>> watch history professors lead discussions with their students on topics ranging from the american revolution to september 11th. lectures in history on cspan 3 every saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv and lectures in history is available as a podcast. find it where you listen to podcasts. we're back and joining us is dr. michael lewis that is here to discuss with us the spread of covid-19 and how it compares to previous outbreaks like sars. dr. lewis, good morning. >> good morning. how are you doing today? >> i am doing just fine. so first of all, tell us what you do now and then describe for our audience about your work tracking sars and bird flu in asia. >> well, i am a practicing

physician. and i have a small private practice outside of washington d.c. i focus on helping people recover their brain health after concussions and a lot of times that's in coordination with infectious diseases. so sometimes, you know, there's a lot of things that cause people to lose their function of brain health including just aging. but it really plays on i was trained at the walter reid institute of research with a focus on infectious diseases and while i was there i created a system called the essence system and it's an early warning system that is a data mining system looking at dod's data to look for trends that might be out of the ordinary such as unexplained fever or respiratory complaints

or emergency rooms as a red flag to give us an early warning to pick up the phone and find out why the emergency room is seein reward for that was to be able to go overseas to bangkok, thailand, where i established the presence of at the time in the late '90s something called the department of defense global emerging infections system, and it was to use these overseas platforms that we have in the army and the navy, these great, incredible resources, these research labs. so i was assigned to the one in bangkok. my job literally for years was to run around asia looking for partners to find, to develop systems like i developed at the walter reed institute of research and to look for new and interesting diseases. and so basically i was a disease

hunter in southeast asia. just happened to be when sars and bird flu happened in the early 2000s. >> so what was the most important lesson you learned while hunting those diseases, including sars and bird flu? what was the most important lesson you learned about viral outbreaks? >> well, the most important thing and the reason why i was tasked with using dod money to work with partners in southeast asia -- i'm not talking about like other militaries, imworked with militaries, i've worked with governments, i worked with nongovernmental organizations or ngos, is openness. to be able to -- the only way that we can be on top of diseases is if we know they exist and know they're coming. and so that ability to -- to raise the flag and say, hey, you know, we've got something going on here this -- this new type of

outbreak of respiratory illness that's killing people, that was really important. you know, some unsung heroes from back in the day. carlos urbani was a w.h.o. physician in hanoi. he was one that really raised the big flag saying, hey, there's something crazy going on, you've got to look into this. that kind of openness, that transparency is what we really lack this time around. >> when you say that type of openness, that type of transparency, are you talking about from foreign governments? are you talking about the united states government? who are you talking about when you say that? >> well, it really is, you know -- let me just say that viruses have existed long before mankind. they will exist long after we're gone. so we have to learn how to co-exist with viruses. and the only way you can do that is with openness and transparency.

and so, you know, part of the reason why we knew much more about sars is because it really kind of came out of hong kong. hong kong had just turned over from the british. was very western-oriented type of society back then. and so the transparency was there. this current coronavirus came out of wuhan in the heart of china, the republic of china. and people's republic of china. and it -- the transparency wasn't there. we still don't really know when this current coronavirus kind of started. you know, there's been this talk about, well, maybe it wasn't december, maybe it was november. maybe it was october, maybe it was even around for months before that because we don't have that transparency with the chinese government. >> so what was the result of bird flu and sars? how many people died of bird

flu? how many people died of sars during those outbreaks that you were working there? and how does it compare to what's going on with covid-19 right now? >> well, with bird flu, you know, it really kind of started off in 2004 and then 2005, 2006. so over a period of a couple years. it killed about as many people, not quite as many people as covid, but over a longer period of time. so influenza's always a concern. when it makes a big leap, you know -- of course, each year it makes incremental differences, and that's why we have to have an annual flu vaccine because we're trying to catch up to it. and trying to match up with what might be the influenza. so -- but occasionally it takes a big leap. with sars, we were able to get it under better control. it wasn't as transmissible as -- as influenza, so it was very much limited in outbreaks.

we did good contact tracing, we were able to keep it under control, and hundreds of people died, not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. >> let's let our viewers take part in this conversation. we're going to open up regional lines for this talk about covid-19 and previous outbreaks. that means that if you are in the eastern or central time zones, your telephone number's going to be 202-748-8000. if you are in the mountain and pacific time zones, your telephone number is going to be 202-748-8001. we're going to open up a special line for other medical professionals. if you have a question you'd like to ask and you're a medical professional, your line is going to be 202-748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at 202-748-8003. and we're always reading on social media on twitter at c-spanbwj and facebook at

facebook.com/c-span. dr. lewis, tell us about the essence program. what was the essence program, and what was its role in monitoring outbreaks around the world? >> well, when i created the essence program, it was really looking at the concept that people don't go to the emergency room or to the hospital or to a clinic with a diagnosis, they go with symptoms. so you -- you go to the emergency room because you have a fever and a sore throat, for example. and so my idea was to capture that data and look at it historically, and does it -- is it out of the norm for that week of the year, that day of the week -- for example on monday ths, people tend to go to clinics and emergency rooms more on mondays because they don't go on the weekends, or the clinics aren't open on the weekends. we look historically at that.

when we first stood it up on the 1st of december 1999, you know, it was basically tapping into dod's data, looking at that type of data on a daily basis. actually on an hourly basis, and comparing it historically. within a couple weeks, all the sudden we saw a big spike in unexplained fever. and so we picked up the phone, called the local emergency room, and sure enough they were seeing a -- an increase of influenza at that time. the reason why that's important is we picked that up in about a day or two, whereas at the time, the cdc's influenza system was taking six to eight weeks to recognize an outbreak of influenza, and we were able to detect it in about two days. >> so what similarity do you see between the sars outbreak and the covid-19 outbreak?

are there any similarities? are there any differences? how can we compare the two? >> well, they're obviously both coronaviruses, and they cause simil similar sympotology. if you don't catch these diseases early on and kind of put them back in the bag if you will, and they escape out of the bag like the coronavirus, the covid-19 has, then you're really kind of jumping through hoops trying to play catchup. and that's really, really difficult. unfortunately, covid-19 appears to be sort of the worst combination of sars and influenza, where it's easily transmitted like influenza but has the morbidity and mortality of the sars virus. and so that's a horrible combination as we've seen where

we've, you know, have hundreds of thousands of deaths around the world. >> now dr. lewis, a lot of us follow the john hopkins covid-19 page where they keep a count of the numbers of confirmed cases and deaths. i'm looking at it this morning. it says that the united states has more than two million confirmed cases, and more than 119 deaths due to the covid-19. they also have lists of other countries and their deaths and infection rates. how accurate are we -- are the numbers from these other countries? are other countries being forthright and open about how the covid-19 coronavirus is spreading through their countries? >> you would have to look at it on a country-by-country basis. i really couldn't speak to that because i don't know. if you look at what the -- the

w.h.o. hopefully is on top of this and looking at it country by country, the cdc certainly is our net national public health system. i'm sure they're very much involved with it. the cdc has -- has people, trained people in a lot of different countries, helping these countries out. so it really varies. and part of it is very political, of course. i've certainly seen this in my time, you know, southeast asia and so on. there's some diseases that we never heard about because the economic impact of if that had gotten out throughout the world would have devastated that local economy. so countries always have a reason to either underplay or overplay how many cases that are going. it gets to be a political question, unfortunately, when it really should be a medical question. >> let's talk specifically about china. i'm going to read a little from

a story from the bbc about what they are saying is the second outbreak in china. an area in the chinese capital beijing has been put under strict lockdown measures after the city's first coronavirus cases in more than 50 days. outbreak has been linked to the city's largest wholesale market. a total of 45 people out of 517 tested at the market, tested positive for covid-19, a district official said. none was displaying symptoms. it lockdowns have been imposed on 11 nearby neighborhoods while 10,000 market staff will be tested. the authorities want to test everyone who has had recent contact with the market, as well as those living in the districts surrounding it. these are the first new confirmed cases in beijing for more than 50 days. so how forthright has china specifically been on -- with outbreak information? >> you know, i wish i could answer that a lot more

specifically. i think that, you know, i -- i can't really give you a good answer on that, unfortunately. i don't have the access that, you know, our top leaders in the government have, the bbc has, and so on. and so, you know, i think that china putting out that information is a good thing. now how accurate it is, i really can't speak to that because nobody knows unless you're there on the ground. >> so let's talk about in the past with sars and bird flu. how -- how were they with releasing information with these previous outbreaks? >> well, they actually were much better. and part of the reason like i mentioned before is that sars came out of hong kong for most part. and so hong kong being the special territory that it has been was much more open and

transparent, especially back, you know, only a few years after the hand-over from the british authorities. and so far big differs -- other thing that you have to take into account today is -- as opposed to back in 2003 is social media. i mean, we didn't have facebook and twitter and instagram and all these ways of instantly communicating around the world for better or for worse. now, politically china keeps a hold of a lot of things, you know, as far as being able to access these types of platforms. but back then, nobody had access. they didn't even exist. and so we didn't have this 24-hour news cycle, we didn't have johns hopkins sitting there saying, all right, there's another one, there's another one, there's another one. you know, in many ways, part of what's fed the hysteria about covid-19 has been just this 24/7

access to too much information really in my opinion. >> let's let our viewers join in this conversation. we'll start with sig calling from plainview, new york. good morning, did i pronounce your name anywhere close to correct? >> caller: cy. >> let's go to cy. >> caller: thank you. it's come to my attention from news media reports that wuhan was the epicenter, and the chinese communist government allowed flights out of wuhan knowing that there were infected people on board, and this ceded the planet with the coronavirus. another question i have is were the original samples destroyed and why? and was the genetic sequence tampered with to your knowledge? thank you. >> well, to my knowledge, you

know, what you said about a member of planes -- have to remember that this led right into the winter holidays, and so a lot of travel, it was right before chinese new year which is the biggest holidays in the chinese culture. and so people tend to travel back to family or around the world. you're absolutely right, there was a lot of air travel around the world literally, all at the wrong time, unfortunately for us. as far as the genetic sequence, i keep hearing varying things. i have no inside knowledge on this. what i would -- what my belief and this is just my personal opinion from what i've read and what i understand about the systems and how ft. detrick and frederick, maryland, works, and

the u.s. army medical -- the infectious disease program, and knowing these systems, i don't believe that this was a genetically modified virus. i do believe -- again, my personal opinion -- that it was a virus that came from nature that was being studied at the wuhan laboratory. and somehow probably a laboratory error, and it got out of the -- out of what we call the hot zone which is really, really difficult to believe that it would. but we also have to realize that not everybody has the level of training that infectious disease researchers have, say, at ft. detrick in maryland. >> let's go to richard who's calling from san diego, california. richard, good morning. >> caller: good morning, can you hear me? >> we can hear you. go ahead. >> caller: okay, you asked a lot of questions, i'd like for that

guy to answer -- mr. lewis, dr. lewis. he seems like a pretty smart guy there, and i just got one question for him -- you asked him at the start of how many sars, how many the bird flu killed. we don't, you know -- he says i don't really know numbers. how many did age kill, sir? and let me ask you a question, did we shut the whole world down for aids? i was 18, in my prime, when they shut it down. they didn't shut down the world. you know what they told me? wear a condom, sir. go ahead. >> what's the difference between aids and the coronavirus is that we've been talking about? >> well, you know, so the aids virus, you know, hiv, it really destroys the body's immune system. and that leads to opportunistic infections. and of course the way it's transmitted is quite different

than sars and coronavirus. coronavirus coronaviruses, of course, are transmitted principally through respiratory, whereas hiv's transmitted by close contact such as blood to blood, through semen, through intercourse, that type of thing. so a huge difference in that. what coronavirus does is it causes the immune system to react to it, and particularly in the lungs where we have a large amount of immune response capability. and so we get that response to the coronavirus whereas the hiv, you know, virus, the aids virus, it causes destruction to the immune system. so kind of the -- almost i don't want to say opposite effect, but very different effects on the immune system. one's -- one's destroying it, and coronavirus is causing it to overreact.

>> this seems to be a good point where i can ask this question so you can explain this to our audience. explain to us the usage of the term "coronavirus" versus covid-19, as we're talking about aids and hivment explain how we're supposed to be using this coronavirus, covid-19 is a coronavirus? explain to us the exact terminology there. >> well, the virus is the sars cov-2, and really the disease that the clinical symptoms that, you know, that virus causes is considered the covid-19. >> perfect. let's go to joe who's calling from gainesville, virginia, and joe's a medical professional. joe, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead, jo. >> caller: yes, there is jo. and i wanted to share a thought

with your listeners there. i used to work as a nurse in haiti for two years, and before that i worked in medical surgical -- on a cardiac unit also in virginia. when i was in haiti, i learned a lot about -- you might say subtropical and tropical diseases, and it has been occurring to me that regarding the coronavirus that it might be really a good idea if during the elementary school ages in this country that our children got some good, basic hygiene class,

and that i believe it would help a lot in future times to avert some of the problems because i know when my children were in one of the nearby schools that sometimes the teacher would say, you know, just -- you all go to the bathroom, and then go on to lunchment and no one would check to see if the children were washing their hands after going to the bathroom. and many examples of basic hygiene like doing the clean chore before the dirty chore. that sort of thing and then washing your hands, rather than a dirty chore and then the clean chore. so i think -- it would just be good particularly in the early school year, starting even in the kindergarten class, the preschool classes, and going

through fifth grade to get that ingrained in the children, it's just a habit. it wouldn't have to be thought out, and so many adults that don't seem to know this -- after practicing the wrong way for years. >> go ahead and respond, dr. lewis. >> well, let me give you an example. when i first came in into the military, into the army many, many, you know, several, many decades ago, basically, you know, if you're out on field exercises, you just ached. you know, whether there -- ate. whether there was dirt in it or not. it took a generation or two in military army terms to where the point is that, you know, we always wash our hands before we eat. it was really emphasized. but it does take time.

so you're absolutely right. if we get a little bit more coherent about teaching our children good hygiene, it may not catch on right away, but it will pay dividends down the line. i think if there's one good thing that will come out of the current situation is that we are paying a lot closer attention to hygiene now. now will that continue on? but also i always worry about what are the unintended consequences. if we're using a lot of anti-bacterial soap and a lot of hand sanitizer, are we creating more superbugs that are going to be resistant to antibiotics, and are we actually going to hurt ourselves in the long run? i'm a big believer in the immune system, both to keep it healthy and to keep it stimulated, if you will. and if we're constantly living

in a bubble, we're not stimulating our immune system, so then when we do get exposed to something, we don't know how to react to it. so the idea of getting kids outside to play, you know, that's a huge thing for me. not just because it's helping the immune system get the fresh air and exercise, but also it's giving them exposure to different things that are going to stimulate the immune system so that as they become adults, they've been exposed to things and they're healthier. we may face where we are so afraid of this virus right now that we're not being allowing our children to be exposesed to the typical viruses that they see throughout childhood, and is that going to cause unintended consequences down the line as five, ten years from now. i don't think anybody's thinking five, ten years from now. everybody's thinking five, ten minutes from now. >> well, that brings up a question from one of our social

media followers that i want to pose to you right now. and this social media follower says, "are we weakening all of our immune systems with the indulgence in sanitation?" i think that's exactly what you were just talking about. >> it is. and there's a fine balance. i'm not saying, you know, don't wash your hands and all these other things. that should, as the previous caller, joe, mentioned, is you know, these are things that we should be teaching our children, you know, go to the bathroom, you wash your hands. you know, some basic things. but yes, you're absolutely right, is are we overdoing it? so where is the fine line? it's a balance. and part of it is doing good hands hygiene is really, really important. but we also need to -- what i'm trying to make the point is you got to let kids get outside and

play. you know, there was i think a book or sort of a saying is, you know, let them eat dirt. you know, not literally, but the idea that it's through this outside play, through this exposure that our imean system gets exercise. it's almost like a muscle. if you don't exercise our immune system, it's not going to function when we need it the most. on the other hand, you know, with the hygiene, i think we aren't paying close enough attention to what are the things that we could do to make our imean system stronger in addition to getting outside and playing is eating healthy and exercise. and so, you know, we've seen for example studies that showed early on that high-dose vitamin c might have been -- might be effective at certain stages in the covid disease. vitamin d, people with low vitamin d levels are at higher risk of more severe disease.

so would vitamin d supplementation be a way to keep our immune system strong? it's not going to prevent people from getting the disease per se. but what it could potentially do is just ways to keep our immune system strong so if we're exposed to a virus we have that innate ability to react to the virus, to then keep it in check. the concept of asymptomatic disease versus people who get symptomatic, versus people who get severe disease. and i think we really -- we're trying to understand why certain people get more severe disease. it may be genetic. it might be environmental such as what are -- what's their immune status, what's their nutritional status. and those are things that i think we need to be looking into a little bit deeper. >> let's keep our focus squarely here on the united states. and i want to go back to the

johns hopkins covid map where they are showing outbreaks in states across the union. and the redder the box, the higher the outbreak numbers currently in that state. and you can see a lot of the numbers are pink and becoming redder when we talk about western and southern states. is this second outbreak -- first of all, is this a second outbreak? and was this to be expected, or could continuing social distancing have curbed some of these uptick in numbers? >> well, let me ask you -- what's the point, what's the objective of social distancing? >> hopefully they can keep people from spreading coronavirus to one another. >> well, i -- i disagree. and i think that's moving the goalposts. i think that's one of the problems.

the reason why we were so intent on flattening the curve, if you will, through social distancing was so that our medical system didn't get overwhelmed. we are not going to control this virus. we have to co-exist with this virus. and so we have to take these steps to keep our medical system from being overwhelmed. and once we started -- once we did that, we moved the goalposts. you have people like the mayor of los angeles saying i'm not going to let people out of their houses until we have a cure. that's insanity. there's not -- you're not going to cure this disease. we might get -- we might get a vaccine that can help with the heard immunity, but you're not going to cure it. you know, and i hope -- we've got a lot of smart people working on a lot of different things, everything from vaccines to pharmaceuticals, that i hope will make a big difference.

but the point of social distancing is to slow the spread. it's not -- you can't stop the spread, but you can slow it. new zealand is a great example. they stopped the spread because they're an island nation, and they basically didn't allow anybody in. and once they let some people in on special exemption for -- to attend a funeral, it turned out that two of the people, travelers, actually had the virus. so now it's kind of caught on a little bit again. so we have to be really careful, you know, our national leadership, our medical leadership at state level and so on, keep moving the goalposts. and so it's about keeping the medical system from overwhelming, which we did phenomenally well. one last example. the army and the navy, you know, the navy sent two massive ships that cost hundreds of millions of dollars probably to do.

the army put outfield hospitals in places like seattle and other places, and they didn't see any patients or very few patients. and then they basically had to undo all that, you know, the army hospitals closed down within a week. you know, that's a great thing that we can deploy assets like that. one of the things that makes our army so incredible is the ability to deploy as an emergency back up system for our nation. that's fantastic. we did that really well. but we didn't need it because we were doing so well flattening the curve. >> so let me make sure i understand before i go back to our callers. you're not saying that social distancing should end, are you? >> i think it needs to be adjusted and modified as we need to open up our economy. i think, you know, we occasionally hear people trying

to raise the alarm -- what are we doing to our mental health? and even our physical health by having our economy shut down. so we know historically where every percentage of unemployment, the amount of deaths over the next three to five years go up, you know, a certain number. you know, on average by, you know, a couple of thousand -- excess of debts. how many suicides are we seeing now is i mean, in my own area which is one of the -- one of the wealthier areas in the country, there's been -- i have already heard about three or four teenagers who have committed suicide. and i don't know why. you know, we never know why people commit suicide. how many people were forgoing cancer checks, routine cancer checks because they're afraid to go to the hospital or the hospitals were shut down? so what are the consequences of

social distancing, you know -- the idea of standing a little bit further apart and wearing masks and washing our hands, that's all well and good. but the idea that you can't go to an outdoor swimming pool in my county still, you cannot -- that's forbidden if you will. an outdoor swimming pool is not allowed. whereas you know, we're having protests which are -- brings up a whole other political thing. where's the social distancing going on with protests? you know, it's become such a political thing that protests are okay, but political rallies are not. i don't even want to go down that road. so we've got to find a balance. that really takes leadership at the local level, at the state level, and at the national level. >> let's go to tidla from flushing, new york. good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning,

doctor, and good morning to you. my question is virus is result for long time, so where is the trans parliamentaria-- for the have health experts in china and the job is to see things, to alert people. because why the w.h.o. was politicized or doesn't do its job, where were our health experts? they were sleeping, too. so for me it starts from there. our health system to protect us from such dangerous viruses, we are not prepared or we don't have manpower, i have no idea. we are now here at this time. i'm not sure if the next virus is already on the way, nobody can tell us. it can be -- so what should be

the government's road in saving -- because this is an international cites is nrisis n. >> it is an international crisis. we need to get back to the basics, the transparency of governments when these things happen. i think that one thing that i hope we learn is, you know, you're trying to keep it from becoming a political issue and not admit that it's a problem. you know, i think w.h.o. did this. i think the government of china did this, trying to keep it under wraps hoping that it would just go away. and unfortunately, it didn't. hope is just not a good strategy when it comes to fighting infectious diseases. and so we need to really be a lot more transparent, a lot more aggressive. we're always -- there's always going to be a next virus.

the next -- like i said before, viruses have been around long before mankind. they're going to be here long after we're gone. we have to learn to co-exist with them. and so we need a robust system to be able to raise the red flag and take care of these things early on. once it's out, once you've put hundreds or, you know, thousands or even millions of people on airplanes and flown them around the world, carrying this virus, it's too late. you know, the idea of testing and contact tracing, it works great when there's a few cases. but when you have a massive amounts of cases -- we have to go to a sort of zone defense, if you will. that's what we did with shelter in place and quarantine. normally you quarantine people who are sick, you know, isolate people who are sick, you quarantine people who have been exposed to the illness. we had to go about it in a very

bizarre, opposite way. we quarantine healthy people trying to keep them healthy. and i think that was the wrong objective. >> let's go to pamela, calling from las vegas, nevada. pamela, good morning. >> caller: hey, good morning, gentlemen. i've been following the numbers from johns hopkins religiously. and we've managed to keep our numbers flat for about 11 weeks. in the last couple of weeks, we have opened the casinos, and our numbers have gone up quite a bit. i have friends who work in the casinos, and it's not mandatory that you wear a mask in nevada. if you're working, yes, you're wearing masks. the guests are very happy to come, and not have to wear masks. i'm wondering what's your opinion about that. should people all be wearing masks now so we can flat then curve? right now our curve is going up, and our hospitalizations here in

nevada aren't the greatest. so that's my question about masking or not. >> well, it's -- in some ways -- i understand both sides of the argumentment people want to argue about freedom, and people want to argue about, well, you know, doing your part. i think we see in asian countries, japan and south korea and other asian countries where wearing a mask is considered a -- part of the public health solution. so people do it as a collective. here in america, of course, we tend to emphasize individual freedoms. so it's a very conflicting thing. you know, there's certainly -- one of the reasons why we're seeing numbers go up as much as we are is what we call surveillance bias. we're looking for it more. we have more testing.

i'm not familiar and nobody seems to be publishing the numbers of hospitalizations and icu beds. of course deaths are going up, but more importantly the infections are going up. how much of that is because we're getting out and about versus how much. it is that we're testing. i think it's a little bit of both. i'm not saying it's all just because of the testing. but really, as far as masks, you know, the biggest thing is, of course, when somebody is ill and they -- number one, shouldn't be going out and about. but number two is they should be wearing a mask. and the idea is that we may have a couple of days -- with influenza, you usually get exposed, and you're usually sick within one or two days. one of the issues with covid-19 is people generally aren't getting overtly sick for three

to five days, maybe in some cases even longer, and then there's a whole host of asymptomatic people who are still capable of spreading the disease. so i think if you look at it from the bigger public health position, masks are important. but i think that it's really a touchy subject. again, i could argue both sides of it, and i understand both sides of it. you know, my personal philosophy is i don't wear a mask unless i'm going to be in a crowded place such as a grocery store. you know, the idea of driving a car by myself or walking down the street or whatever wearing a mask is completely absurd to me. it really is only about trying to -- as a barrier when you're in more of a crowded situation. >> let's see if we can squeeze in one more caller. so daniel, you're up. can you give us a quick question

here? >> caller: yes, quick question is -- is it true that a person who is asymptomatic and carries the virus has 1,000 times more of the virus in their mucus than a person who is sick with it, and if that's true, how long does this person carry the virus for potentially spreading it to other people? >> those are actually some really great questions. i wish i had answers for them. but those questions are the kind of questions that we need to find the answers. so how -- i don't think we really know how long -- i'll reiterate your question. it's such a great question. ads somebody's asymptomatic, how long are they shedding the virus, how long are they potentially transmitting that to somebody. and i've not seen that type of science developed yet. it's a great question.

you know, we talk about quarantining for 14 days, but how do you know to quarantine for 14 days if you don't know you're sick because you're asymptomatic? lots of great questions out there. the biggest thing that i think we need to focus on is woe don't have all the answers. you know, a lot of our political leadership, a lot of the medical leadership in the country and at the state levels, they're trying to give you all kind of answers when in many cases they don't really know. and you know, it seems like it's -- that's one of the most difficult things for us to say is we don't know, especially as a doctor. you know, one of the hardest things for me to learn is to say "i don't know." and we seem to be lacking that at many levels these days. >> well, we'd like to thank dr. michael lewis who operates brain care in maryland but is a former public health infectious disease expert with the u.s. army. dr. lewis, thank you so much for a very informative discussion. >> my pleasure, and great to be

with you today. on d.c. becoming a state and that process for more -- for more about that process we'll be joined on the phone by delegate eleanor holmes norton. congresswoman, good morning to you. explain what it means for the residents of the district that this vote is happening this week and how that admission process would work under the bill that you've crafted. >> well, it means a great deal to the country, as well as to the district of columbia. more to us because the residents of the nation's capital pay the highest taxes per capita of any adress. that's one figure i ask everyone to remember -- the highest federal taxes per capita, have no senators, have only me in the house. i vote on some amendments on the floor, but on final passage of bills, even bills that affect the district of columbia, i do not have the vote. it's been that way for 219 years. we have more than enough votes.

indeed we have more than enough co-sponsors to pass the bill on friday, this coming friday, the 26th, which will, therefore, be a historic day because it will be the first time in 219 years that the district has been in existence that the residents have had either house to vote to give them the same rights as other residents. i do want to -- i heard in your introduction something that i think i need to clarify. you talked about the president saying over his dead body or words to that effect and that the -- >> the quote from the vox article, the president saying that republicans would be very stupid to allow d.c. statehood. >> exactly. and you perhaps said that the

senate majority leader does not support statehood. let me indicate what the polls are showing. the polls are showing that democrats have an excellent chance of taking the majority in the senate and the poll numbers for this president are so low that he's even having -- he's even going to states and risking the pandemic on his supporters just to get out there. so it is true that this will have a way to go. every bill has a way to go. in fact, the senate now is only passing -- is only affirm iing judges. so there's a whole lot of stuff to be done. but this is a huge forward

movement, and when you get this kind of vote in the house and remember those senators will see these representatives voting in such large numbers for this bill, when you get this kind of big push in the house, you're more than halfway there. >> a question of why statehood at this point? why not an intermediary step toward full representation, full voting representation for you on the floor? in the past there was an effort to try to craft a deal with republicans, to give you that full voting representation. i remember it being paired with what was going to be an eventual house seat for the state of utah after reapportionment. why not go back to that process and try to make a deal with republicans? >> well, go back is the operative word. that was a -- shows how things can change, and that's why things will change for

statehood. utah was devastated when it believed it should have gotten an extra house vote. it paired with the district of columbia and, in fact, we were successful in the house and the senate in getting at least a house vote several years ago. we got that bill through, and the only reason we don't have at least full voting rights in the house of representatives now is that republicans attached a rider or an amendment to that bill that would have essentially eliminated all of the gun safety laws in the district of columbia. you see what an uphill climb it has always been, even for a house vote. we decided to go for the whole enchilada if it's going to be an upward climb. let it be an upward climb for full equality for people who pay

full income taxes. >> and congresswoman, appreciate your time this morning ahead of a busy week. did want to ask you about some of the reaction from your republican colleagues. we just talked about -- asked congressman tom mcclintock whether he would support statehood. he said now. thomas massey of kentucky tweet being your bill yesterday. there is what thomas massey said, "i'll be voting no on the farcical defeats statehood bill. it's unconstitutional," he said, "the constitution prescribes a federal city, and the 23rd amendment gives d.c. three presidential electors. statehood for d.c. requires a funeral amendment, not a simple bill." >> well, that's -- that's not true. the district cause in the constitution makes it clear that the congress has full control over the district of columbia, and it does not -- that does not -- nothing in the constitution

makes it any different for the district than for any other jurisdiction. and that, of course, requirement is for a majority vote in the house. constitution does not say that the nation's capital should never become a state. >> what about the federal buildings here in d.c.? the white house and the capitol building? and the national mall, as well. what happens to those locations under your admission bill? >> well, it's important to note that when we're talking about statehood, we're talking about the 66 square miles of hometown washington. the federal enclave that most people call the capitol or the capitol when they come to visit the nation's capitol will interestingly be called the capitol. that will remain under the jurisdiction of the federal government. we want jurisdiction only over

hometown washington the way the states have jurisdictions over their states. >> and congressman, before you go, i did want to ask you about statues here in d.c. you're out with the upcoming new piece of legislation about removing specific statues here in the district. can you talk about which ones and why? >> well, we would like by legislation to do what the people are apparently trying to do in a virtual revolutionary act and to take -- that is to take down the statutes of confederate soldiers and confederate generals who betrayed their country. and that's a lot about washington, d.c. you could do anything you wanted to here. so some of these -- because it was controlled by the federal government, even hometown washington. so some of these statues are on

d.c. lands, some are on federal land. if -- if they're on federal land, i have introduced bills, i'm introducing bills that would take down those statues so that the people don't have to do it themselves if you've been watching tv, they've been doing a night after night. the pike statute was perhaps the most notorious as far as we were concerned because pike betrayed his own soldiers. they themselves tried to get rid of him. he was prominently displayed here in the district of columbia. and the people were able to bring down the statue. they have not been able to take down all of the statues, but i think it is up to the congress of the united states to do that

job. >> and finally, what is the emancipation statue in lincoln park, and why would you want that taken down? >> the emancipation statue depicts a slave kneeling at the foot of abraham lincoln. it is just the kind of depiction that has led to the -- the segregation and the denial of full equality for the -- for the african-americans in our country. now i don't want these statutes, even the most notorious of them simply taken down. i want them put in a museum, and i want that statue put in a museum. we need to learn from our history. the way is not to destroy it, put it where people can see it and learn what it stood for and

how far we have come. >> congresswoman eleanor holmes norton, delegate for the district of columbia. do appreciate your time this morning. we'll take to you down the road. >> thank you. earlier today, president trump welcomed polish president duda to the white house. this is president trump's first foreign visitor to the white house amid the coronavirus pandemic. the two were getting ready for a joint press conference in the rose garden. we take you there now. you're watching live coverage on c-span3.

polish president dudah's visit to washington is viewed as highly unusual according to an article in this morning's edition of thehill.com. they say it's unusual given its proximity to the polish presidential election. dudah, the right-wing leader, is expected to face a tight re-election battle and will appear at the white house just four days before he competes for a second term. quote, there is an unwritten rule in u.s. diplomacy. you don't invite people in the middle of an electoral campaign

to washington. this according to daniel freed, former u.s. ambassador to poland, who was deeply critical of the white house for the timing of the meeting. he says you don't want to be seen as putting your thumb on the scale. molly montgomery, a nonresident fellow at the brookings institution, and a former vice president -- former adviser, rather, to vice president pence on europe said she viewed the decision to hold the meeting as, quote, very much an intentional effort by the white house to support a leader who president trump views as a personal ally. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the president of the republic of