president organized by their noted historians, from best to worst. and features per expectives into lives of our -- perspectives into the lives of our chief executives and leadership styles. website, c-span.org/thepresidents, to about each president and historians featured. nd order your copy today wherever books and ebooks are sold. >> "washington journal" a special evening edition of "washington journal" on the federal response to the pandemic.s our guests are -- arkansas asa hutchinson. he joins us to talk about the role of state and local responding to covid-19. also, ""washington post"" chief on china's next steps amid the ongoing pandemic. join the conversation.

proo"washington journal primetime" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. joining us in elledge with the harvard medical school. he is professor of genetics. about science and research. you hear stories daily about covid-19 research, models and the like. what is the sense, best way to approach what people digest? guest: this is a huge question. created totalhas information overload. it is a tsunami of information we have never seen. -- are coming online every day. it is important that people work quickly. it is essential, but it comes with risks.

much of the information cropping up is not pure -- not peer-reviewed. eager to report this news but it is important for people to oh distinguish between types of information they get. there are three things to consider. one is the source of the information. , howecond is the messenger the information is transmitted. the third is the type of evidence. is it published peer-reviewed research, or is it a preliminary unverified? onis an anecdote or based observations from different labs over time using lots of experiments? it? kind of information is is it research done in laboratories? mice, humans?

all of these are important but they have different degrees of applicability to humans. question is, what sources do you trust? if you want to get your information and feel comfortable about it, who do you go to? --entific authorities and ,dc, who, state governments academic medical centers, universities, these are trusted sources. scientistsicians, and the biomedical field. these people have deep expertise and knowledge about health and disease. it is important to the scientific process. havesource -- you information coming from everywhere, which once you want

to trust? ones?ch ? do you want to trust guest: as opposed to social media. in an op-edcently took two to cases and used it as an example. these out of california, saying studies looking for immune markers of covid-19 projections suggest the virus is less deadly. these findings have not been vetted, can you paint in a broadbrush how these studies apply to what to watch out for? excellentt is an question. studies in question -- we are trying to ask the question of -- we know how many people who are going to the hospital and we know how many die, we do not know how many are infected

overall. to understand that, you have to know how many people in the overall community have been infected. hospital ando the you are sick, they give you a test to see if you have the virus right then and there. they can detect the virus with rna. that tests for the virus in your body. but, people may have had the virus, survived with few symptoms, may have been a symptomatically -- they have a fingerprint. the immune response has an antibody. to go into the population to test people foromly -- semi-randomly one of the antibodies. they were going to draw conclusions about how many people had antibodies and how

many on average in california were infected previously. can calculate which fraction are dying. then they get a traumatology rate. , allly one in 10,000 die of the two the hospital, but if it is low -- but if it is very high like 1% or 2%, that is difficult. sick of people get very and a significant number going to die. used a blood test that takes blood out of your finger and has a device that allows you to determine whether or not to have antibodies. is, how well that test works. -- falsehe background positive frequency that the test

gives you? that is an important question the reason the tests came under scrutiny is because it was published online. no one could see the real data yet. went to the next day. -- ithould went to the went to the media the next day. --?they accurate or not. the key point was the false positives. certainimed it was a number but it was not rigorously looked at. other people used the same test and said it had a 3% false positive rate. makes a bigve rate difference if there is a low number who have been infected.

if the number of people affected is -- [indiscernible] is 3%, all ofate those people could be false positives. they used the error rate of 0.5%. claimingwhat they were , because there are so few 1%ths in california, but infected is a low rate. relatively speaking. but, they were probably overestimating how many people had been infected. are important when you consider whether or not to reopen society. that study was flawed for those reasons. this is the kind of thing that would be caught in a normal peer

review situation. wrote that we article. people coming to the conclusion that this virus is leslie for landis. ust: our guest will be with to analyze. stephen elledge, the professor. questions, it ask is (202) 748-8000 four eastern and central. (202) 748-8001 mountain and pacific. medical professionals, (202) 748-8002. theguest is a professor at harvard medical school and brigham and women's hospital. austin, texas you are on. caller: thank you for taking my call. elledge. mr. i want to say to everybody and get y'all's comments about -- we

have done this before. we did this with tuberculosis. old, iwas six years stuck out my arm, nobody had a choice, you got a tb skin test. latented for tuberculosis, people who were carrying tuberculosis had the bacteria, but did not show symptoms. but, everybody did it. it was a good test. it was easy to administer. everybody took it. there wasn't everything about -- there wasn't anything about privacy. had tuberculosis, they had serious quarantine procedures. they would lock you up in a state hospital.

after the 1940's, they had drugs to give you treatment instead of it just being a tb sanitarium. is, we need good accurate testing done with a good strategy to go at this as a disease. host: we will leave it there. guest: those are great points. i completely agree. knowing if you have the virus is one thing. issue -- you may be immune or you may not. that is good. is who hasd to know the virus right now? they need to be quarantined. stop it outant to or minimize it, we get a vaccine

that can protect our population. we need to know who has it right now. if you have it right now, you need to be quarantined. everyone you come in contact with needs to be tested. in order for that to happen, we need to have a lot of tests. we cannot wait a week. i think the gentleman is right, we need to have a lot of testing. sendwise, you can't someone back into a crowded environment if they have the virus, or else you're going to infect everyone. host: chicago, illinois. joshua, you are up. c-span.thank you [indiscernible]

when the trump administration said the trade wherewith china falling behind china, they [indiscernible] it would have to come from wuhan. as the creator of coronavirus -- their expectations, everything turned in favor of china and against america. this is america suffering from coronavirus, shortage of ppe more than any other country. what goes around comes around. policy shows we have -- host: anything to that? sure: i am not exactly where to go with that.

trade war was going on before and during the outbreak. i do not see there being a direct link except for the fact that we live in an interconnected world. if anything shows us that, it is a pandemic. all over the from world to function as a society. it is important to have relationships with other countries. in this environment, we depend on each other even more. i try not to think too much about interactions with any particular country, but the one with china is important, as a trading partner. opposeding that now, as to breaking it further, i think is really an important aspect of moving for -- moving forward.

betweenthe connection trade and the pandemic. i have nothing left to say about that. host: we will go to new jersey. susan in monroe township. ask -- i would like to january, ie virus in do not know if it was covid but i was sick enough to go to the doctor because i had an asthma episode. i went to the doctor, he gave me a -- i had a flu vaccine in september and the pneumonia vaccine. taking amoxicillin for diverticulitis. i could have had it because i notsymptoms, coughing,

wheezing -- and i had a fever. host: where are you from? caller: new jersey. monroe township, new jersey. it or notow if i had but i have a feeling i did. it.aughter had we are both caretakers. so far, so good. host: -- time, itthink at that in january -- i think the first cases were her just after that. but highlympossible, improbable. there are lots of other viruses that give you similar symptoms. if you did have it, you got over it. congratulations. i think it is unlikely you did

have it come up what i am not a medical doctor. i only give -- in this case, i think given what is known about the virus, it is unlikely. host: let's talk about another side of science. modeling. there is an op-ed today by jodie heist in usa today. the headline this "experts can be wrong. we can safely reopen." "many of the models used to justify this seem to be flat out wrong. experts put out the worst doomsday predictions. the british epidemiologist ferguson claimed 2.2 americans -- 2.2 million americans would die. ferguson has since downplayed it. objective has the been accomplished, health care

systems are no longer in danger by being flooded by coronavirus." how would you respond to that? ofst: there are a lot different models. some of them will be wrong. not all. it might be worthwhile to look at what the average modelers. aw many models are predicting particular outcome. over time, the models get better. as we get more data -- in the beginning, there were wild estimates. , ande have pulled back done social distancing. that slow down the virus a lot. the projected death rates are based on that. -- if oney you can person did something wrong -- hey, we are going to open up the country.

[no audio] guest: i think a lot of the models -- if you predict 2 million people are going to die, right now we have thousands dying every day. the estimates are only going up. right now i think it is around 2000 today. getoesn't take too long to to one million people at 2000 today. you can rest assured if you open -- if you will get open up society, you will get more infections. that is not a doubt. you have to look at everything. if you don't open up the country, are people going to starve? are they going to get enough money to buy food?

they going to get medical health? these are things that also can lead to death and suffering. the citizens who open up the country are -- which is a better idea. certain locations have much less virus and could probably function. others, it is a mistake. these sorts of decisions have to be weighed. factors have to be put together to decide. the fact that someone had predicted something that did not happen -- one person -- i don't think that is reason to base anything off of. host: pennsylvania, hello. caller: thank you c-span. my concern is finding -- i am different information on how to prevent being

contaminated. i am retired. ont is the life of the virus mail?nces such as how do we present ourselves from getting it while being at home? home -- theeople at biggest event that causes them to get sick is interacting with other people for not staying home. the risk of getting it off of something in your house like mail is low. i often leave our mail alone for a day or two before we open it. things like that. things in your house or a big problem. somebody using the door from the outside -- you can clean that ethanol,soap or

whatever you have. if you're are concerned about that. to -- peopleeople who -- going to the store is low risk. not zero, but low. you are in and out, you don't stick around. you don't go to restaurants. in as where you are confined environment, the virus could hang out. where you arees more likely to confected. i think at home, you are relatively safe. you limit your interactions outside, you can go for walks, .ear a mask, avoid people having -- think

getting groceries and things like that are a lower risk. your mail is a low risk. -- plastic and paper on the order of less than a day most of the time. think, use common sense, wash your hands and wear a mask. host: in tennessee, rosemary hello. caller: i am calling because i have a question about some of the research going on related to covid-19. that i hadt certain it. february and lasted for longer than i cared to have it.

thinking about the symptoms, the respiratory part was not as bad as i had thought it might be from news reports. when i heard about hospitalizations and people going into pneumonia, it occurred to me that there might be a relationship between people who have had long-lasting as opposed toines those who did not. i am one who had it two years ago. i wonder if there is any research going into that kind of relationship to covid-19 and symptoms. caller: that is an excellent point. it is possible that you had one

of the pneumonia vaccines it could be protective and lesson n your chances of going into severe pneumonia from the virus. those of the sorts of things that people will be looking at. epidemiologists are interested. whether other vaccines interact with previous infections may impact how you respond to the virus. things like that. lungsng that impacts your -- one of the biggest problems decreasesis that it your ability to utilize oxygen. you have low o2 levels. lungsng that impairs your -- that could factor into having a poor outcome.

of questions are going to be looked at. it is a good thing you brought it up. todaythere is a story about a study taking look at how long droplets can last. it is from the national institute of diabetes and kidney diseases at the university of pennsylvania. it was published at the national academy of science, a peer-reviewed journal. they on the experiments, the laserlike studies -- study was not involved in coronavirus. you may not know about details, but if it has classifications going in, is that a study that could be considered credible? thet: it has gone through peer review process. let me explain the peer review

process. it is a rigorous vetting process by an independent panel of that puts studies like this paper under a microscope and make sure -- and makes sure thiscience is done -- safeguards the integrity of science. is a critical look at the methods researchers used to determine what exactly they determined. basically, when i submit a paper, that paper is given to -- without my knowledge who these people are -- different experts. they go through it very therelly and make sure if are any problems with the interpretation, they send it back and say we are not going to publish this.

that is peer-reviewed. that is vetting. i assume that this study went through that process and is something you can give weight to. every scientific paper that gets through peer-reviewed is not perfect, but are more likely to be believable. is here to talk about science and research behind covid-19. donna from knoxville, tennessee. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm confused about testing. if i have a test and i test negative and go back to my normal activity, how do i know i am not coming into contact with somebody who is an asymptomatic carrier?

understand how the test is supposed to be reassuring. guest: great question. it is reassuring from the sense that you know you do not have it in that moment. that, you may have just been infected. if you are not tested over time, you can never be absolutely certain. you can assume that at the moment you are not infectious if the test is validated, but that says nothing about the people you are interacting with. that is why we need more testing. if everyone in the environment is tested and everyone is negative, you can fear more comfortable. that does not mean you should not wear masks. you do not know when somebody could get infected. the hope -- unfortunately, the government has not gotten their

act together to get testing going. this is like the manhattan they make -- or whatever they do -- popsicle sticks. they focus on getting some of the so everyone can do this. testing, the few people that were positive, you could do tracing on them and follow them over time to make sure they are not infected by this individual. was infected,ual they are quarantined until it was finished. that is how you stamp out infection. that works only if you have gotten the level to a low level. if you have a high level circulating, you cannot trace it. you cannot keep up with it. that is what south korea did. they had some knee tests -- way more than we did. they basically stopped the

virus. they tested everybody. we don't have enough tests. you have to be tested more than once. you can be negative, and then all of a sudden new can be positive. it is one of these things where we need a lot of testing. people are going to have to be tested more than once. viewer one is a twitter who asked about peer-reviewed, how can you tell if a study has been peer-reviewed? tell by thean journal that has published it. journalse scientific publish them. there are preprint servers where purple -- where people can put their papers before they are peer-reviewed. there was a study out of california looking at the frequency of people who had been

infected with an antibody test -- that information was put on a preprint server. that is how the media found out. but, it was not published. it was not published in a journal of science. the journal of the american medical association, these are scientific journals. they go through the vetting of peer review, that is how you can trust it. host: we hear next from minnesota. caller: good morning. thanks a lot for taking my question. you toquick big thank you mr. elledge and all of your -- were fighting the fight here. all of us appreciate it. week, i readst research on masks. i thought it was from harvard, but they studied 1600 masks in

one day. some paper, some fabric. theye end of the study, found 97% of the fabric masks had covid on them. only 44% of disposable masks had covid. masks,ashing the fabric 45% of the fabric masks were still showing covid on the masks. article, toilets. that before you flush your toilet, you should shut the lid because of the spray and the fact that we are finding covid in fecal matter. i do not know if these were harvard -- i thought that they were. again, thank you to you.

guest: thank you. i have not read that study. parts of it. the masks may have been from people in hospitals. medical people. about the toilets. fecal matter. right now, they know they can detect viral rna in fecal matter. showed yet that it is still an active virus. it could be a dead virus. that needs to be figured out. issue -- toilets should, if they can, have the

lid closed. if you are in a public place, that is not usually an option. i think you have to be careful about that. key --s of masks, the the key is live viruses. itself, this circular spherical pod. it has a fatty part on the outside that keeps water out and protects it. fatty material, that breaks -- way and it activates a virus but it does not remove necessarily the rna. the test is looking to -- you do not know that that is still infected or not. they did the how -- and that study. in order for me to comment on it, i would have to look at it.

question quick breaking this morning, a rapid coronavirus diagnostic test may have missed nearly half of all positives. the system which has not been peer-reviewed found the test to be unacceptable in a clinical setting. on its face, how much caution should you express before making a conclusion? i think there are a lot of false positives. especially if they are trying to attain the virus in nasal swabs. maybe the viruses in your epithelium, that is one issue. study, i heardhe the news.

was a reallying it large discrepancy, 40% or something, that is unacceptable. if that is true. you have to have other people do the analysis and see what the paper looks like, let's see what other people's analyses look like. it probably differs significantly. an issue. it needs to be followed up on. you have tests that are erroneous sometimes. there is the matter of sensitivity. i am sure this is all going to be feared quickly -- i am sure this is all going to be figured out quickly because everything is verified by other scientists. stephen elledge at the

harvard medical school. professor of genetics and medicine. we thank you for you c-span has unfillered coverage of the pandemic with white house briefings, updates from governors and congress and daily call-in program hearing your thoughts about the coronavirus crisis. and if you missed any of our live coverage, watch any time on .emand at cspan.org/coronavirus >> massachusetts governor charlie baker held a press briefing. he announced his plan to expand testing abilities in being the highest tester. this is 50 minutes.