Coronavirus has ended film festivals. And now?

McLean, who had kept an eye on updates on the outbreak and prepared for the worst, agreed. “When the news finally came,” he said, “it was a relief that there wasn’t going to be a security problem, but it was also extremely devastating.”

In the weeks following the cancellation of SXSW, a number of film festivals and industry events met the same fate. Hollywood has been hit hard by the coronavirus: film studios have postponed the release of franchise films, theaters have closed in major cities as part of the effort to ban group meetings and slow the spread of the virus and production has stopped on a number of projects around the world. The Hollywood Reporter estimates that nearly $ 20 billion in revenue could be lost as a result.

For independent filmmakers, the interrupted circuit of the festival also suffers a severe blow, even if the impact is not so visible. As much as the premiere of a long loving labor may seem “nonsense” to Furloni, the lack of festival experience is bad for the health of the largest film industry. “Regional and local film festivals are the veins and capillaries of our industry that continue to be able to emerge new artists and help them build an audience that will support their career,” Emily Best, founder and CEO of Seed & Spark, a crowdfunding platform for emerging film talent, he wrote to me via email. “So we can’t just bypass film festivals, we’ve cut the future blood supply.” As events continue to be wiped out, these filmmakers are learning to adapt to a new distribution model. The only problem? Nobody is sure what that model is like.

Free land, for example, remained adrift from the cancellation of SXSW. “For something that has really been done independently and needs to be shared with the world, the way we do it is to start with the best film festival that best fits your movie and we thought it was SXSW,” said McLean. “And then after SXSW [was canceled, we thought]”Geez, we’ll look at other fantastic festivals we’re excited about,” and then one by one, they’re all closed. Now it’s kind of like “All right, so without a film festival, what is the path? ‘ “

For many, streaming seemed like the obvious answer. Given the reputation of big platforms like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon as content creators, rescuers of canceled shows and curators of special festival events, moving these displaced festival films onto the Internet seems like child’s play. And with people practicing social removal and self-quarantine, streaming has become a simple reason to stay.

The actor and director Mark Duplass was one of several people who require streamers to host virtual festivals, labeling a litany of major Twitter platforms and asking if they could buy short-term rights. But apparently, he told me by email, his idea wouldn’t work. “I’ve looked at it a bit and, as you can imagine, it’s quite complicated,” he wrote. “The major streamers have a set of delivery standards for these films that are too expensive, complex and grounded to change … and those standards make no sense for them to stream any movie in a short and limited window.”


How many people have Coronavirus in your state right now?

This increase in testing capacity has been slow. In the 10 days following February 26, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that coronavirus was being transmitted through the spread of the community in the United States, federal and state laboratories tested 2,806 Americans. Another week passed before the country tested 20,000 people. Over the next few days, the country expanded its testing capability to cover at least that number of people every day.

Yet national numbers are still skewed by huge testing operations in a few states. New York, California and Washington have conducted nearly half of all tests nationwide, although those states together contain about a fifth of the country’s population. Florida and Texas – each home for over 20 million people – tested only around 3,000 patients each.

Some state public health departments do not report as much information as others. We have given each state a literal rating in the table above to help readers understand how accurate each is in their relationship. This vote is not evaluating the quality of a state’s tests, but rather the transparency and regularity of its reports.

All 50 states and Washington, DC regularly report their number of positive cases. Some states, such as Connecticut, reveal little additional information, so we have rated them D. But others, such as Florida, publish not only their positive cases, but also their negative cases and the results of tests conducted by private laboratories. These states get one A degree. Having this complete set of state level figures allows for a much greater understanding of the size of both outbreaks is the answer.

In the table above, the number of positive cases in each state includes people who are currently sick with the disease, people who have recovered from it and people who have died. We also split the death toll into its own column.

Some states have used strict criteria to determine who can and cannot be tested for coronavirus. Although we have not taken them into account at the state level, we believe that these rules – although perhaps necessary, given the lack of tests available from the CDC – have led states to underestimate substantially how many people had been infected in their communities, especially during the last week of February and the first two weeks of March. At least 18 states have imposed particularly strict rules in some counties or hospitals: California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. (Some of these states, such as Hawaii and Maryland, have since loosened their criteria.)