also, michael olsterholm. >> when you hear dr. fauci she o play all sides of the equation. i don't know if the sides are politics and -- or if he thinks it's democrat and -- i don't know what the sides are. >> i don't know what the sides are, eergtither, anderson. i think dr. fauci's been consistent in what he's been saying all along here. this idea that, would a vaccine be available by the fall? dr. fauci, you know, he is very careful with his words. i think the way he phrased it was, that would be a bridge too far, i think to suggest that a vaccine would be available by the fall. a vaccine's not going to be available by the fall. i think he knows that. he's trying to like balance hope and honesty, i think, with the american public. but i think he's been very consistent. i think when it comes to -- to children, in particular, you know, we are learning as we go along. i think one of the things we just learned over the last couple of weeks is this concern about children developing this post-inflammatory syndrome that is sort of like kawasaki. we didn't really have that on th

also joining us, michael olsterholm. ael, how significant is this especially based on results participants that were given that low and medium dose? >> i think this is one of those issues where the glass is half empty and half full. the half-full part is obviously there are antibodies found in terms of laboratory studies. they neutralized the virus. but we got a long ways to go yet. any number of things can go wrong. and takes a lot of things to go right to make this actually become a vaccine that can protect people. but this is, surely, a very, very first good step. >> michael, what makes it so difficult? i mean, what -- you know, from -- from the good news in this, what -- what are the pitfalls here? >> for example, we'll want to show if those antibodies actually protect you against the virus in the everyday life. not just in a laboratory test tube. the second thing is you want to make sure that the vaccine's actually really safe. when you have very limited number of individuals, if you had any exposure to a -- a outcom

michael olsterholm described as the wile, wild west. let's get to meg tirrell. >> remember back in march the fda basically opened the flood gates for the antibody tests and now they detected some fraudulent tests out there and trying to tighten the guidelines overall so what the new regulations do is say that all companies must submit the validation data to the fda within ten days, also setting thresholds of what the tests need to meet for sensitivity or the ability to detect true positives at 90% and specificity or true negatives at 95% fda also saying as of this point it is authorized 12 tests including just recently from roche and reviewing 200 and that's the scope of how many out there on the market and we want to update you on a story we have been talking today about gilead's remdesivir. the u.s. is going to be controlling distribution of that drug and in a statement to the ylan muoy from fema saying it will be distributed to counties by the commercial provider based on a plan approved by the white house task force so we're learnin

michael olsterholm leads the center. it's good to have you. >> thank you.od to be with you. >> so common sense is more testing, more better. no, you say, why? >> well, it's just like investment. take all your money and just put as much as you can in investment, and realize that that's not going to give you the great rate of return. if you really want to get the most out of testing, you're going to test the right people, at the right time, with the right test, with the right result, and do the right thing about it. and we have many examples, just recently, where we've seen testing has actually caused us more problems than it's helped us. >> so how do you know what the answers to those questions are? just limiting them to the obvious ones. who to test? how often? >> well, for example, if you really want to know where the disease is in a community, do what willie sutton once told us. rob banks because that's where the money is. basically, look for sick people. will help you uncover new hotspots. it will give you an idea of exactly what's happening in your comm

michael olsterholm, director of the university of minnesota's center for infectious disease researchost epidemiologists, one of the smartest people we get to talk to about all of these things. when brian and i last talked to you together we were focused for two hours on testing. it would appear that the president still has some value judgment, if someone's good they test negative, if someone's bad they test positive. i think that was the news value of that clip. it goes a long way toward explaining why there's still this push and pull, this almost skets phrenic federal policy around pushing testing into every corner and crevice of this country so we have a more complete picture of what the pandemic looks like in america. >> yeah, i think that one of the challenges we have right now is just what do we mean by testing and we put out a report yesterday that basically pulled back from that concept of testing, testing testing men tra and rather put forward a smart testing program. the right person getting tested with the right test at the right time for the right reason that results in so

michael al lchlolsterho. >> private sectors ignored him, because they didn't believe an infectious agent could do to us what this one is doing. >> dr. olsterholmn't alone. listen to what dr. brilliant said in a ted talk in 2006 about what a similar pandemic could do. >> the world as we know it will stop. there will be no airplanes flying. would you get in an airplane with 250 people you didn't know, coughing and sneezing, when you knew that some of them might carry a disease that could kill you? >> dr. brilliant painted such a vivid picture he was tapped as a consultant for the thriller "contagion." brilliant and osterholm say that the time and for a few years, america was more prepared. what happened? >> i think we dropped the ball in forgetting about science. anyone who looked at those outbreaks coming would never have reduced our pandemic preparedness the way we have done in the united states. >> reporter: other crises in america seemed to have taken priority but warnings kept coming from america's top scientific minds, chronicled in a recent "vanity fair" article. bill gates wrote in ""the new york times"," it was like taking a knife to a