people dead as it struck the louisiana coast. officials are assessing the scale of the destruction, and dealing with a chemical fire at a lakeside chlorine plant caused by the storm. us sport has taken a stand over race and police brutality with players boycotting basketball, baseball, soccer and tennis in protest at the police shooting of jacob blake. playoff matches have been postponed for a second night, but are expected to resume this week. president trump is due to address the republican national convention from the south lawn of the white house to formally accept his party's renomination for november's election. his speech will be one of the biggest of his career as he sets out to defeat the democratic candidate joe biden. now on bbc news, it's time for hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. the global covid—19 pandemic has put a spotlight on the relationship between scientists and policy makers. leaders across the world have responded to the science with everything from respect to scepticism, foremost amongst the sceptics presidentjair bolsonaro of brazil, one of the countries hit hardest by the virus. my guest, brazilian microbiologist natalia pasternak, has launched a crusade against her president in the name of science. is she winning the argument?

natalia pasternak in sao paulo, welcome to hardtalk. thank you, stephen, for having me. it's a pleasure to have you on the programme. let's start with the claim from your president, jair bolsonaro, that the worst of the coronavirus epidemic in brazil is now over. would you agree? of course not. we're still in the middle of it... ..if we're lucky. and the president seems to be completely disconnected from reality, really. that's the way he's been behaving from the start. so, he has no real measure of the dangers and the gravity of this pandemic. you talk of the numbers. the numbers are horrible. more than 116,000 brazilians dead as a result of coronavirus, well over 3.5 million cases already.

but if one looks across the region, across latin america, brazil is by no means alone here. countries from peru to mexico have suffered very badly. and of course, brazil's numbers are worse because it's a bigger country. but this is a regional problem, not a brazil problem. i think it is a regional problem but brazil sets a terrible role model for its neighbouring countries, being the largest country in latin america. and of course, with a large population, the numbers can be masqueraded, too. so, we've got over 200 million people. if you look at the relative numbers, you may be under the impression that the numbers are not as grave as they really are. but if you have a look at the curve, you see that brazil's numbers have been rising, and then they stabilised at about 1,000 people dead a day. that's not a good number to be stabilised. you are a scientist,

aren't you, dr pasternak? you're not a politician. and science knows no politics. would you agree with that? yes, science is usually very kept apart from politics, especially here in brazil, the scientific community has not... ..doesn‘t have a habit of interfering in politics. we usually keep to ourselves and it's not a very good attitude, really. we should be more involved in politics. politics needs us... may i come back to the point that surely the power of science, that it doesn't wear political colours? and yet i'm just looking at things you've said in the last few weeks. "as president," you say, "bolsonaro bears personal responsibility. his behaviour is deplorable. he disgusts me. to have the worst possible leadership at this worst possible time as a scientist and citizen, ifind it so sad that the government has wrecked my country." there's not a lot of science

in there, but there's an awful lot of politics. there is, because i'm a scientist, but i'm also a citizen, and i see what the current government is doing to my country, especially because the federal government ignores science and ignores the scientific community. and it doesn't look to science for advice, as it should during a sanitary crisis, a health crisis. so, as a citizen, i'm disgusted, and i'm very sad to see what happens to my country. and as a scientist, ifeel ignored. and explain to me why you pin all of this — all of your disgust, your anger — onjair bolsonaro when it is quite obvious brazil is a federal political system. many of the key decisions on the nature of lockdown, social distancing rules, face masks, etc, they're not taken in the presidential palace, they're taken by the federal state. so, why pin all the blame on mr bolsonaro? of course, the president

is not to blame for everything that's happening. he didn't create the virus. he didn't spread the virus. he's not to blame for the existence of the pandemic, but he is to blame for the lack of guidance and national guidelines that could put us in a better place during this pandemic. we are lucky we're a federation and the states have autonomy to make their own decisions. that's what saved us. but the federal government has been ignoring science and scientific evidence and has not issued federal and national guidelines to help the states get through this pandemic. in this sense, the federal government is to blame and president bolsonaro himself sets a terrible role model for the country, and confuses the population. but you have to be realistic, don't you? i notice you comparing brazil unfavourably with germany and new zealand. you said, "if we'd implemented a proper quarantine, as those countries did,

we would have saved at least half of the 100,000 deaths. we'd be in the same place as them, with a near—normal life." are you seriously suggesting that brazil, with its population of more than 210 million, many of them living in poverty, can be directly compared with germany and new zealand? of course not. and that's not what i meant. what i meant is that if we followed their role model, we'd be in a much better place. but the point is, you couldn't. it's not possible in brazil. it's not possible to be exactly in the same place as more developed countries with better economies, that's for sure. but it's possible to do a much better job than what's been actually done. let me quote to you words from the vice president just a week or so ago. he said, "you have to understand the nature of brazilian people. they are not so very disciplined. it's impossible to tell them

what to do, and this made it very much more difficult for us to fight the pandemic as they did in europe." would you agree with that characterisation? i wouldn't put it that way. of course, brazilians are not as organised. but to pin it down at the brazilian population and culture would be a mistake. we had a lot of misinformation coming directly from the federal government. the population is confused. don't you agree that the population would be confused when it sees their president going out on the streets and shaking people's hands and not wearing a mask and taking selfies with people, and saying that it's just a minor flu and they have nothing to worry about? and, "let's focus on the economy." it gets people confused. they don't know where to look, they don't know who to follow, they don't know who to listen to. well, "let's focus on the economy" isn't necessarily an unreasonable thing to say, is it? let me quote you a very strong bolsonaro supporter,

congressman 0smar terra, who said this... he happens to be a doctor, by the way. he said, "lockdowns, as discussed in the strict sense, are only good for the middle class. those who have fridges full of food and live with a regular income. but for those who are poor, who need to work in the morning to eat in the afternoon, well, they end up starving. they are much more concerned with their hunger than they are with the virus." now, he's a politician. he's not a scientist. but in that sense, there's a lot of wisdom in those words, isn't there? there's a lot that we can take from those words. and that's. .. the part that is really true, it's that, of course, the poor population has to be protected. it should be protected by the government. so, we should have pensions so that they can stay at home when it's necessary. the other thing is that the wealthy population of brazil who could stay at home is currently going out to bars, restaurants

and shopping malls. so, if the wealthy did stay at home so that the poor, the ones who had to go out on the streets and get public transportation and expose themselves to risk, they would be more protected if the other part of the population, the ones who can stay at home, did stay at home, and they would be more protected if they had protection and pensions from the federal government so they can afford to stay at home when it's really necessary. but you know, dr pasternak, that the government's made a great focus on its economic assistance policy for the poor. the poor in brazil are receiving at the moment roughly 110 or more us dollars a month in economic support to keep them going during this crisis. and it is quite obvious from all of the opinion poll evidence that the majority of people in brazil feel grateful for that economic assistance. and it's notjust for their economic well—being, it's also

for their health well—being. don't you, even as a doctor and a scientist, recognise the importance of that? i recognise the importance of that, but it doesn't get to all people as it should. we have a lot of bureaucracy. it's difficult to get the pension. and about the health care system, yes, we are very proud in brazil to have a national health care system that caters to 200 million people, but it's overwhelmed with long lines. it didn't collapse, and that's a good thing, but still it's overwhelmed and crowded. so, it's been difficult to really cater and bring health service to all these people. but i guess there's a deeper question here of exactly where you focus your attentions as a scientist. i note that long before coronavirus hit brazil, you'd established an institute, the question of science institute, to make science more central to the public debate

in brazil, particularly to policymaking decisions. it seems to me that if you're going to make that work, you have to consider, as a scientist, the impact of economic damage done by coronavirus. rather than just sticking to your assessment of how many lives could have been saved if lockdown and quarantine had been organised more efficiently, in your view, surely you need to analyse the data which says if people can't go to work, many of them are going to suffer massive health and well—being problems in the longer term? of course, stephen. it has to be taken into account as well. but as far as i know, dead people pay no taxes and don't go to work. so, it's a balance, and this balance has to be very well studied. and we have to... we have to get this balance to be... ..to give ourfederal government... with respect, i don't

see any balance. i don't see any balance in your analysis, because you do all these media interviews across brazil. you've become a very famous name in brazil in the course of the pandemic. but i don't see any analysis where you're putting any sort of data together on how many lives might have been lost had the economy gone into a much deeper free—fall than it's already in. bolsonaro's point is that he wanted to ease the restrictions early, to save lives. but you haven't run any numbers on whether there may be some merit to that argument. well, because for me, health and lives come first, and the economy is going to be... the economy's going to suffer anyway. the economy is suffering because of the pandemic, not because of the lockdowns. so this is what has to be ta ken into account. we have to protect people's health and people's lives. and the economy, of course, is going to suffer anyway. and that is...this is why we need a multidisciplinary

team to handle the situation. and this is what i have been actually saying in all my interviews, that this has to be taken in to a multidisciplinary team, with both health workers and doctors and economists, so that we can tackle the situation together. it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. do you think scientists who present a united front on some of the core issues, for example, you personally have expressed your displeasure with jair bolsonaro pushing the claims of hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment for coronavirus. but i'm looking at quotes here from other leading doctors in brazil who are claiming that there is some evidence that hydroxychloroquine can play an effective role. the science in your country doesn't seem united or coherent on this. there's a small part of scientists, and especially doctors in brazil,

who support hydroxychloroquine. i think this comes from a failure in our medical education, in our medical schools, that don't really teach scientific method. so there are lots of doctors who rely on what we call anecdotal evidence. so it's case reports and people that think that chloroquine works because they see it working and they don't really rely on randomised clinical trials, which are the best medical evidence that we should rely on. but i think there's enough scientific consensus in the world right now that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment for covid—19. and this is what we should be following here in brazil. but isn't that one of the features of brazilian public life, that a lot of brazilians don't like to be lectured to from the outside? they want things to be handled by their own people inside the country. they're very proud. so when doctors like ricardo azevedo, a rheumatologist and professor at the federal university of rio, says that,

quite simply, "i think hydroxychloroquine can play an important therapeutic role, we have evidence the medication decreases the entry of the virus into cells"... ..brazilians are inclined to listen to that. well, in a way, yes. 0n the other way, if brazilians look to their scientific, medical, scientific and medical societies, they will see that the virology society, the brazilian virology society, brazil infectology society, brazilian epidemiology society... most brazilian scientific and medical societies have already issued statements saying that scientific consensus says that hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for covid—19 and it shouldn't be used as a treatment. so we have a national scientific consensus here in brazil that agrees with the international scientific consensus that hydroxychloroquine shouldn't be

a treatment for covid—19. if there are isolated doctors that disagree, they are isolated, they are not part of this national scientific consensus. well, you talk a lot about consensus. and i want to bring it back to brazil's collective mood at the moment. it seems to me, given what we discussed earlier about your expressions of anger and disgust at mr bolsonaro, that you would like the brazilian public to bejust as angry and disgusted as you. but the truth is, if one looks at the latest opinion polls in your country, quite the reverse is true. in the last few weeks, we've seen bolsonaro's popularity rising. how do you explain that? unfortunately, people are fed up with being at home. and of course, people don't like being told what to do, and i think part of it is our failure as communicators and as science communicators to really communicate to the brazilian population about the reality, about what's

actually happening in brazil, about the gravity of the situation. and when you mentioned, stephen, that i'm angry, yes, i am angry because lots of people are dying. and most of these deaths, at least half of them, probably could have been prevented by more effective measures. so, i have reason to be angry. and, yes, i would like the population of brazil not to be angry or disgusted, but at least to be well—informed. well, who's to say they're not well—informed, but maybe they‘ re making decisions and using a perspective that isn't your own? and actually, this is almost a philosophical question about the interface between science, culture and politics. and i'm very mindful of something that was said to me on this show by a compatriot of yours, the former health minister luiz mandetta, who, of course, was famously fired by mr bolsonaro because they disagreed over lockdown measures. but mr mandetta came on this show and he said, "you know, in the end,

bolsonaro made his choice. "he decided that he was going to prioritise the economy. yes, it brought him into collision with me as minister of health. but it is, ultimately, his right, because he's in charge. he was elected. we have more elections, in a couple of years, for the presidency. and people will then get their chance to judge whether he got it right or not." that's democracy. and for right now, your president is legitimate. he has a mandate, and he is doing what he is elected to do, lead the country. i agree he was democratically elected and i agree that he has the privilege, including firing ministers that don't agree with him, but firing people for not agreeing with him and for ignoring, and ignoring scientific evidence in the midst of a health crisis, doesn't seem as democratic, to me, as it should. so the president was elected,

yes, but that doesn't mean that he behaves in a democratic way during his mandate. and of course, it's the privilege of the resident population to... to challenge that, if they feel it's warranted. right now, he still has the support of 37% of the population. but that means that more than half of brazilian population doesn't support him. so i think he...he... well, he's protected, of course, by the democratic regime. he has been elected. and we as a population have also the right to ask that he does the right thing, that he leads the country in an effective measure, with effective measures during the pandemic. right. seems to me, one huge challenge is looming for you in brazil, and particularly for you as a leading scientist arguing for the power and importance of science in the policymaking debate, and that challenge is the vaccine. if one looks at the polling

evidence inside brazil, a survey from the association of immunisation in your country reported 60% of the population currently believe that vaccines, of many different kinds, are totally unsafe. so the implication of that is that even if the international community comes up with what appears to be an effective vaccine, many in brazil will choose not to take it. i disagree, stephen, i don't know where you get that data from. but the data that i have from the national polling service here, which is a very reliable polling service, says that 89% of brazilian population would agree to get a covid—19 shot as soon as it's ready. so... the 59% figure i was referring to, about people doubting vaccines, actually comes from the brazilian association of immunisation, in a survey last year. well, it's news to me. the data that i have is very encouraging, really,

from this polling service here in brazil, and it says that 89% of the interviewees would agree to get a covid—19 shot as soon as it's ready. so people in brazil are usually very favourable to vaccines. we have very strong vaccination programmes here in brazil. so the anti—vax movement is not very strong here yet. not that we shouldn't worry about it. but usually brazilian population is very favourable to vaccines. before we close, ijust want this big thought from you. you campaign against all sorts of things, the prevalence of alternative medicines and therapies, which you say are damaging and counterproductive to overall health care in brazil. you're clearly worried about the way in which the current government handles data, scientific advice and expertise across a range of subjects. we could go even as far as climate change and deforestation. but ultimately, you said to me, the problem is we have

a communications challenge. we are not reaching the brazilian public, or at least many of them. so how do you tackle that? how do you improve your communication? well, i have been trying to, that's why i launched the institute, question of science, last year. and so one of the aims, one of the goals of my institute is to communicate better with the public, and bring science into their daily lives, so that they realise that science is important for decision—making in their own daily lives, or for policy—making. and i think it's improving slowly in brazil, but people are becoming aware that science communication plays a major role in building these bridges among the academy, and society and government. so i think, in time, we'll be able to build a bridge, really, and be able to communicate science to the people and to the government... really? ..so that they realise

that science is an ally. well, i think it probably is fair to say that right now in brazil, you're living through an age of populism. you think you can get that message across, you can have science in the ascendant in this age of populism? it's a challenge and it's going to be difficult. but i think we must try, especially because science is being so politicised, not only in brazil, but across the world, during the pandemic. so i think now is the time that we really have to strive for science to be understood, and to be taken into account both by the population and by governments. all right. well, natalia pasternak, i thank you very much indeed forjoining me on hardtalk from sao paulo. thank you very much. thank you, stephen.

hello there. the weather is set to change this weekend, but there's no sign of summer returning. the last 2a hours, it's been very wet across many parts of the country. some flooded scenes here in southern england, with an inch of rain falling in about an hour. there could be some flooding in northeast england in the morning as well with that persistent rain from overnight. that rain band will move southwards through the day, heading towards wales and the midlands. south of that, some sunshine triggering some heavy and thundery showers. the weather should improve for northern ireland and scotland, and later in northern england, with some sunshine. but for these areas, the winds will be much stronger, particularly windy around some of those north sea coasts, maybe blowing in one or two showers as well. a disappointingly cool day on friday. again, temperatures 15 to 18 degrees. now, the really wet weather that we're seeing across england and wales

into friday is around that area of low pressure and weather front. it's trying to pull away on saturday, getting nudged by this area of high—pressure in the atlantic, but with that sort of set up, we're left with a northerly wind on saturday. and that will drag down some colder air across the uk. indeed, right the way through the weekend, a bank holiday weekend for many, it's going to be quite chilly, and it's going to be cold at night as well. a lot of dry weather around and, after a windy day on saturday, the winds will be much lighter. but we've got those northerly winds on saturday, making it feel chilly. some sunshine around. we will see some showers, especially across northern scotland, and there's still the threat of some rain coming back towards lincolnshire and east anglia in particular. and it will be windy, especially in the morning, with the strongest winds down those north sea coasts of england. down those north sea for a while, could be gusting 50 miles an hour. that, of course, will make it feel much colder, and those temperatures are below average for this time of year, 15—17 degrees. and once we see the winds dropping overnight and the cloud melting away, we're going to find those

temperatures will fall sharply. a really cold night for the time of year on saturday night, worth bearing in mind if you're going to be out and about — perhaps camping, for example. as we head into sunday and monday, this area of high pressure then moves across the uk, so the winds will fall much lighter. we've got a weather front arriving towards northern ireland by the end of monday, but ahead of that, a lot of dry weather. a little bit of sunshine from time to time, lighter winds, but those temperatures aren't really going to change a great deal. and before then, of course, we've got more wet, perhaps windy weather on friday.

this is bbc news. i'm james reynolds, with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. cutting its way across america — hurricane laura strikes the louisiana coast, the biggest storm to hit the state in over 100 years. us sport takes a stand over race and police brutality — players boycott basketball, baseball, soccer and tennis, in protest at the shooting of jacob blake. getting ready for the grand finale — president trump prepares for one of the biggest speeches of his career, as he tries to win a second term in the white house. and the manchester united captain harry maguire speaks for the first time about the brawl in greece that landed him in court.