sanjay gupta and michael osterholm. okay, sanjay, tell us what you just learned about the briefings. >> well, we have learned that they're best called briefings, not coronavirus task force briefings, because it's not clear that anyone from the task force, at least not the scientists or the doctors are going to be there. as of this morning, they haven't even been told, so not only do they -- do we not know if they're going to be there, they don't know if they're going to be there or not as well. this gives you an idea into how the white house is handling this. it's not going to be just coronavirus that's going to be discussed. and frankly, you know, the people that we should really be hearing from on this that will give us the idea of what's happening in the country and also i think more importantly the best path forward it's not clear at all that they're going to be there. they don't know yet, so it doesn't sound like they will be, but it could still change throughout the day. >> michael osterholm, let me tell you, in m

osterholm, let me start with you. is there any way we avoid what some people thought was alarmist a few weeks ago when dr. fauci said he was worried about 100,000 cases a day. also an m.d. welcome to you all dr. osterholm, let me start wit where we've been. we have probably you. is there any way we avoid what some people thought was alarmist a few weeks ago when dr. fauci said he was worried about 100,000 cases a day. is it inevitable at this point that that's where we're headed in a couple of weeks >> well, to put it into perspective, again, we look at where we've been we have probably infected 7% to 8% of the u.s. population to date that's it, with the pain, suffering, death and economic disruption, that's it. as we talked about on this very show this virus won't stop and let alone stop transmission until we get to 50% or 60% to put that into perspective, chuck, if we had 65,000 to,000 70,000 cases a day for the next 365 o that level, so we have a lot of human wood to burn in this coronavirus forest fire, and, you k

michael osterholm.e's a professor and director of the center for infectious disease research and policy up at the university of minnesota. also happens to be co-author of the book "deadliest enemy: our war against killer germs." doc, as you know, tonight the university of washington upped its projected death toll to 240,000 americans by november 1. i contend we are optimistic people by nature, so i'll put it that way in asking you what we should know about this vaccine and how high we should let our hopes get. >> well, first of all, it is good news that it's not bad news. i mean the bottom line is that there was some response. but, remember, we're still in the first 100 yards of a marathon. i would actually add a note to what i thought was a very important message earlier this week from ken frazier, who is the ceo of merck. as a pharmaceutical company, they've brought more new vaccines forward than any other company in history. they know how to do and make vaccines. ask ken, in an interview, with the ha

it's going to keep going. >> michael osterholm, appreciate it as always. dr.thank you so much. a new study called silent spreaders could be responsible for half of the covid-19 cases. we'll talk with one of the co-authors, when we continue. for the sweaty faces, and the hidden smiles. the foggy glasses, and the muffled laughs. a simple piece of fabric makes a big statement: i care. wear a mask. let's all do our part to slow the spread. >>> new study out of yale says that half of the coronavirus cases, half, could be caused by so-called silent spreaders. people who are asymptomatic or those who are presymptomatic. the study suggests the onset of the virus may be most contagious in that presymptomatic stage. i am joined by one of the study at yale university. professor, thanks so much for being with us. can you just walk us through what your research found? because i think for a lot of us, it's pretty frieghtening to thik a majority of the people might have the virus, and be transmitting it without even knowing it. >> thank you for inviting me, anderson. so an u

osterholm, let me start with you.there any way we avoid what some people thought was alarmist a few weeks ago when dr. fauci said he was worried about 100,000 cases a day. is it inevitable at this point that that's where we're headed in a couple of weeks >> well, to put it into perspective, again, we look at where we've been we have probably infected 7% to 8% of the u.s. population to date that's it. for all the pain, suffering, death, economic disruption, that's it. as we talked about on this very show this virus won't slow down, let alone stop transmission, until we get to 50%, 60% to put that into perspective, chuck, if we had 65,000 to 75,000 cases a day for the next 365 days, it would just begin to get to us that level so we have a lot of human wood to burn in this coronavirus forest fire. and, you know, we may see ups and downs in communities where people do take more concern for a moment because of the severe problems but i think it's not only likely that we'll see much more than 100,000, but i don't think peop

michael osterholm from the university of minnesota. doctor, thank you for joining me >> thank you very much for having me. >> continuing it the conversatin we're having, i just want to know, when it comes to testing and turning around the results, what is the best in the world for this if it isn't the u.s., and what are they doing that we're not? >> you have to look at, first of all, we're basically hitting a crisis of reality hitting what we can actually provide. what you really want to know is are we providing the level of testing that we need in this country to effectively control the current pandemic the answer is an absolute no and part of that is not because we're not doing enough testing in some cases, we're not doing the right testing. our group put out a document several months ago about the whole idea of smart testing. the mantra of test, test, test is just wrong. what we need to do is have the right test and the right population at the right time for the right result to have the right impact >> what is the right test? >> the

michael osterholm and dr. hotez, thank you. >>> silent spreaders could be responsible for half of the covid-19 cases. we'll talk with a co-author when we continue. when you shop for your home at wayfair, you get way more than free shipping. you get thousands items you need to your door fast the way it works best for you. i'll take that! -wait, honey, no... you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match on your schedule. yes! you get free two day shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. wayfair. way more than furniture. ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ and the hidden smiles. the foggy glasses, and the sore ears. the determined looks, and the muffled laughs. a simple piece of fabric makes a big statement: i care. let's all do our part to slow the spread. wear a mask. learn more at covid19.ca.gov. >>> new study out of yale says half of the coronavirus cases, half could be caused by silent spreaders, people that are asymptomatic or pres

osterholm, good to have you on. >> good to be with you. >> i like to start big picture with you because you have a good perspective on this and knowledge base. so the u.s. leads the world in cases and the number of cases per month, new cases, accelerating here. look at the comparison to the european union, night and day and the president still says testing is overrated. given those problems, can the u.s. effectively get this outbreak under control or is that just not possible without a national plan? >> well, it's not just about a national plan. it's actually what is in that plan. and what's important to understand is that a number of other countries around the world that had as much of a challenge with this virus last spring as which did have demonstrated how they can bring it under control. what they did, they did the lockdown or the restriction of movement to such a degree that they got the virus level down so it was between one to three new cases per 100,000 in the population each day. they could do the testing and the tracing at the level that would then continue to keep the number

michael osterholm, always good to see you. thank you very much for being on. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >>> any minute now the president is expected to leave the white house for florida and he's going to take part in an event with sheriffs in tampa, followed by a covid-19 round table in pa nillous county. as we have been talking about his trip to his adopted home state, comes as florida continues to set records in coronavirus cases and deaths. with the white house and congress hitting an impasse on coronavirus relief, chief of staff mark meadows held a briefing today, attempting to blame democrats who passed a bill in the house, months ago, to blame them for the current stalemate. >> the democrats believe that they have all the cards on their side, is and they're willing to play those cards at the expense of those that are hurting. i want to stress that the democrats have made zero offers over the last three days, zero. >> joining me is the senior white house reporter for nbc news digital shannon pettypiece. hey there, shannon. look, the president is going

. -- excuse me, michael osterholm, director for infectious research disease. also, author of deadliest enemy, our war against killer germs. professor. >> good evening, sir. >> i appreciate you joining us. the association of american medical colleges, the aamc, as it's named, the acronym. they are warning that we could see u.s. coronavirus deaths in multiple hundreds of thousands. but we aren't doomed to that, are we? >> no, we're not. i think the rest of the world has taught us that, in fact, while it will always be a struggle to deal with this virus, we can do a much better job of controlling it. and if nothing else, look here, in the united states. you know, last march and april, new york city and the metropolitan area there was on fire. and to the credit of the state of new york, the governor, there was a very active program to reduce the cases, by distancing people. what some would call the lockdown. and there has been absolute efforts made to keep those cases under control, by following, very closely, the kind of pr parameters. like, how many people get t

. >> i've been asking people like you and michael osterholm and other experts on infectious disease about what's needed. and people like you have been telling me for months that there needs to be a manhattan project-like effort to get testing up to speed where it needs to be. take a listen to what admiral giroir said to me yesterday when i asked him why there isn't one. >> the manhattan project-like effort is being led by the vice president of the united states with the top officials from multiple sectors, meeting multiple times a week and literally 24/7 since this has started. we've invoked the defense production act numerous times. we've invested in multiple different technologies. >> we should note that i don't believe that they've invoked the defense production act to get labs to where they need to be in terms of equipment and staffing. do you agree that they have been doing this manhattan project-like effort? and if not, what more do you think the administration needs to get testing where it needs to be? >> well, jake, i heard that response yesterday, and i was skeptical and i remain

fauci say yesterday, that quote, i don't really see us eradicating it, and when we asked michael osterholmuniversity of minnesota so versed on this last hour said this isn't going away so i guess i'm wondering from you what is the best case scenario for the globe once we have not only an effective, you know, phase one vaccine but a second stage vaccine that is generally more -- more effective in more people? what's the best case? >> the best case is that we're able to contain this infection, and actually we did have a chance i would say earlier on in the pandemic to be able to eradicate it if very early on we were able to stop this explosive spread that's now happening, not just in the u.s. but in many parts of the country. we did have a chance to contain it and eradicate it as we have other contagions with this kind of pandemic potential, but at this point it's so widespread that i think the best that we can hope for is a vaccine that will get us to the point at least of not having this rapid spread from person to person, that we can live with this disease the same way we live with the se

michael osterholm said new shutdowns could happen regionally, and he added this. >> when are we going to finally say we have got to understand that, you know, being in an argument with this virus, we have less chance of winning that than arguing with 2,000 cranky, tired 2-year-olds, okay? we have got to deal with this virus, and the way we're going to have to do it is shut down again and then bring it back gradually. that's the only answer. that's not a partisan answer. that's a public health answer. >> exactly what the president does not want to hear. "the new york times" reporting that states across the american south and west are being flooded with new coronavirus patients. "the times" putting it this way. doctors worry that the escalating hospital crunch may last much longer than in earlier hit areas like new york. even as regular wards are being converted into intensive care units, as we saw in new york, and long-term care facilities opened for patients still too sick to go home, doctors say they are barely managing. and the white house is still pressing hard to reopen schools th

osterholm talks about testing the right people for the right purposes. if we don't do that, we're going to be in this for a very long time. >> the c.a.r.e.s. act did a lot for people economically. the heroes act got bounced by republicans. they didn't want to play ball. they said let's see how things go. this month, those unexpanded unemployment benefits are going to run out. those businesses saved by ppp, they're going to shut down again. what needs to be done from congress' standpoint to keep people afloat? >> well, we've got to pass the heroes act. i think t-- there's heavy layofs in state and local governments. that's going to raise unemployment. we already see the airline industries talking about layoffs in october. even after sthi eve received an injection of much aid -- after they've refed an injection of much aid from the federal government. we've got to use the money in a way that's going to be effective to keep companies and small businesses afloat and people employed. >> eugene, how do you see any or all of this impacting the election which is

michael osterholm. you have said countless times to me, 60% to 70% of this country will get this virus. this is the reality of this situation. but the folks that run the federal government didn't necessarily believe this reality, yet here we are, all of the predictions may have had what month, what state would be a hot spot wrong in, beyond that here we are. is there any way to turn this around? >> actually, there is. that's the challenge, i think, that's before us. this is only in part a decision that the virus is going to make. some of us, our own ability to make a decision, that is are we willing to really clamp down again, shut down in the way we did in march in these states with these high levels of transmission and then get the virus under control, get it to one or two cases per 100,000 population per day and then we can do what the rest of the world has done, whether in asia, europe, canadian colleagues, look where they're at today. they're managing this on a day-to-day basis without having a com

osterholm of the university of minnesota made a -- pointed out a grim statistic we're about to hit. we're getting awfully close to have lost 1,000 medical workers to this virus. and he said, in four months, imagine losing 1,000 soldiers in a war overseas in four months. we know where the country would be. we know where congress would be. we'd be talking about ways to honor these folks. we talk about gi bills for those that are fighting. it feels auk ward to say this, but it feels as though we need to remind the country that you're on the front lines here, dr. harper, risking your life. >> it's true. everything you're saying is true in terms of the loss to death and illness of health care providers that we so critically need, but then there's also disability that's going to happen. the fall is coming. actually, we thought we would have a little respite, but we're seeing that even in the summer, in parts of this country, they have no respite at this time. and then the fall will come where we have a spike in viral illnesses. and it will get worse. even those of us who are still alive,

michael osterholm said to me on friday.e a listen, sir. >> the way we're going to end up, i think, maximizing on our overall safety, our health, and our economy is getting it shut down once and for all, coming back slowly and gradually, much like new york is doing and the rest of the world, and then living with it until we get a vaccine. >> is there any -- he's basically advocating in order to get control of this, we've got to shut down right. we didn't shut down correctly the first time. do you concur with that that we didn't get this right the first time? >> i think mike's a really smart guy, and i listen to a lot of things he says, and i read his newsletter, and we'll have him very involved. i don't think we need to shut down, at least in most places around the country. our models really show that if you close down bars, where there's a lot of transmission, if you decrease restaurant capacity to about 50%, that you really, strictly physically distance and really, everybody, if you're out in public, we have to have about

but again, as much as i think this is what happens, and i saw michael osterholm quoted, every country that's succeeding in controlling this virus has had a strong federal response. those who have struggled had a weak federal response. it seems clear which side of the column we're on. a few days after retweeting the claim that the cdc is lying about the pandemic, president trump's administration has moved to sideline the agency even more. the cdc is kweconfirming that is no longer in handling data. the centers for disease control will not be in charge for data of the federal government. hospitals are being told to send the data directly to a federal data base in washington. this is of course raising concerns at the white house, and hhs, may not be as forthcoming with this information. joining us now is kelly o'donnell from the white house. and kelly, it's not news for those in the white house to hit the cdc. i mean, peter navarro, on meet the press, about three weeks ago, blamed the cdc, said it's the cdc's fault that we had a bad start to the response. now he's out there hitting fauci

i personally listen very carefully to a doctor named osterholm who back in march said this is seriousdeaths could approach half a million. that was stunning and kind of alarming, and i found myself arguing with it and i read his book and i took a deep dive, and again, just for me, by the beginning of april, i had come to terms with the belief, rightly or wrongly, that we could see 100 million cases. so when i see the cases go from two million to three million to four million, sure, it's concerning. but it's not alarming because i kind of baked in to my brain, anyway, what a likely scenario could be. if we don't have the chance as a country to get our heads around the likelihood of what we're dealing with, we're never going to be able to accept it and then we're going to be paralyzed and we'll never be able to move. neil: yeah. we're already at that stage. mike rowe, wish we had more time. i want to thank you for that. i thought when i read this back-and-forth they sound like some of the nasty stuff i get. very happy to hear that i'm not alone. mike rowe, the way i heard it, former "di