Despite strong objections of public health officials, governors in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina still plan to reopen parks, beaches and nonessential businesses. Even Trump reversed his support. Increased testing is critical for the whole country. But where are the tests? We look at the path ahead with Dr. Syra Madad, infectious disease specialist and special pathogens expert, who was recently featured in the Netflix docuseries “Pandemic.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we are broadcasting from New York City, where the COVID-19 death toll has passed 15,000. The number of daily deaths has finally begun to decrease, after more than a month of strict social distancing. Officials warn there is still a long road ahead for New York’s recovery. Increased testing will be critical as New York City and other localities look to slowly reopen certain parts of society.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo met with President Trump in Washington on Tuesday to discuss federal aid for expanding testing capacity, and said the president committed to helping New York state double both its COVID-19 and antibody tests to 40,000 a day. But Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he’s against giving states more federal aid in future pandemic legislation, suggesting states should instead consider filing for bankruptcy. Governor Cuomo called the statement “one of the saddest, really dumb comments of all time,” unquote.
This all comes as the governors in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina are preparing to reopen parks, beaches and nonessential businesses despite the strong objections of public health officials. Last weekend, President Trump encouraged far-right anti-quarantine protesters — many of them openly brandishing assault rifles — tweeting they should “liberate” Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia. But on Tuesday, Trump said he disagreed strongly with Georgia Republican Governor Brian Kemp’s decision to reopen businesses.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The spas and the beauty parlors and barber shops, tattoo parlors, I love ’em, but they can wait a little bit longer, just a little bit, not much, because safety has to predominate. We have to have that. So, I told the governor, very simply, that I disagree with his decision, but he has to do what he thinks is right.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned a second wave of the coronavirus could hit the U.S. in the winter with even more devastating results.
For more, we’re joined by Dr. Syra Madad, an infectious disease specialist, special pathogens expert, here in New York City. She was recently featured in the Netflix docuseries Pandemic, which premiered in January.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Dr. Madad. It’s great to have you with us. Why don’t we start off with what seems to be, to the shock of many, this controversial issue of testing? How is it possible in the United States that we are still at the point where just last week a 92-year-old woman, the mother of our co-host Juan González, went to a top hospital in New Jersey, 92 years old with COVID symptoms, and she was told she could not be tested? Only when they finally agreed to admit her did they say, well, then they had to do a COVID test to decide which wing to put her in. But that is one of many, many examples, the lack of access that governors, that people in general all over the country, have to tests. Why is testing so important?
DR. SYRA MADAD: It’s a great question. Everyone’s asking that: Why testing is so important? And I’m sure many people keep hearing about, you know, ramping up testing. And the reason why testing is so important, not only to know that you actually are infected with coronavirus disease, while probably clinical management won’t change much, unless you’re in the high-risk group and require additional services, but it’s also extremely important to know you’re positive, so that way we can isolate you, and so you don’t start new chains of transmission.
And unfortunately, here in the United States, we’ve almost seen a — hit a plateau when it comes to testing. We’re not really increasing the number of testing being done yet, for a number of different reasons. One big one is because of the whole supply chain aspect, because there’s not enough of the reagents and the swabs that are needed to actually conduct the testing. A lot of states actually have the infrastructure to do the testing, but really it’s relying on the supplies itself, that unfortunately is just not there yet.
And so we really need to make sure we have widespread testing and a good infrastructure in place. That way, we can test anybody that needs it. So, you know, if you’re symptomatic, even if you’re asymptomatic, we want to make sure that we have a test available to be able to see whether you have coronavirus disease, because the biggest thing is we want to make sure that you’re able to isolate yourself so you don’t start these new chains of transmission and infect additional people. This is, you know, a very highly transmissible virus that’s proven to be quite lethal, if you will. So we need to really make sure that we have these systems in place in order for us to really open back up, if you will.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Dr. Madad, could you explain what the different kinds of tests are that are being carried out? Are they all the same across the board? What, for example, is the distinction, the difference, between an antibody test and a test to determine whether you have COVID-19 right now? Are they the same? And you talked about the problem with supply chains. Where is the material being produced for these tests? And is there any likelihood that their production could be expedited now and continue to be ’til they’re needed?
DR. SYRA MADAD: So, in terms of testing, there is an antigen test that looks for acute infection, meaning if you’re actually infected with coronavirus disease, it actually looks for the virus itself through molecular assay. And then the other test is the antibody test, or the serology test, that actually looks to see if you had the infection previously and have developed an immune response. It’s actually looking at the antibodies in your blood. So, there is two very distinct means. One could be used for diagnostic purposes, if you will, the antigen test.
The antibody test is something that is relatively new, and I would highly caution anybody using the serology test right now to make any type of decision. And the reason why I say that is because the assays that are being used for serology tests, so the serology test itself, the blood that is drawn and tested, is very hard to interpret the information. First, the testing itself, you’re getting a lot of false positives, false negatives. It doesn’t seem to be — depending on the type of test you’re using, you know, a lot of these are not validated and not going through a quality control measure. We can’t see if they’re providing true results.
And the other big issue when it comes to serology is — and I think it’s very important for people to state — we just don’t know a whole lot about this virus. There’s still a lot of the science that we do not know. We don’t know about the pathophysiology of coronavirus disease. And so, even if, for example, you may have a positive antibody test, what does that mean? Does it mean that you are actually immune to coronavirus disease, you can’t get reinfected? We don’t know that. We don’t know how much — you know, the titer level that you need that will actually confer immunity. We actually don’t know that. There needs to be a lot more data on that. And on top of that, we also don’t know the risk, as I mentioned, of reinfection. And so, these are things that I think we need to be very public about. This is the science that we don’t know, that we hope to know in the future. It’s not there yet. This is a puzzle that is missing a number of pieces. And so, while we want to rely on seroprevalence and conducting serosurveys and seeing how many people are actually immune, we really need to take that with a grain of salt, because, again, we don’t know a lot.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Dr. Syra Madad, I wanted to ask you about this possibility of how you open the country — what President Trump is pushing so hard for, has been saying that these gun-toting activists around the country who are demanding their states open, are liberating their states — what a rational plan would be. I wanted to ask what you think of the Rockefeller Foundation plan that’s just put out there. Paul Romer, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, has recently said some very interesting things. I mean, they’re calling for 30 million tests a day in the United States, so that people — a day in the United States. He’s calling for a day. The report, I think, is calling for 30 million tests a week. He said it should be a day. I think he compared it to that the U.S. makes something like 350 million cans of soda a day — why can’t we do 30 million a day? The report itself, though, calling for 30 million a week. We are so far from any of that. I think that would clearly go to the issue of the Defense Production Act, President Trump demanding that companies start to convert to making these tests. Trump has been extremely resistant to this idea of mass testing. But how else do you open the country without having to shut it down right away because there’s another mass outbreak, because workers come together who are both positive and those that weren’t exposed?
DR. SYRA MADAD: You’re absolutely right. And I think the best way to really show the American public, you know, what situation we’re in is look at where we’re at right now, right? One of the reasons why we’re seeing a decrease in the number of cases, depending on where you are, if you’re at least in the state of New York, is because of our collective actions, doing what we call social distancing, physically distancing ourselves. And the reason why we’re doing that is because we want to obviously make sure that, you know, we’re not going out, we’re not coming in contact with the virus. Right? So, the endgame is, the whole goal is making sure we don’t come in contact with the virus, because if you come in contact with the virus, then, obviously, you can get infected. And right now no one has, really, immunity to this virus, because this is brand new, unless, obviously, you’re already going through active infection right now. And so, the virus is still out there. And one of the reasons why we’ve been able to decrease the number of cases is because of social distancing.
If you take that away, that very effective public health measure, then we’re going to be in the same position that we were back in January, back in February, back in March, because nothing has changed between now and then. We still don’t have enough testing. And we still don’t have, you know, a testing — a treatment option yet. And then we have clinical trials still in the pipeline. People are actually getting very confused, I think, in terms of when we’re talking about all these different medications. I think some people, when I’ve been talking to them, they think these are cures. These are not cures. There is no cure for coronavirus disease. There are a number of different treatments that are in clinical stages. How effective and safe they are, that’s still something that’s being explored. And so, nothing has changed. And if we are to reopen the economy, being in the same position that we’re going to put ourselves in, we’re obviously going to see a resurgence of cases.
And as we’ve seen with history — right? — a lot of people have been comparing this to the 1918 Spanish flu — the second wave was much higher and much more severe than the first one. And so, if we’re going to let history repeat ourself, I think we just need to make sure that we’re prepared for it. And unfortunately, we are not.
And I think the other thing we need to also think about is how do we define risk and how do we define the word “safe,” because that’s — you know, living with COVID-19 is going to be our new normal, so we need to make sure what amount of risk are we able to take, if at all. And what does that word “safe” actually mean? We’re not going to really be safe. As long as that virus is out there and lingering, we’re not going to be safe. So we need to continue to do various public health measures really to protect everybody.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Madad, that’s a very good point that you make about how essential social distancing is, given where we are now with both testing and clinical trials for drugs. Could you give us some sense, because obviously the costs of social distancing and the impossibility of social distancing in a large part of the world, the developing world, in particular, and in poorer — among poorer communities everywhere, where it’s simply not possible to be socially distant from others, what — how far are we along in clinical trials? And are there any alternatives at all to social distancing at the moment or in the foreseeable future, the near future?
DR. SYRA MADAD: So, any of these potential treatments that are being studied, they’re not going to be a silver bullet. And what I mean by that is they’re not going to be 100%. We still are waiting on the data for a number of these different pharmaceutical interventions to come out. You’re seeing some come out right now. For example, you know, hydroxychloroquine, you’re seeing whether it’s safe and effective, and in fact the data is showing otherwise, that it actually is not effective. And then you’re seeing other studies come out with remdesivir, that is showing — that is looking promising.
But again, you know, when you’re doing these clinical trials, you really need to go through the proper channels and making sure that you’re studying these individuals for a longer period of time. And that’s obviously not happening right now. These are very quick, short studies. And so, I think, in the coming weeks to months, we’ll probably get some more information in terms of the various clinical trials that are out there around the world, not just here in the United States. And so, you know, it seems as if we’ll —
AMY GOODMAN: And, Dr. Madad —
DR. SYRA MADAD: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you want to weigh in on this huge controversy that’s happening with Dr. Bright right now? I mean, President Trump, the Trump administration, fires the person in charge of vaccines in the government, who has been fighting hard to coordinate all these kind of tests you’re talking about, clearly opposed to, you know, prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine without the proper studies, and now being taken out as he resists President Trump’s drug of choice, which hasn’t even been adequately tested.
DR. SYRA MADAD: You know, this is something I’ve been saying from the get-go. We really need to let science speak, and we really need to look at the facts. We need to follow the facts. There is, obviously, a lot that we don’t know, and we need to be very clear about that. And we need to make sure people understand. When we don’t know something, we’re providing that information; when we do know something, we can provide that information. And, you know, doing these types of — and having these types of actions and reactions is very unfortunate, because, really, it’s showing the credibility of the administration in and of itself. And this is a very pressing time, and a lot of lives are on the line. And we really need to make sure that we’re following the facts. And so we want to make sure that we are having experts be able to be at the table and drive these conversations.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to go to a break, and then we’re going to come back to Dr. Syra Madad, infectious disease specialist, special pathogens expert, here in New York City and for New York City. We’ll be back with Dr. Madad in a minute.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy