sense to pay for something like you want to stop an HIV transmission or COVID transmission before it happens because there are going to be all these other costs that come after that time, but sometimes the prioritization of profit is one of the reasons why these kinds of safety nets are avoided. And as you've seen in your own work, they're these ways that HIV and AIDS have created these safety nets that we're missing in certain communities prior to this and viruses can kind of be guides to where we can say, we want to deal with this one thing but if we deal with it, we need to provide all these other forms of support to stop that from happening. So with the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the biggest safety nets that we saw, and I think this is absolutely important with any kind of public health was Housam, when the United States did have for a few years or a couple of years an eviction moratorium. And we know clearly from evidence that once people are addicted, their lives cascade out of control in all kinds of ways, but specifically around infectious disease, homelessness is one of the biggest indicators about who is likely to become HIV positive and also very much so who is living with HIV and their HIV is going to advance onto AIDS. Nobody should get AIDS anymore. You know, it takes too long from the time somebody is infected to AIDS, it takes years. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to intervene in those years and get them the medication that we need. But not having a stable home is one of the reasons is one of the most common reasons why people either never get on treatment in the first place or why they can't adhere to daily treatment. Research early on and the, well, I'd say like in the first six, seven, eight months of COVID-19 pandemic also quickly found that being homeless was a huge indicator of becoming infected with COVID and dying of COVID. Homelessness is, you know, it just creates such terrible social determinants of health that if you get any sort of disease or pathogen, you're much more likely to get seriously ill and die. So housing I think is the most important safety net. Having, you know, this sounds very basic, but having access to healthcare and free healthcare or free at the point of service is really important. And again, as a matter of policy, we saw this during the COVID-19 pandemic, there were huge, you know, campaigns and efforts to get people vaccinated without cost. You know, we vaccinated 200 million people or so. Treatment as well was paid for by the federal government for a while. So we know which public health is shown in other countries as well. If you want people to take in a campaign for the public body, make it free at the point of service and make it as widely available possible and it will work. And that also stops what I think of as sort of a secondary engine of creating a viral underclass in the United States is that if you have a public service like the NHS in England, which had its own challenges, but it had an infrastructure that was built up, regardless of that though, if you go into the NHS for anything, you know, you don't leave with a bill. And in the United States, you can leave with a bill that's debilitating for tens or hundreds of thousand dollars or even a million dollars. And that kind of debt and owing that kind of money can also put people on a path to ruination. So I think that the most important things are access to healthcare, access to housing and trying to create the least amount of stigma as possible so people know that they can come forward and they're going to be taken care of. And the social safety net, you know, at a certain level does need the state especially when people are losing wages or need access to flexible housing. You know, such a common story in the COVID-19 pandemic was multiple people are living in a small space and then everyone gets sick. So access to temporary housing in that way is really important. But also it's, yeah, also it's important to see the ways that just getting, having people know that they're going to get what they need from the beginning will help them. And people were filling in the gaps in lots of ways. People were doing mutual aid, all kinds of organizations were helping one another. But at a certain point the state needs to be involved to get things like lost wages and temporary housing. One of the things also that I so appreciate about your work is that you have a global, you not only have a historical perspective but you have a very global perspective. And you're thinking about what to learn through comparison and analysis outside of the United States. And I wonder if you can comment on, do we see viral underclasses in other countries in context? I suspect the answer is yes, but I wonder if you can comment on what are the differences and the contours of how it plays out in other places. And I also wonder if you can just kind of comment on what a global perspective does for you to be able to further refine your argument about the viral underclass. So first, do we see viral underclasses in other contexts and does it look just like it does in the US? So yes, we do see viral underclasses. And in my book, I do look at a few other countries even though I'm primarily focused on the United States. The thing that I find most particular to the US is that we spend so much money on healthcare more than any other country in the world. And yet we put the viral people who can become part of our underclass or RID in it in this position where once you become infected that can sort of ruin you for the rest of your life financially in ways that are gonna have lots of effects on your health as well. And that's not so much a dynamic that I see in other countries that seems to be particular American or US-ian. But I do see it in other countries. I write primarily in my book a little bit about France but I write a fair amount about Korea, South Korea where there was a very different, there's a very different relationship to this virus in this pandemic, which had, and that country had a lot better results than the United States. But I do a close training of the movie Parasite and there are all kinds of ways that poor people are still, of course, unduly affected. And there was early on in the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea, there was a way that you could see criminalization and homophobia creating a viral underclass. So after Seoul had their first wave, which wasn't anything like the United States, their second wave began and they had a very effective contact tracing, but they traced it to a gay neighborhood and particularly to one bar in one gay sauna. And it's also like the United States, it's a very, very homophobic country. So again, people are like afraid to come forward. And one person who apparently gave truth about almost everything in his story, except he lied about having a job because he presumed, we don't know who he is, but presumably didn't want his employers to know that he'd had this potentially had this virus or perhaps that he was gay and then he was sent to prison for three years.  The bar in the sauna were very forthcoming. They had really good information about who had been in the facility. They were very helpful in doing the contact tracing but if you then punish them through homophobia that's gonna create secrecy and worse health effects. And I write a lot about a case study in Greece. I just happened to go to Greece while I was writing my dissertation. I had a dissertation writing fellowship and I was gonna look into some things about HIV that some of our colleagues, including John Schneider, I don't know if you worked with them, John Schneider at the Third Coast Center for AIDS Research. I knew that I wanted to check in with some HIV work that was being done in Greece but I wasn't planning to do much deep research and I wanted to take a break from American police violence. And then within about a week of my being in Greece, a young person was kicked to death and a really horrific mob kicking and hitting death in the middle of Athens for the people involved with police officers. And it turned out that he was the most prominent HIV activist in the country and was a very, very out queer LGBT rights and migrant rights activist named Zach Christopoulos. And so as I've now been investigating his murder for the past three years, I read a tire chapter about him in my book. It was interesting to see for me as an Americanist how many of the same things I saw in the United States were happening completely outside of the transatlantic slave trade, kind of completely out of my frame of blackness and whiteness within the United States or even sort of European colonialism happening within Europe. And the way that I saw this most clearly was that Athens, Greece's main mode of transmission is for HIV, it's the case in several countries, is through injection drug use. And in the 2000s, they'd had really effective campaigns to bring that down through safe injection sites and sterile syringe exchanges and doing street work just going out and giving people syringes in the street. It actually didn't even cost that much money, but they had a lot of success. And then in Greece's housing crash or economic crisis, which was a couple of years after the US's, the EU took over and enacted all of the austerity and cut all of these budgets, including the budgets for these health campaigns that had gone out to people. And so Athens rate of HIV went up 3000% in just four years before efforts were taken to bring it back down. And so that was a place where I saw how austerity, sort of the desire to cut the expenses of the government so that the wealthiest can have more money, that burden is burdened by the viral underclass. Was that Gustavus became HIV positive during that period? There are ways that the government can push, can try to end viruses or certainly can direct them one way or another. And so when a government will say, we're not gonna pay for sterile syringes anymore, there are enough since opening up knowingly the veins of people to HIV and also their entire networks. And a similar thing has happened here in the United States, particularly with the opioid crisis, sometimes in very, very majority white areas of the country, Indiana, Appalachia, West Virginia, places where the surveillance networks have already been dismantled. There's nobody really looking for STIs. And then if HIV or hepatitis work their way into circles where the opioid crisis leads to a lot of injection drug use and those viruses can move very quickly through networks. And if those states have cut those kinds of social services, there are no sense letting that happen. The county where Michael Johnson was prosecuted cut their only STI clinic like a year into his prosecution. And I'm really worried right now, I was just talking to my students about this this week. There was a report, I think it was in the Times about how 66 clinics that perform abortions have closed since the Dobs decision. And if that's anything like what's happened in other states, those clinics that performed abortions very well might have been the only places where people were getting STI testing, STI treatment and any kind of LGBT affirming healthcare. So the likely closure of these places for abortion is likely also pulling back surveillance networks and attempts to mitigate STIs and viruses like HIV and wide swaths of the country. And this leads to a really important question about, continuing about the conversation about geography. I wonder if you can talk about rural suburban and urban dynamics as it relates to the viral underclass because for a long time, particularly when I think about the idea of the urban underclass that was a popular descriptor in the 80s and the early 90s, it was almost always understood to be an urban kind of inner city phenomenon. And one of the things that I hear you talking about is this importance of other kinds of geographies and the ways in which these inequities are showing up not only in our central cities, but they're also showing up in rural areas and suburban landscapes as well, often undetected because of differences in infrastructure, differences in attention, the kind of spaciousness of populations and access to services. So I wonder if you can really talk about why it's so important in our analysis to really be able to look at all of those different contexts to fully understand what's happening, rural, suburban and urban. So first I'll say something about the term underclass, which when I gave a talk before, you had told me that I needed to make sure I put that into my book to talk about the ways that William Julius Wilson and Herbert Ganz talk about the underclass. And I had it in a draft of the book and then it got edited out. Maybe I'll put it back into the paper, maybe I'll mention that in the afterword in the paperback edition, because every time I give talks, it's always a sociologist that asks me about that miscarriage type of book. And I do say this very briefly, I'm accepting underclass as a condition of capitalism. Capitalism creates different classes. I don't see it in any sense of shame. I'm just saying that this is a reality of capitalism that it creates underclasses. The underclass is a certain relationship to viruses and viruses also can help us understand how that class structure creates different experiences with health. And I think you're really right. There's a deep important need to understand across geographies within the United States and across the world. And I hope that in some ways my book has added a positive contribution to this. I kind of started understanding this as someone who's lived in big cities most of my life when I did start looking at how the fastest growing HIV outbreak in the history of the country was in 2014, 2015 in rural Scott County, Indiana. And then I started seeing in Appalachia that there were these various places largely driven in tandem with the opioid crisis where viruses were moving very quickly, particularly hepatitis and HIV. And in the ways that AIDS was very much seen as urban slash black problem in the 80s and 90s. And you could see the concentrations of it. And it was happening in other parts of the country too with less attention, but it was very, very much concentrated in urban countries in urban cities in North America that had this real connection to deindustrialization. When you look at the Bronx and Brooklyn and the 1980s and 1990s and the maps of where HIV and AIDS was, similarly with hip hop culture, a lot of it is happening in tandem with deindustrialization and the poverty that's happening there. And then you can see the same thing is happening with deindustrialization across the United States. It's not happening in exactly the same timeframe. A lot of it's happening a couple of decades later, but wherever you see steel mills that have shut down and coal mines that have shut down and people having access to good jobs, unions. Unions are both important in terms of economics, but also just a feeling of connection to community. As these things were obliterated by the economic down spiral and the losing of the tax base and lots of parts of the US, very similar things were happening there. And so I think that it's important to see that we have a lot of solidarity. We don't have to see sort of urban versus rural as two distinct things that don't share common values and common needs. And you've probably seen in your work, there are all kinds of ways that the cities that were initially hit the hardest by AIDS, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago that they've built up quite a robust infrastructure and numbers have been going in the right way in lots of ways through targeted campaigns, particularly things like PrEP and trying to get pre-exposure prophylaxis to stop infection from happening in younger populations. And so that's happening in urban places and not as much in rural places. And so that's something that needs to be addressed. I think it's also important to, even though my theory of the viral underclass is thinking across viruses, but the differences of particular viruses and particular pandemics are important and they shouldn't be ignored. For example, Monkeypox is being dealt with in big cities and from what I can tell almost nowhere else. I was shocked when I was at Cornell University two or three weeks ago, which is Tompkins County, New York and Cornell, that town, Ithaca is one of the densest concentrations of PhDs in the country. And no Monkeypox shots have been given out. There simply hadn't been any given out in that entire county. And as I've talked to people around the country, I've met people where I haven't talked to anyone in certain states that's been able to get it yet. If some of them haven't heard about it very much or think it's our issue in the area, some people are really desperate to get it and simply can't get it. And so I think that we need to look at, yes, a lot of the transmissions are happening in New York or Chicago, but it's important to like vaccinate the people that are part of that network. We're not static in the United States. And then similarly in other countries as well, the particulars are important, but we're all connected to one another in these processes. The last thing I'll say on this is the Monkeypox epidemic was well predictable within the United States. We'd seen information coming out of Canada and Europe for months before that. But a really important moment is in 2017 when a Nigerian doctor whose last name was Ogoina had had a patient with what he thought was Monkeypox, but it seemed mysterious. They didn't fit the criteria of why they should have it. And then over the next year, it was like only seeing it amongst men who have sex with men. And prior to this time, Monkeypox was not understood to really move sexually or certainly not within sexual networks. And so he said that he wrote a paper and saying like, I think we really need to study this more, I need money, I need resources to study and see like, is it moving sexually? Is it moving through genital secretions? And nobody paid attention to him around the world. So if the US thought it was in our interest, to take care of what's happening in rural Nigeria, which it is in our interest, but it's also important for those people's, helping people in other parts of the world. If we saw that, yes, there is a relationship. There's a relationship between what's happening in Wuhan, China and what's happening in urban and rural Nigeria and we're all kind of connected. At some point, we may all be connected by these viruses. So we can't really just sort of see national borders as a line of defense or cities as the only places that these have to be dealt with. Really helpful. And so, Steven, our conversation is being broadcast online, but it's also being broadcast in our classroom. So Dr. Dominique, Adam Santos and I have a class called Racial Foundations of Public Policy and the students are watching and they have sent in some questions. So I wanna get to some of their questions. So in what ways has the broader reach of the COVID-19 pandemic affected the cultural understanding of the spread of viruses in our communities? What lessons do we seem to have grasped in ways that feel similar or perhaps different from previous epidemics? So there was an understanding in theory that COVID could happen to anybody and it was often called the Great Equalizer in the United States in the first couple of months that it was being experienced here. In a certain sense, it's true in a way. In theory, anyone can become infected by it. The odds of people becoming infected by it certainly that first year were extremely different. Somebody doing face-to-face work as a cashier is going to have much worse odds in encountering the virus than somebody's working from home and having all their food delivered by Uber Eats and their packages coming from Amazon. So there was a difference, but there was the kind of thought that we're all in this together. And the virus itself can move extremely casually. There's not a difference. For instance, HIV and AIDS moves in prisons. HIV is a much less efficient virus, but prison guards are not like, they're not sort of so at risk of HIV, or they're not at very high risk of HIV working at prison, but they are for COVID. And there are these ways that even very wealthy people cannot avoid, the people who earn less money from them entirely. And that way there is like something kind of democratic about viruses. If given the possibility, they will just move and try to replicate wherever they can. So that has been a lesson. We had an experiment in socialized medicine on a scale we've never seen before by having these free vaccines that were given to try to get them to everybody as quickly as possible. That was something we learned from. We were socialized to accept vaccines. So I thought a lot about how the monkeypox epidemic happening is like so affected in good ways and challenging ways with COVID-19. Very good that I think if the US had been able to snap their fingers and say we had 10 million vaccines in June of last year, they would have gotten rid of them very quickly. Gay men would have been very willing to accept them because we haven't gotten, because we've been socialized into this, doing this as adults in a way we haven't been for a long time. And then there were also challenges because people bring with them sort of their assumptions of COVID, the assumptions of how the virus is going to move and the monkeypox virus moves very differently, acts very differently. So there are challenges with that. But it's generally good that we've had the experience of going through something together and having a common understanding of it. The thing that I find kind of saddest is we've been forced to confront repeatedly that we share one public body and our fates are intertwined to some degree. We have different levels of risk, but our fates are intertwined. And literally biological matter for me to you can travel and change your body and the same can happen to mine and change your DNA. But I feel like there's this very, this almost violent revanchism to try to get away from that and push people back to feeling like they're individually minded. The illustration I use in class that does this the most is showing the MTA's poster for the subway system in New York with two people smiling saying, I do this for you, you do this for me where they're both wearing masks.  And that's kind of the move that a lot of public policy has moved towards because we've built a lot of solidarity in ways. I don't think that's, I think that's gonna have a political life beyond this one moment, but there's a lot of attempts in policy to push people back to a a more individualistic mindset about their destinies. Thank you for that. I wonder if we can talk about this idea of at what point do you think about, one of the things that's so interesting about your book is it's interdisciplinary nature. And our students are often kind of grappling with this idea of how do you think about building coalitions? How do you think about speaking to multiple audiences? How do you think about using multiple tools of knowledge to be able to make a set of arguments? And I wonder if you can talk about that because what's really clear is your grasp of public policy, of legal frameworks, of history, of the arts in terms of your writing about the film Parasite. And I wonder if you can talk about what is that, how does that help you achieve your goals, particularly in policy conversations? So I think my book is very much an American Studies book, that's where I did my PhD and I like, and I actually, I don't know if I've ever told you this, but when I was thinking about doing a PhD, I initially thought I'd do it in sociology and I met with a bunch of people, I applied to one program, but a number of people said to me, American Studies might be good for you, it's good for former journalists or acting, or continuing recovering journalists because you can use different modes, you can use different methods for whatever problem you're dealing with or whatever situation you're standing at the time. So I was really happy, I was surprised, I didn't know if my editors would let me have like a chapter where I was mostly writing about Parasite, but they very much welcomed it. So I like to show that there are different ways to think about the world. And viruses to me have been incredible teachers, biologically, metaphorically, politically, scientifically, almost even spiritually in understanding the world. And over the past three years, we've been very aware of how they have shaped like almost every aspect of our human lives. And I think I kind of came to that understanding, having not, I mean, I was alive, but I was a child at the beginning years of AIDS. As an adult, I've really become aware of the ways that AIDS has created community culture relationships about science, but also around culture and art and queerness and queer theory that have very much enriched into my life. So I wanted to think about different ways that I could think about this virus because it just affects so many different parts of life that we need different ways to deal with it. From a policy standpoint, I don't know, like there are parts of my book that I think are very policy oriented, even though they seem a bit pie in the sky. So where I'm writing in the chapter called the liberal carceral state, I'm writing about how one of the reasons why we did not see the drop of COVID things with the Biden administration that we maybe hoped we would after the Trump administration was so cavalier with many things because incarceration is such a part of US life going between parties in many ways embraced by the Democratic party. Since I wrote the book, President Biden has said that he wanted to hire 100,000 more cops and just like President Clinton did in the 1990s. And that's money that could be going to other places. Ironically, the day President Biden was wanting to go announce that he wanted to hire these cops, he could not because he got COVID. And so I feel like in some ways we're making the same mistakes, but at a policy level, I try to talk to people and there are a couple of different places where you can meet them. I think a large majority of the US now kind of can look at policing and say policing is being asked to do all these different things and you could take a bunch of them out and spend the money better. And I think there's a pretty broad understanding that yeah, you could have psychiatric checks, you could have certain things that would make it so that the police aren't doing so much and other social services could be better funded. There's also a belief that abolition, none of it's working and it needs to be abolished and something completely new needs to come in its place, which is more how I think of things, but something I've told to people from I guess this is sort of policy perspective was that I think a lot about the death of George Floyd and Floyd died, obviously everyone knows by being killed by a police officer. Would a lot of people forget if they even knew it in the first place is that when his autopsy was done, he had the novel coronavirus, he'd recently been infected by it. And so I think a lot about how had Floyd lived, from the police encounter, would he possibly have also died of COVID and then kind of coming back from the moment of infection and the moment of his death because I think thinking about police violence, it's not just about the moment of shooting and transmissions of virus as well, it's not just about that moment, you have to step back. I think about how the city of Minneapolis was spending like 38%, 37, 38% of their budget on police. And so I think about had George Floyd lost his job as tens of millions of people did in the beginning months of the COVID pandemic, what if Minneapolis had been spending that money capitalizing and helping people like him, making sure that they had food, making sure they had housing, he might not have ever been in that cup food store, he very well might not have ever come into contact with the police and still be alive. And so that's the way that I kind of think about policy people and saying that we're making agendas for our country with our values by how we're creating budgets over time. And those budgets create certain realities and we can create realities where viral transmission was not happening as much as it is. There's a question from a student about the possibilities around universal healthcare. And the student writes once concept is stood out to me from the book is that health insurance should not be tied to employment. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, so many people lost jobs and their health insurance along with those jobs, leading not only the housing instability as you've described, but reduced access to healthcare, all during a global pandemic. What do you see as the most feasible path towards universal healthcare in the United States? The student would like to know. The most feasible path to me seems and it would just take getting rid of maybe not that many Democratic donors would be something like Medicaid for all or Medicare for all. Medicare is incredibly popular. It's been around for decades. There's an infrastructure for it. And not only has the support of a vast majority of Democratic voters, it actually has the support of a majority of Republican voters. So this is not something that the country doesn't want. They do want it, but it's mostly political interference from the Democratic donor class that wants to keep carrying on with private insurance. So to me, that's one way that's most likely or most politically viable. The other one that I've been sad to see go was that we had an infrastructure in this country. It was put together by a lot of spit and prayer and tape and volunteerism, but we got to a point where we were vaccinating four or 4.2 million people a day in the United States. And I thought that should have been a model for us. We might not have always been able to do that much, but we could have created, we could have kept large parts of that infrastructure in such a way that you could just go get your, you could go to a sports stadium, certain weekends of the month and get your COVID booster, your updated booster. You could go there once a year to get your flu shot. Something like monkeypox or meningitis comes up. You can also go to that same place to get it. And so we did it. We sort of made that infrastructure on the fly. And I think that there's a possibility that we could certainly do certain things like that, particularly around infectious disease, so that we're not kind of lurching from thing to thing. We know that everyone needs to get a flu shot every year. There should be like a major, it's important. This is COVID vaccines were important and there's no reason like we can't make a permanent or flex permanent system at least to deal with those kinds of things. And it's interesting. So would you say, given the models, cause I'm interested in your point around the resistance to universal healthcare. And I'm also thinking about the boat. There was definitely a huge amount of disapproval from the right as well. When you think about the attacks on the Affordable Care Act and things like that. And I really thought about some of the things that we saw in COVID in terms of large scale vaccine efforts and rollouts as moves towards evidence or moves towards more universal healthcare practices. And it's interesting, it's like many people, I think didn't think about it that way. Or maybe they did. And that was part of some of the resistance around vaccines, for example, of this idea of, I wanna take something that we're all supposed to take and the government's telling me to take. So it's so interesting in terms of how you're drawing these parallels and another huge part that's really obvious are these kind of cultural ideologies and the role of say social media in spreading these cultural ideologies and reinforcing these cultural ideologies in terms of how we think of things like healthcare, illness, et cetera. So I wonder if you could just comment on one of the big elephants in the room, which is social media and the internet in this conversation in ways that are operating very different from when we were say writing in the time, we would be writing in the time of HIV epidemic, for example. Can you talk about that as a pillar of this conversation? Yeah. I think that to me, one of the most powerful things of the last few years has been that all of humanity has been going through some version of the same thing with very different levels of risk, different ways that we're coming out. But every human on this planet has somehow been affected by something happening at the same time and with the ability to communicate with others. That's never happened before in human history where I was constantly like in contact with friends in Europe, South America. A little bit in China, a lot in Korea and like Africa, like what's happening? What's happening in your place of the world? So there was the social dynamic of whether or not people agree with socialism. We were like socialized in a way we never have been before that adults could go, like you could just show up somewhere and the government's gonna give you this medicine you need without paying for it. We've not had that experience before in the United States, certainly nothing like it on the scale. I think that, and I'll come back to your social media part of inches a second. I think a lot of hesitancy I've seen around accepting vaccines was for some of the reasons I already said, but also from people who've been left for dead in the health system already.  You can live or die and we don't care. Like it's very hard when then the government comes and says, come take this free thing. It's gonna help you or help your neighbors. Like you're inclined to be distrustful. And I think that we're paying a price for that. Now, social media find very interesting for how we're connecting about it. We're gonna be studying it for the rest of our lives. I think as I was saying, there was a circulation of knowledge that didn't happen before, both in terms of people trying to understand what was happening in terms of the kind of language you use, pre-prints of paper, papers. Papers, no one or the vast majority of the earth would never have heard of that are pre peer review are now sort of circulating amongst millions of people. But in some ways, I think it's a little over determined. I think there's a lot of belief with social media and also with more traditional Fox news that it's poisoning people in some ways it is. But the vast majority of elderly people in this country, like 95% of people over 75, I think got vaccinated. And that's Fox news audience. Like those Fox news viewers of a certain age got vaccinated and they got vaccinated because the United States spent a lot of money and put a lot of resources to go to nursing homes, to go to the villages, to go to retirement communities. And they got almost everybody vaccinated regardless of their party affiliation. Now over time, party affiliation has started to take in, take on a bigger valence and who's gotten boosted and who's not gotten boosted. But the people haven't gotten boosted did not become, a lot of them did not become anti-vax. It's just that the delivery system that made it possible disappeared. So sometimes I think we should worry a little less about what Fox is doing or what social media is doing and think about how can we systemically get to people and get more people vaccinated. But people have endless stories, including me. I've had very painful stories within my own family about sort of the role of social media, snake oil people and the ways that it's created. This I've seen a lot of it's created huge divisions within families that I think is going to be a real lasting legacy of this pandemic. Wow. The last question will be another student question and it's this, in the preface to the book, I was struck by the line, then think again about your place in it all, about what you have done and what more you can do. What can we, Dr. Thrasher, as students and young professionals do to help expose and fight the viral, the frameworks of the viral underclass their experiences and the forces and systems that created? I think that's from Jonathan's forward before my pen kicks in. But in terms of what you can do, as students, you have the opportunity while you're here in school to kind of follow your passions and figure out what you love doing and what you want to do and take as much advantage of that as you can before the market tries to force you into maybe spending your time the way you don't want to. Regardless of the kind of work that you are going into, I encourage you to organize your workplace. Like one of the, there's been one RA campus and then one entire college, Grinnell in Iowa, that's organized their entire student worker body and that will give you really great skills. The reason why we've seen so much organizing with Amazon and Starbucks around the country is in direct reaction to the kinds of conditions people were fighting to get safer places for COVID, safer workplaces during COVID. And so regardless of the kind of work that you're gonna be doing, understanding that you don't have to do it alone or you can do it in concert with other people will help you personally, will help your communities and fellow workers and will help you create the kind of world that we need to have to address climate change. And I guess the last thing I'll say about this was I was very struck in reporting on the book and also in my own experiences for friends of mine who had been off like kind of full-time office workers and how much more satisfaction they had in their lives while they were working at home, not just because they were working at home, but like so many people actually took delight in doing things like getting groceries for the elderly neighbors and being part of mutual aid networks in that way. And so I would say as students, like take notice of what actually brings you joy in your day-to-day life and try to incorporate that into the kind of life that you're going to lead. And often I feel like people like to feel like they're needed and they like to feel that they're cared about. And so trying to create a world where you are needed and cared about and don't feel like you're just being exploited and doing things you don't like, but actually feel like you're in an interdependent relationship with other people of mutual care. I think that is something that you can do that's really valuable. Dr. Stephen Thrasher, this has been so helpful and illuminating. The book is called The Viral Underclass. I invite people to check it out. It is such an important piece of work. The viral underclass, the human toll when inequality and disease collide. Thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate you joining us. And to our audience, we thank you. This has been another segment of Racial Foundations of Public Policy. We thank you on behalf of the Center for Racial Justice at the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. Thank you.