Pandemic Aid Programs Spur a Record Drop in Poverty

“The most comprehensive study yet of the federal response to the pandemic shows huge but temporary benefits for the poor — and helps frame a larger debate over the role of government.

July 28, 2021

Kathryn Goodwin, 29, celebrating the third birthday of her daughter Vivian this week in St. Peters, Mo. A single mother of five, Ms. Goodwin said her income rose almost 30 percent last year, despite losing her job.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times

Kathryn Goodwin, 29, celebrating the third birthday of her daughter Vivian this week in St. Peters, Mo. A single mother of five, Ms. Goodwin said her income rose almost 30 percent last year, despite losing her job.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The huge increase in government aid prompted by the coronavirus pandemic will cut poverty nearly in half this year from prepandemic levels and push the share of Americans in poverty to the lowest level on record, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of a vast but temporary expansion of the safety net.

The number of poor Americans is expected to fall by nearly 20 million from 2018 levels, a decline of almost 45 percent. The country has never cut poverty so much in such a short period of time, and the development is especially notable since it defies economic headwinds — the economy has nearly seven million fewer jobs than it did before the pandemic.

The extraordinary reduction in poverty has come at extraordinary cost, with annual spending on major programs projected to rise fourfold to more than $1 trillion. Yet without further expensive new measures, millions of families may find the escape from poverty brief. The three programs that cut poverty most — stimulus checks, increased food stamps and expanded unemployment insurance — have ended or are scheduled to soon revert to their prepandemic size.

While poverty has fallen most among children, its retreat is remarkably broad: It has dropped among Americans who are white, Black, Latino and Asian, and among Americans of every age group and residents of every state.

Poverty Rates Have Fallen for Every Demographic Group

“These are really large reductions in poverty — the largest short-term reductions we’ve seen,” said Laura Wheaton of the Urban Institute, who produced the estimate with her colleagues Linda Giannarelli and Ilham Dehry. The institute’s simulation model is widely used by government agencies. The New York Times requested the analysis, which expanded on an earlier projection.

The finding — that poverty plunged amid hard times at huge fiscal costs — comes at a moment of sharp debate about the future of the safety net.

The Biden administration has started making monthly payments to most families with children through an expansion of the child tax credit. Democrats want to make the yearlong effort permanent, which would reduce child poverty on a continuing basis by giving their families an income guarantee.

Progressives said the new numbers vindicated their contention that poverty levels reflected political choices and government programs could reduce economic need.

“Wow — these are stunning findings,” said Bob Greenstein, a longtime proponent of safety net programs who is now at the Brookings Institution. “The policy response since the start of the pandemic goes beyond anything we’ve ever done, and the antipoverty effect dwarfs what most of us thought was possible.”

Conservatives say that pandemic-era spending is unsustainable and would harm the poor in the long run, arguing that unconditional aid discourages work and marriage. The child tax credit offers families up to $300 per child a month whether or not parents have jobs, which critics call a return to failed welfare policies.

“There’s no doubt that by shoveling trillions of dollars to the poor, you can reduce poverty,” said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. “But that’s not efficient and it’s not good for the poor because it produces social marginalization. You want policies that encourage work and marriage, not undermine it.”

Poverty rates had reached new lows before the pandemic, Mr. Rector added, under policies meant to discourage welfare and promote work.

To understand how large the recent aid expansion has been, consider the experience of Kathryn Goodwin, a single mother of five in St. Charles, Mo., who managed a group of trailer parks before the pandemic eliminated her $33,000 job.

Without the pandemic-era expansions — passed in three rounds under both the Trump and Biden administrations — Ms. Goodwin’s job loss would have caused her income to plunge to about $29,000 (in jobless benefits, food stamps and other aid), leaving her officially poor.

Instead, her income rose above its prepandemic level, though she has not worked for a year. She received about $25,000 in unemployment benefits (about three times what she would have received before the pandemic) and $12,000 in stimulus checks. With increased food stamp benefits and other help, her income grew to $67,000 — almost 30 percent more than when she had a job.

“Without that help, I literally don’t know how I would have survived,” she said. “We would have been homeless.”

Still, Ms. Goodwin, 29, has mixed feelings about large payments with no stipulations.

“In my case, yes, it was very beneficial,” she said. But she said that other people she knew bought big TVs and her former boyfriend bought drugs. “All this free money enabled him to be a worse addict than he already was,” she said. “Why should taxpayers pay for that?”

The Urban Institute’s projections show poverty falling to 7.7 percent this year from 13.9 percent in 2018. That decline, 45 percent, is nearly three times the previous three-year record, according to historical estimates by researchers at Columbia University. The projected drop in child poverty, to 5.6 from 14.2 percent, amounts to a decline of 61 percent. That exceeds the previous 50 years combined, the Columbia figures show.

The Decline in Poverty Is Nearly Three Times the Previous Record

Three-year change in poverty rate

In addition to there being nearly 20 million fewer people in poverty, the institute projects about 10 million fewer in “near poverty,” with incomes of 100 to 150 percent of the poverty line. Under the yardstick the Urban Institute used (the government’s Supplemental Poverty Measure), the poverty line for two adults and two children with typical housing costs is about $30,000.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer  A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know. .

“The decline in ‘near poverty’ is significant because families in that income range, like people in poverty, suffer high rates of food insecurity and other hardships,” said Elaine Waxman, an Urban Institute researcher.

Poverty fell across racial and ethnic groups but most for people who are Black and Latino, meaning the gap with white Americans narrowed. The Rev. Starsky Wilson, the president of the Children’s Defense Fund, credited the racial protests of the past year for prompting lawmakers to act. “It’s no coincidence that the effort at mobilizing resulted in investments that reduced poverty and narrowed disparities,” he said.

Poverty fell less among Asian Americans, leaving them more likely than Black Americans to be poor. The institute found that was partly because they tended to live in more expensive areas.

Jessica Moore of St. Louis said the expanded aid helped her make a fresh start.

A single mother of three, Ms. Moore, 24, lost work as a banquet server at the pandemic’s start but received enough in unemployment insurance and stimulus checks to buy a car and enroll in community college. She is studying to become an emergency medical technician, which promises to raise her earnings 50 percent.

“When you lose your job, you don’t expect benefits that are more than you were making,” she said. “It was a pure blessing.”

Payments also went to people who kept their jobs, which helps explain why “near poverty” fell. The beneficiaries included John Asher of Indianapolis, who once served prison time for selling drugs but is now sober and earning $500 a week as a maintenance man. With $3,200 in stimulus checks, Mr. Asher, 49, was able to leave a boardinghouse, rent an apartment and take custody of an autistic son, who he feared would go to foster care.

But he said he distrusted “the crooked government” and urged poor people to help themselves. “If you want to change your life, you have to get up and do something — not sit home and get free money,” he said.

Leah Burgess, who also kept her job, drew the opposite lesson from the help she received. A part-time chaplain at a school outside the District of Columbia, Ms. Burgess, 43, is studying for two master’s degrees at Howard University. With three children, she and her husband, who was also a student, received about $18,000 in stimulus checks and expanded food stamps.

The aid helped them eat better and worry less, said Ms. Burgess, who called the support a foundation for a more just society. “If our resources in a pandemic could change millions of people’s lives, then what’s stopping us from continuing to do that?” she said.

The institute projected spending on core programs would more than double, to about $13,900 per family from $5,700 in 2018. The stimulus checks removed more than 12 million people from poverty. Food stamps ended poverty for nearly eight million people and unemployment aid for nearly seven million.

Critics said the aid was poorly devised, noting that many people received more from unemployment benefits than they had earned on the job.

“We spent like we’ve never spent before and we reduced hardship for most people quite dramatically,” said Bruce D. Meyer, an economist at the University of Chicago. “But this came at a very high and unnecessary cost.”

While Democrats and Republicans remain divided over future safety net spending, a bipartisan group of senators agreed Wednesday on about $550 billion in new spending for roads, bridges and physical infrastructure projects, and the Senate advanced the package in an initial vote.

How Government Relief Might Have Helped Two Different Families

At the request of The New York Times, the Urban Institute illustrated the safety net’s effects on two hypothetical Pennsylvania families. The first shows that increased aid would lift a single mother out of poverty in 2021 even if her earnings fell in half. The second shows that the aid would lift a married couple out of “near poverty” even if their earnings remained the same.

Single parent with two kids

in Philadelphia

Married couple with two kids

in Pottsville

Unemployment benefits

Earned income tax credit

Percent of poverty level

Measuring poverty is contentious, and some conservatives accuse the left of exaggerating the recent poverty reduction to justify more spending. They say the government’s methodology undercounts the benefits people receive and overstates what it takes to meet basic needs. The Urban Institute modified the government’s approach to correct for undercounting, but Ms. Wheaton said methodological issues did not change the conclusion that poverty fell since “we are applying a consistent measure to both years.”

If there are biases in the institute’s methodology, they lean in offsetting directions. Using a 2018 baseline may modestly overstate the recent poverty reduction, since poverty was lower when the virus hit. But the study, which was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, also understated the poverty reduction by omitting several large new programs, including $45 billion in rental aid.

Robert Doar, the president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, warned that the poverty numbers were being used to attack a successful social compact established a quarter-century ago with the overhaul of the welfare system. Under a new system of time limits and work requirements, payments to poor people without jobs fell, but subsidies for low-wage workers grew. Mr. Doar noted that while liberals warned child poverty would grow, by 2019 it had hit a prepandemic low.

“We required work, we rewarded work, and poverty rates were lower than had ever been,” he said. “The Democrats want to ignore all that and just send everybody a check.”

The evidence of falling poverty in 2021 may seem at odds with reports of increased hunger and other pandemic-era hardships. But the trends can coincide, as Ms. Goodwin’s experience shows. That is because poverty is based on annual income, and help has fluctuated greatly from month to month as a result of policy changes and administrative bottlenecks. Many families have swung between moments of surplus and desperation.

After six years on the job, Ms. Goodwin was shocked to find herself laid off (“that was really a slap in the face”) and distraught when her request for unemployment benefits went unanswered for a month. Fearing she might lose the children to foster care, she drove them 800 miles to Niagara Falls with thoughts of them all jumping in. 

Since then, her jobless benefits swung from a high of $920 a week (much more than she had received on the job) to a low of $320 (much less) as federal policy changed. She lost food stamps for several weeks and fed the children smaller portions. She waited months for stimulus aid after the payment went to a closed bank account.

“It was all very unreliable,” she said.

A low point came last fall, when her jobless benefits bottomed out. The trailer park where she once had worked evicted her.

Ms. Goodwin said she had been looking for work but it was harder than the “Help Wanted” signs would suggest. Fast-food chains say she is overqualified, and the pandemic-era closure of child care centers complicates her logistics. (She previously worked at home.) She started a sideline making church T-shirts and is an apprentice at a nail salon, where she hopes to get hired.

At once a beneficiary and critic of aid, Ms. Goodwin said the safety net, however imperfect, had lived up to its name. “It enabled us to stay out of poverty — that’s absolutely safety,” she said.“

Court order dashes hopes of teenage DACA applicants - Pure Evil

Court order dashes hopes of teenage DACA applicants

"When he turned 15 in 2017, Agustin became eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the Obama-era policy that provides protection from deportation and work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children.

© FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images US-COURT-IMMIGRATION-DREAMERS

But Agustin and his family decided it would be best to hold off on applying, fearing that any information sent to the government could be used against them, given Donald Trump's election in 2016.

"It was very clear [President Trump] was not interested in keeping DACA as a program, and we felt that it would be unwise to apply for a program that would give the government our location — and we could be deported easily," Agustin, who is now 18, told CBS News.

The Trump administration ended up suspending DACA in September 2017. While it was not able to end the work permits and deportation protections of current recipients because of court rulings, the administration closed DACA to new applications, leaving prospective applicants like Agustin in limbo.

Texas federal court stops DACA program, deeming it "illegal"

In December 2020, a federal court ordered the Trump administration to reopen DACA to new applicants. The news elated Agustin, who submitted his application this spring. "I was so happy," he remembered.

But Agustin's excitement was short-lived. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Texas directed the Biden administration to stop granting new DACA requests, calling the program illegal. Agustin was locked out of DACA — again.

"It was devastating," said Agustin, who was brought to the U.S from Mexico as a 3-year-old. "I don't know if I have fully processed it yet. It was like I was in a state of shock. I was so close to being able to do so much and a judge says, 'No, you're not allowed to do this.'"

This month's court ruling has dashed the hopes of up to 300,000 immigrant teenagers and young adults living in the U.S without legal permission who could qualify for DACA. As of late June, at least 81,000 immigrants had pending first-time DACA requests, which the government is now barred from approving.

For teenagers in U.S. high schools, the court ruling means not being able to obtain a driver's license or a summer job. For college-bound or university students, it blocks them from working legally in the U.S. For young adults, it means not being able to provide financially for their families, including their own children who are U.S. citizens.

"For these youngsters, these teenagers who are aging into eligibility in a really critical developmental period of their lives and not being able to get DACA, it's really detrimental to their future trajectories," Roberto Gonzales, a University of Pennsylvania professor who has studied undocumented youth since 2002, told CBS News. "It curves, if not cuts off, possibilities for them."

Agustin, who graduated from a Virginia high school last year, is currently volunteering in a local rescue squad, running ambulance calls. He wants to become a certified EMT and study nursing. But he's aware that he currently can't legally start a paid profession.

"I've lived here my whole life," Agustin said. "Dreamers have lived here our whole lives. And there's no reason to think of us as anything but Americans. We want to do everything that American can do and it seems like there's this barrier that has just been put up against us."

Arlette Morales, 18, also applied for DACA this year. She even completed the biometric appointment most first-time applicants have to attend in May. Like Agustin, she became eligible for DACA during the Trump administration and now finds herself locked out of the program once again.

"It was heartbreaking again to go through this battle that we constantly are going through," Morales told CBS News, saying the uncertainty surrounding the fate of DACA has inflicted "a lot of emotional damage."

Morales, who graduated from a Pennsylvania high school this spring, said she was looking forward to getting a job, as well as a driver's license to take her younger siblings to school. DACA, she added, would have also allowed her to feel protected from the threat of deportation.

"I thought I was basically close to the finish line," Morales added. "But unfortunately, I was not."

The Biden administration has pledged to appeal this month's court order and to publish a rule that would codify DACA into a regulatory policy, but it hasn't given any timeframe for these actions.

On Capitol Hill, the recent court ruling has injected a renewed sense of urgency into the debate over whether to permit DACA enrollees and other so-called "Dreamers" to request permanent legal status. 

Given the evenly divided makeup of the Senate, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers back the idea of legalizing Dreamers through the budget reconciliation process, which can be authorized by a simple majority.

"I think we have to do everything we can to protect our Dreamers. And if it means getting a pathway to citizenship for our Dreamers passed through reconciliation, then that is the path we have to take," Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat who represents 11,000 DACA beneficiaries, told CBS News.

Cortez Masto noted that first-time DACA applicants were not responsible for processing delays at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which oversees the program. As of May 31, only 1,900 — or 3% — of more than 62,000 first-time DACA applications filed this year had been adjudicated, according to USCIS data shared with Congress.

USCIS announced on Tuesday that it would place pending first-time DACA applications "on hold" while the Texas court ruling remains in effect. Immigrants with these pending requests will not get a refund for the $495 application fee they paid, USCIS said.

Agustin, the first-time DACA applicant who lives in Virginia, expressed bewilderment about Congress' longstanding failure to legalize undocumented immigrants brought to the country as minors.

"I'm very frustrated that it has to be a debate that we as people are worthy of rights," he said. "I feel frustrated that there's significant opposition to giving us an opportunity for something we didn't choose to do. We were kids. We didn't choose this."

Court order dashes hopes of teenage DACA applicants

Trump Under Oath In 2021? New DOJ Ruling Rattles Trumpworld

Black women’s hair products are killing us. Why isn’t more being done? | Tayo Bero | The Guardian

Black women’s hair products are killing us. Why isn’t more being done?

By

 

Tayo Bero 

The Guardian

‘White-centric beauty standards have led many Black women to embrace hair and skin treatments that could pose serious risks to their health, often without their knowledge.’ Photograph: Hero Images Inc./Alamy Stock Photo/Alamy Stock Photo

A new study reveals what some scientists and researchers have suspected for years – that frequent and long-term use of lye-based hair relaxers may have serious health effects, including breast cancer. Published in Oxford University’s Carcinogenesis Journal, the study found that Black women who used these products at least seven times a year for 15 or more years had a roughly 30% increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with more infrequent users.

The research team also analyzed survey data from Boston University’s Black Women’s Health Study, which followed more than 50,000 African American women for more than 25 years and observed their medical diagnoses and any factors that could influence their health. The results? Of the women followed from 1997 to 2017, 95% reported using lye-based relaxers, and ultimately 2,311 developed breast cancers.

This additional risk factor is just one part of a wide race gap in breast cancer rates among American women. We already know that Black women have the highest occurrence of breast cancer before reaching the age of 40, are more likely than white women to develop highly aggressive breast cancers, and are more likely to die from it at any age – 40% more likely, to be precise.

And when it comes to the role of haircare products in that imbalance, none of this is new. In 2019, research published in the International Journal of Cancer found that ​​permanent dye use was associated with a 45% higher breast cancer risk in Black women, compared with a roughly 7% higher risk among white women who used these products.

It’s important to examine why Black women are so overrepresented in the market for these harmful products to begin with. For centuries Black women in the west have been told that their skin tones and hair textures were inferior, unprofessional and largely undesirable.

Even today, anti-Black hair discrimination is rampant in many professional settings, particularly in corporate and customer-facing roles – so much so that Black advocacy groups and US legislators have been working to pass new laws that would make hair discrimination illegal. So far, however, only 13 states have passed the “Crown Act.”

Biased, white-centric beauty standards have led many Black women to embrace hair and skin treatments that pose serious risks to their health, often without their knowledge. And despite the abundance of evidence pointing to these risks, corporations and government regulators aren’t doing nearly enough to protect the Black women who are the main consumers of these products.

For context, one in 12 beauty and personal care products marketed to Black women in the US were found to contain highly hazardous ingredients such as lye, parabens and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives. Research from the nonprofit Environmental Working Group also found that fewer than 25% of products marketed to Black women scored low in an assessment of their potentially hazardous ingredients, compared with 40% of products marketed to the general public which researchers classified as low-risk.

This issue cuts across all aspects of the beauty industry. Skin lightening products, another legacy of the cultural idea that dark skin is less desirable, are a thriving industry in the US. Women of color reportedly spent more than $2bn on such products in 2020. Users have reported chemical burns and lifelong scars.

Warnings about the dangers of these products are minimal, leaving many Black women with insufficient information with which to make decisions on what products they use. To combat this, the EWG created a database listing all known personal care products targeted toward Black people, with information about their ingredients and potential problems. Unfortunately, this kind of effort isn’t happening on any large scale, or being supported by the companies who actually make and market these products – a gap that will no doubt continue to leave Black women at risk.

In a society that imposes largely Eurocentric standards of beauty, desirability and respectability on all women, Black women in particular are placed under immense pressure to mold themselves to these standards in order to be accepted in social and professional settings. It’s crucial that personal care companies and the government do their part to keep Black female consumers safe and healthy.

• Tayo Bero is a freelance journalist"

Black women’s hair products are killing us. Why isn’t more being done? | Tayo Bero | The Guardian

Watch: Officer Fanone Condemns 'Disgraceful' Indifference For Victims Of...

'Is This America?': Officer Dunn Recalls Racist Abuse He Faced During Ca...

Capitol Police officer shares emotional testimony

As Virus Cases Rise, Another Contagion Spreads Among the Vaccinated: Anger

“Frustrated by the prospect of a new surge, many Americans are blaming the unvaccinated. A tougher stance may backfire, some experts warn.

July 27, 2021Updated 6:19 a.m. ET

Josh Perldeiner, of Wallingford, Conn., fears his 2-year-old son, too young to be vaccinated, was exposed to the coronavirus by a close relative who refuses to get the shot.Christopher Capozziello for The New York Times

As coronavirus cases resurge across the country, many inoculated Americans are losing patience with vaccine holdouts who, they say, are neglecting a civic duty or clinging to conspiracy theories and misinformation even as new patients arrive in emergency rooms and the nation renews mask advisories.

The country seemed to be exiting the pandemic; barely a month ago, a sense of celebration was palpable. Now many of the vaccinated fear for their unvaccinated children and worry that they are at risk themselves for breakthrough infections. Rising case rates are upending plans for school and workplace reopenings, and threatening another wave of infections that may overwhelm hospitals in many communities.

“It’s like the sun has come up in the morning and everyone is arguing about it,” said Jim Taylor, 66, a retired civil servant in Baton Rouge, La., a state in which fewer than half of adults are fully vaccinated.

“The virus is here and it’s killing people, and we have a time-tested way to stop it — and we won’t do it. It’s an outrage.”

The rising sentiment is contributing to support for more coercive measures. Scientists, business leaders and government officials are calling for vaccine mandates — if not by the federal government, then by local jurisdictions, schools, employers and businesses.

“I’ve become angrier as time has gone on,” said Doug Robertson, 39, a teacher who lives outside Portland, Ore., and has three children too young to be vaccinated, including a toddler with a serious health condition.

“Now there is a vaccine and a light at the end of the tunnel, and some people are choosing not to walk toward it,” he said. “You are making it darker for my family and others like mine by making that choice.”

On Monday, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City ordered that all municipal workers be vaccinated against Covid-19 by the time schools reopen in mid-September or face weekly testing. Officials in California followed suit hours later with a similar mandate covering all state employees and health care workers.

The Department of Veterans Affairs on Monday required that 115,000 on-site health care workers be vaccinated in the next two months, the first federal agency to order a mandate. Nearly 60 major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association, on Monday called for mandatory vaccination of all health care workers.

“It’s time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks,” a frustrated Gov. Kay Ivey, Republican of Alabama, told reporters last week. “It’s the unvaccinated folks that are letting us down.”

There is little doubt that the United States has reached an inflection point. According to a database maintained by The New York Times, 57 percent of Americans ages 12 and older are fully vaccinated. Eligible Americans are receiving 537,000 doses per day on average, an 84 percent decrease from the peak of 3.38 million in early April.

As a result of lagging vaccination and lifted restrictions, infections are rising. As of Sunday, the country was seeing 52,000 new cases daily, on average, a 170 percent increase over the previous two weeks. Hospitalization and death rates are increasing, too, although not as quickly.

“We’re not out of the woods completely,” said Pastor Shon Neyland of Portland, Ore. Some vaccinated congregants are frustrated with those who refuse to get the vaccine, he added.Tojo Andrianarivo for The New York Times

Communities from San Francisco to Austin, Texas, are recommending that vaccinated people wear masks again in public indoor settings. Citing the spread of the more contagious Delta variant of the virus, the counties of Los Angeles and St. Louis, Mo., have ordered indoor mask mandates.

For many Americans who were vaccinated months ago, the future is beginning to look grim. Frustration is straining relations even within closely knit families.

Josh Perldeiner, 36, a public defender in Connecticut who has a 2-year-old son, was fully vaccinated by mid-May. But a close relative, who visits frequently, has refused to get the shots, although he and other family members have urged her to do so.

She recently tested positive for the virus after traveling to Florida, where hospitals are filling with Covid-19 patients. Now Mr. Perldeiner worries that his son, too young for a vaccine, may have been exposed.

“It goes beyond just putting us at risk,” he said. “People with privilege are refusing the vaccine, and it’s affecting our economy and perpetuating the cycle.” As infections rise, he added, “I feel like we’re at that same precipice as just a year ago, where people don’t care if more people die.”

Hospitals have become a particular flash point. Vaccination remains voluntary in most settings, and it is not required for caregivers at most hospitals and nursing homes. Many large hospital chains are just beginning to require that employees be vaccinated.

Even though she is fully vaccinated, Aimee McLean, a nurse case manager at University of Utah Hospital in Salt Lake City, worries about contracting the virus from a patient and inadvertently passing it to her father, who has a serious chronic lung disease. Less than half of Utah’s population is fully vaccinated.

“The longer that we’re not getting toward that number, the more it feels like there’s a decent percentage of the population that honestly doesn’t care about us as health care workers,” Ms. McLean, 46, said.

She suggested health insurers link coverage of hospital bills to immunization. “If you choose not to be part of the solution, then you should be accountable for the consequences,” she said.

Mr. Perldeiner with his son, Arlo. “I feel like we’re at that same precipice as just a year ago, where people don’t care if more people die,” he said.Christopher Capozziello for The New York Times

Many schools and universities are set to resume in-person classes as early as next month. As the number of infections increases, these settings, too, have seen tension rise between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on K-12 school reopening are tied to rates of community virus transmission. In communities where vaccination lags, those rates are rising, and vaccinated parents must worry anew about outbreaks at schools. The vaccines are not yet authorized for children under 12.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has advised that children wear masks in class when schools reopen. On Friday, school districts from Chicago to Washington began putting mandates into effect.

Universities, on the other hand, often can require vaccinations of students and staff members. But many have not, frustrating the vaccinated.

“If we’re respecting the rights and liberties of the unvaccinated, what’s happening to the rights and liberties of the vaccinated?” said Elif Akcali, 49, who teaches engineering at the University of Florida, in Gainesville. The university is not requiring students to be vaccinated, and with rates climbing in Florida, she is worried about exposure to the virus.

Some are even wondering how much sympathy they should have for fellow citizens who are not acting in their own best interest. “I feel like if you chose not to get vaccinated, and now you get sick, it’s kind of your bad,” said Lia Hockett, 21, the manager of Thunderbolt Spiritual Books in Santa Monica, Calif.

As the virus begins to spread again, some vaccinated people believe the federal government should start using sticks rather than carrots, like lottery tickets.

Carol Meyer, 65, of Ulster County, N.Y., suggested withholding stimulus payments or tax credits from vaccine refusers. “I feel we have a social contract in this country with our neighbors, and people who can get vaccinated and choose not to get vaccinated are breaking it,” Ms. Meyer said.

Bill Alstrom, 74, a retired innkeeper in Acton, Mass., said he would not support measures that would directly affect individual families and children, but asked whether federal government funding should be withheld from states that don’t meet vaccination targets.

Maybe the federal government should require employees and contractors to be vaccinated, he mused. Why shouldn’t federal funding be withheld from states that don’t meet vaccination targets?

Dorrett Denton of Bethpage, N.Y., eventually overcame hesitancy with advice from her doctor.Brittainy Newman for The New York Times

Though often seen as a conservative phenomenon, vaccine hesitancy and refusal occur across the political and cultural spectrum in the United States, and for a variety of reasons. No single argument can address all of these concerns, and changing minds is often a slow, individualized process.

Pastor Shon Neyland, who regularly implores members of his church in Portland, Ore., to get the Covid-19 vaccines, estimated that only about half of the members of the Highland Christian Center church have gotten shots. There have been tensions within the congregation over vaccination.

“It’s disappointing, because I’ve tried to help them to see that their lives are in jeopardy and this is a serious threat to humanity,” he said.

Shareese Harris, 26, who works in the office of Grace Cathedral International in Uniondale, N.Y., has not been vaccinated and is “taking my time with it.” She worries that there may be long-term side effects from the vaccines and that they were rushed to market.

“I shouldn’t be judged or forced to make a decision,” Ms. Harris said. “Society will just have to wait for us.” 

Rising resentment among the vaccinated may well lead to public support for more coercive requirements, including mandates, but experts warn that punitive measures and social ostracism can backfire, shutting down dialogue and outreach efforts.

Elected officials in several Los Angeles County communities, for example, are already refusing to enforce the county’s new mask mandate.

“Anything that reduces the opportunity for honest dialogue and an opportunity for persuasion is not a good thing,” said Stephen Thomas, a professor of health policy and management at University of Maryland School of Public Health. “We are already in isolated, siloed information systems, where people are in their own echo chambers.”

Gentle persuasion and persistent prodding convinced Dorrett Denton, a 62-year-old home health aide in Queens, to be vaccinated in February. Her employer urged Ms. Denton repeatedly to be immunized, but in the end it was her doctor who persuaded her.

“She says to me: ‘You’ve been coming to me from 1999. How many times did I do surgery on you, and your life was in my hands? You trust me with your life, don’t you?’” Ms. Denton recalled.

“I said, ‘Yes, doctor.’ She said, ‘Well, trust me on this one.’”

Giulia Heyward contributed reporting from Miami, Sophie Kasakove from New York and Livia Albeck-Ripka from Los Angeles.“

CDC considers revising mask guidance as delta variant spreads