Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penl Podcast. I'm Paul swing you
Speaker 1: along with my co host Lisa brahma Witz. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money, whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot Com. It's ten thirty three on Wall Street.
Speaker 1: Time to check in with Bloomberg Opinion. We're joined by
Speaker 1: opinion columns. Max Nisson covers all things healthcare for US,
Speaker 1: and we love to have him on, particularly during this
Speaker 1: pandemic because there's so many topics. There's so much breaking news,
Speaker 1: and Max, I want to start with the Santa Fee
Speaker 1: news here. I guess the CEO came out yesterday and
Speaker 1: said that the US would likely get first crack at
Speaker 1: their vaccine because the US was first to step up
Speaker 1: with funding here, and now he's getting some pushback on that,
Speaker 1: including from the President of France here, So give us
Speaker 1: the background here. How common is that in the world
Speaker 1: of healthcare and vaccines for one country to get preference
Speaker 1: over another. Uh, you know, it's not uncommon at all
Speaker 1: in the sense that you do see wealthier countries UM,
Speaker 1: countries that have a manufacturing base UM do do get
Speaker 1: access more rapidly. There there was a flu outbreak that
Speaker 1: the two thousand nine one where where a lot of
Speaker 1: those vaccine stocks, which which didn't end up being super useful,
Speaker 1: were were bought up by by countries like the United States.
Speaker 1: This is a kind of particularly special and case where
Speaker 1: you know, the United States on one hand, is providing
Speaker 1: some some extra funding helping me up potentially to build
Speaker 1: some of that that at risk manufacturing capacity before we
Speaker 1: even know if the vaccine works UM. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, the furor that this this kind of prompted
Speaker 1: highlights that this is going to be a really complicated
Speaker 1: geopolitical issue, that there's such demand that that giving countries
Speaker 1: preferences is going to be incredibly controversial and difficult, and
Speaker 1: and that you also, you know, you if you politicize it,
Speaker 1: that that has some risks. What if you have a
Speaker 1: situation where where the vaccine that turns out to work
Speaker 1: best is one of the ones being developed in China
Speaker 1: and they take the position that because they funded it, UM,
Speaker 1: the you know that the United States should be last
Speaker 1: in the queue. So it's it's a really risky path
Speaker 1: to step down um to do anything but try to
Speaker 1: develop maximum capacity and give it out to whatever extent
Speaker 1: possible based on need um. You know, the best situation
Speaker 1: is not having to ration doses out or give countries
Speaker 1: preference based on their income level max just zooming out
Speaker 1: a little bit. I mean, we're all hopeful for a vaccine,
Speaker 1: and we can argue over who's going to get it first,
Speaker 1: but we still don't have any clarity of how long
Speaker 1: it is going to take. In the w H of
Speaker 1: the World Health Organization yesterday warned that it could take
Speaker 1: up to five years before the coronavirus pandemic is under control.
Speaker 1: I'm looking at more and more dire predictions of social
Speaker 1: distance in distancing strikeing out for a longer and longer
Speaker 1: period of time as we await some sort of treatment
Speaker 1: or vaccine. Where are we How do we even judge that? Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: anyone that tells you that they have, you know, an
Speaker 1: accurate timeline is is making it up. You know, Okay,
Speaker 1: will make it up and make it good, make it positive,
Speaker 1: so we can prepare to leave our all. That's very
Speaker 1: much the temptation, but you also want to avoid giving
Speaker 1: the sense of false hope because the best way to
Speaker 1: proceed is is not in relationship to best case scenario.
Speaker 1: It's the worst case scenario where you have to use
Speaker 1: public health efforts, testing, tracking, tracing, um screening to to
Speaker 1: keep people safe until there's a vaccine, whether it's you know,
Speaker 1: by the end of the year or well into next year.
Speaker 1: It's just worth highlighting again that that we we're working
Speaker 1: on an untrucedented timeline. Um, you know, it may well
Speaker 1: be that higher vaccine development efforts were overcautious because um,
Speaker 1: you know, we just weren't willing to throw enough resources
Speaker 1: at them or or take enough risks and that that
Speaker 1: you know, these these rapid accelerations will prove successful. But
Speaker 1: you know, it's not like it's a slow process on
Speaker 1: a whim. It's because if you're going to give something
Speaker 1: to billions of people, um, you know, a one percent
Speaker 1: serious side effect rate that that's you know, close to
Speaker 1: the estimated fatality rate above the virus itself, you could
Speaker 1: be having a negative impact on millions and millions of people.
Speaker 1: So you really do have to approach is cautiously, and
Speaker 1: there are a lot of things that can go wrong.
Speaker 1: It's not just about the safety, it's about can you
Speaker 1: actually produce a durable immune response if you take the
Speaker 1: vaccine and it peters out after a few months. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not all that much good, is it?
Speaker 1: So you know there there are only so many shortcuts
Speaker 1: you could take, and that's why you have to be
Speaker 1: cautious about the timeline. Max Neeson, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being with us as all is Maxinism and Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Opinion calumnist, joining us to talk about the vaccine and
Speaker 1: the arguments that are already occurring over the distribution of
Speaker 1: those vaccines. Paul, all right, how you're gonna I'm not
Speaker 1: sure how you figure that out. You know, it's just
Speaker 1: gonna be interesting to see when they're hopefully there will
Speaker 1: be a vaccine, how it is distributed and the boy
Speaker 1: who goes first? And what does fair mean when everyone
Speaker 1: thinks that fair is for them to get it first? Okay?
Speaker 1: Moment of truth, Paul, real, moment of truth. How many
Speaker 1: times have you googled the symptoms of COVID nineteen as
Speaker 1: well as the transmission mechanisms, the you know, rate of contagion.
Speaker 1: You know what fortunately I have not, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: really yeah, I'm just you know, staying at home, you know,
Speaker 1: doing all the common sense stuff. And I think that's
Speaker 1: the best way to go. And I'm fairly comfortable with that.
Speaker 1: Definitely the best way to go. I cannot confess to
Speaker 1: the same, but I like at well, first it was
Speaker 1: a trade dispute. Now it's fingerpointing about the coronavirus. But
Speaker 1: the US China trade and relationship has been anything but
Speaker 1: smooth under the Trump administration. Now we've got President Trump
Speaker 1: coming out recently saying he's looking at Chinese companies that
Speaker 1: trade on the NASDAC and n Y s C, but
Speaker 1: they don't follow yours accounting rules. He says he doesn't
Speaker 1: want to talk with Chinese President g So the question
Speaker 1: remains is where are we in terms of the U.
Speaker 1: S And China in terms of global relationship. There's nobody
Speaker 1: better to ask that of than Andy Brown, editorial director
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg New Economy, joins us on the phone, and
Speaker 1: he thanks so much for joining us here. It seems
Speaker 1: like President Trump is ratcheting up the rhetoric, the anti
Speaker 1: China rhetoric. Is there a strategy here that you're following right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So so look, this is not the first time, obviously
Speaker 1: that we've heard uh inflated, overheated rhetoric on China from
Speaker 1: President Trump. Um. You'll remember in August last year, I
Speaker 1: think it was, um where, out of the blue, he
Speaker 1: suddenly orders all US companies to exit China and return
Speaker 1: to the United States, and you know, companies at a
Speaker 1: time sort of scratch their heads and tried to figure out,
Speaker 1: you know, what it was. So in fact, it was
Speaker 1: more a sort of verbal explosion than a serious declaration
Speaker 1: of intense still less, was it a strategy, um, And
Speaker 1: I think you're seeing something of that here. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously at route what he's trying to do is deflect
Speaker 1: blame for the coronavirus onto China. Both countries are playing
Speaker 1: this game. But the rhetoric this time, I mean, I
Speaker 1: will say it it is it is even more overblown
Speaker 1: than usual. And the one thing that actually caught my
Speaker 1: eye was this comment on Ji Jim Ping. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, he's been very careful, um, right from the
Speaker 1: beginning since he took office, to separate all the bad
Speaker 1: things that were happening in the U. S. China relationship
Speaker 1: on the trade front, and on military front, security front,
Speaker 1: I p front, and so on, to separate all that
Speaker 1: from his own personal relationship with Jimping. And he's been
Speaker 1: at pains to tell the world, you know, I have
Speaker 1: a great relationship. He's a terrific guy, he's my friend
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. And he today he's saying,
Speaker 1: he's saying to Fox, you know, um, still I have
Speaker 1: a great relationship with him, but I don't want to talk.
Speaker 1: I don't want to talk to him. And it just
Speaker 1: seems to me that that that is quite a significant step.
Speaker 1: It's now starting to look really personal. Andy, I'm struck
Speaker 1: by the increasing rhetoric by analysts who have watched this
Speaker 1: space for a long time saying that it's really getting
Speaker 1: close to a cold war between the US and China.
Speaker 1: And I'm wondering how much this is due to the
Speaker 1: pandemic and concerns about the transparency from China, and how
Speaker 1: much does this have to do with just this general
Speaker 1: feeling of anger towards the way that China has handled
Speaker 1: trade and a host of other issues. Well, there's been
Speaker 1: a reset, obviously in the United States view of China.
Speaker 1: I mean, China is now quite explicitly UM, you know,
Speaker 1: a competitor and an adversary UM, and everything flows from that. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, coming into this pandemic, you had real decoupling
Speaker 1: taking place in areas of technology, in trade, in investment,
Speaker 1: in talent, the flow of people across borders UM, and
Speaker 1: coronavirus M has has has has added more poison to
Speaker 1: that well. And now you're starting We talked earlier about
Speaker 1: you know, the latest area of potential decoupling, which is
Speaker 1: in the financial sphere. And and you know, so you're
Speaker 1: hearing just yesterday, in fact, Federal Pension Fund, under pressure
Speaker 1: of from you know, the White House, announced that it
Speaker 1: was postponing a decision on, you know, whether or not
Speaker 1: to to diversify into Chinese stocks. White Houses say, why
Speaker 1: would why should American pension has be you know, supporting
Speaker 1: Chinese companies that are competing against US companies and potentially
Speaker 1: ripping off their their I P you know, UM discussion
Speaker 1: about you know, for instance, UM, you know, whether whether
Speaker 1: whether the U s should renege on its data obligations
Speaker 1: to China. This is this sort of loose talk, but
Speaker 1: very very dangerous loose talk. Andy, Is there any sense
Speaker 1: that the medical community at least is working together on
Speaker 1: a global scale US and China as it relates to
Speaker 1: this virus and potential remedies and vaccines or is that
Speaker 1: also uh kind of you know on the back burner. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So you you you read about collaboration and and and
Speaker 1: I'm sure that there is collaboration going on, um, you
Speaker 1: know in certain areas. Um, but you also read about
Speaker 1: you know, vaccine nationalism and um. You know, China in
Speaker 1: the US in a race to develop a vaccine. And
Speaker 1: you know if if China got here, would they make
Speaker 1: it available to the US and vice of US? Um. So,
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's, it's it's I think it's an
Speaker 1: area of some collaboration but also potentially of competition. Andy,
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of this has gotten wrapped up
Speaker 1: in you know, how much is deflecting blame? How much
Speaker 1: to China hide? But taking a step back, how much
Speaker 1: is China really to blame here? I mean, can you
Speaker 1: give a sense of the legitimacy of the US has claims?
Speaker 1: Look this this whole issue about you know where it
Speaker 1: came from? So um, you know, the science says it
Speaker 1: came from from bats and was passed too uh to
Speaker 1: humans through through an animal. We we don't know, we
Speaker 1: don't know what kind of animal. And that's a question
Speaker 1: that that demands urgent inquiry and answer, which is why
Speaker 1: it's so important, I think, to have a real independent
Speaker 1: international inquiry into into what happened. But the there is
Speaker 1: no evidence to support the Trump White House accusations that
Speaker 1: you know, it came out of it, it it came out
Speaker 1: of a lab, and I think the White House as
Speaker 1: now sort of abandoned that about it was deliberate and so.
Speaker 1: But but they say that they've been you know and
Speaker 1: just just real quick, we've got twenty seconds left, but
Speaker 1: they've been talking about just a lack of transparency and
Speaker 1: how that's really hampered the ability to fight this pandemic.
Speaker 1: For sure, it has China, China, stone Wall, China has
Speaker 1: uh stiff on the w h O and continues to
Speaker 1: deny access to w h O scientists, um, you know who,
Speaker 1: who are interested in figuring out where there's the origin
Speaker 1: of of the virus. So there are legitimate complaints about
Speaker 1: China and its lack of transparency, certainly in the early
Speaker 1: part of the the early stages of the of the
Speaker 1: outbreak is equally true that the Trump White House ignored
Speaker 1: or you know, did very little to prepare the United
Speaker 1: States for this, for this coming pandemic during the entire
Speaker 1: months of February. What happened then, Andy Brown some legitimate
Speaker 1: questions and ones we will continue to ask through the
Speaker 1: weeks and months ahead, and editorial director of Bloomberg New
Speaker 1: Economy joining us on the phone from New Hampshire. Until
Speaker 1: the past few days, a lot of people have been
Speaker 1: talking about the resiliency of US equities and the contrast
Speaker 1: with that against and in creed increasingly bleak outlook for
Speaker 1: the US labor market. However, when we talk about equities,
Speaker 1: they are not all the same, and there's been a
Speaker 1: huge divergence between the mega caps, the big tech names
Speaker 1: and everybody else. Joining us now, Talcohen, head of US
Speaker 1: Markets for NASDAC in New York, tow thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being with us. I want to start there.
Speaker 1: What do you make of this growing bifurcation where the
Speaker 1: top performing stocks, the biggest stocks, which are actually the same,
Speaker 1: have continued to outperform what everything else actually gets left
Speaker 1: behind with a bigger and bigger gap. Well, thank you
Speaker 1: Lisa for having me today, and just to touch on
Speaker 1: what you mentioned in terms of the bification. The markets
Speaker 1: are distinguishing between companies that they think are part of
Speaker 1: the solution, such as tech and biotech, versus those that
Speaker 1: are most vulnerable, like travel and hospitality. And we're not
Speaker 1: just seeing it in the day to day we're seeing
Speaker 1: it in the inflows into the market. So for instance,
Speaker 1: and ask a q Q and I was like one hundreds,
Speaker 1: which we've seen eight billion dollars of inflows over just
Speaker 1: the last two to three months. So investors are trying
Speaker 1: to understand what parts of the economy are vulnerable, what
Speaker 1: parts of the economy came into this crisis on the
Speaker 1: position of strength, and what we'll leave on a position
Speaker 1: of strength. And then further, you're seeing a lot of
Speaker 1: unclear economic data such as the job support which is
Speaker 1: historically bad, and people are trying to figure out Investors
Speaker 1: are trying to figure out whether the to reflection of
Speaker 1: the long term impact or is it highlighting more of
Speaker 1: a temporary impact of the here and now. And then finally,
Speaker 1: on a day to day basis, you can wake up
Speaker 1: one morning and you can hear conflicting data on the
Speaker 1: longevity of this health crisis, where some folks will come
Speaker 1: out and say it will last throughout the year, and
Speaker 1: then you can see news at the end of the
Speaker 1: day from a healthcare company talking about a potential vaccine
Speaker 1: or potential treatment. So I think the markets and investors
Speaker 1: are trying to make sense of all of that while
Speaker 1: understanding there are going to be different parts of the
Speaker 1: economy that will be impacted severely differently than others. So
Speaker 1: tell I mean, some folks have been suggesting that we
Speaker 1: have in fact put in a bottom on this market
Speaker 1: and unlikely to retest the lows. How do you feel
Speaker 1: about that? Given some of this economic data that we see,
Speaker 1: including today's jobs claims and what we're likely to see
Speaker 1: in terms of unemployment and declining earnings. We'll leave that
Speaker 1: to the experts who watched the markets more closely. From
Speaker 1: our perspective, I would say that there's still a lot
Speaker 1: of unknown. We're still just looking to re enter into
Speaker 1: the into offices. We're talking about re entry plans there. Uh,
Speaker 1: they're still talking about a second way. There's in clarity
Speaker 1: around the vaccine or treatments, and on a state by
Speaker 1: state basis here, at least in the US, you see
Speaker 1: very very different conditions throughout the U S. I think
Speaker 1: it's it's still early to tell, and from an AZACT perspective,
Speaker 1: we just look at our own experience. We're still going
Speaker 1: through and trying to understand what it means to re
Speaker 1: enter offices. But that being said, we're very comfortable working
Speaker 1: from home. So it will depend on how comfortable you
Speaker 1: are with the situation you're in now and how long
Speaker 1: you think you'll be in this situation. Tell I'm wondering
Speaker 1: about your point with people being somewhat discerning when it
Speaker 1: comes to which companies they bet on. What does that
Speaker 1: mean for index strategies given the fact that everybody was
Speaker 1: going into passive investing and suddenly it really is a
Speaker 1: stock pickers market, particularly Pick Fang and nothing else. Yes,
Speaker 1: I think there's a couple of things to note. There
Speaker 1: is number one, you know, the FED and government have
Speaker 1: taken actions that probably have helped certain sectors, and so
Speaker 1: it's just not the market forces at work. You have
Speaker 1: the FED and government at work, and they've taken very
Speaker 1: strong and decisive actions in certain parts of the economy.
Speaker 1: So I think that's that's a factor. The second one is,
Speaker 1: once again, when you're working from home and you're thinking
Speaker 1: about the impact of this crisis for me personally, I'm
Speaker 1: using all these collaboration tools on a day and day
Speaker 1: out basis that I might not have been using before.
Speaker 1: So those companies that enable work from home, that enable
Speaker 1: the remote and virtual working environment, they're going to be winners.
Speaker 1: And those industries that clearly there isn't any clarity at
Speaker 1: this point in time as to when they're going to
Speaker 1: come back or how they're going to come back, and
Speaker 1: there's a debate as to, you know, what it looks like,
Speaker 1: what's the new new normal look like. So people instead
Speaker 1: of just taking bets on individual companies might feel more
Speaker 1: comfortable going into sector et F or thematic ets. But
Speaker 1: to your point, with interest rates and everything else being
Speaker 1: where they are, people are also looking at and being
Speaker 1: more critical about how the stock selection process would work.
Speaker 1: Now the nastack market held up in terms of performance
Speaker 1: in terms of kind of handling the order flow given
Speaker 1: a lot of the altivy we've seen over the past
Speaker 1: couple of months, great questions. So we've been almost all
Speaker 1: of us have been working from home for the better
Speaker 1: part of two months of our workers at home, and
Speaker 1: we've been able to operate without interruption to our business
Speaker 1: and continue to serve our markets and our clients. And
Speaker 1: we've helped up really well. The markets have functioned really well,
Speaker 1: and I think we're comfortable as a company because we've
Speaker 1: gone through it. We were lucky in some ways that
Speaker 1: the financial industry had gone through nine oleaven Hurricane Shandy,
Speaker 1: and some other events that have provided us with an
Speaker 1: opportunity to ensure that we have the resiliency and the
Speaker 1: BCP plans to withstand something like this. So I think,
Speaker 1: you know, we look at it and we think we'll
Speaker 1: be able to function well and we'll likely be a
Speaker 1: fast follower as people look onto the office till twenty seconds.
Speaker 1: Do you think a lot of people won't ever return
Speaker 1: to the office. I think it will be done on
Speaker 1: a voluntary basis. It will be done in ways and
Speaker 1: it who's companies to collaborate and talk to their employees
Speaker 1: about what they're comfortable doing, and then that will tell
Speaker 1: us the answer. Tal, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate your thoughts. Tal Cohen, head of US
Speaker 1: markets for NASDAK Nastack, of course based in New York City. Interestingly,
Speaker 1: so I think you know a lot of companies are
Speaker 1: really going to be rethinking this work from home situation.
Speaker 1: Given I think what's most feel like it's pretty decent productivity.
Speaker 1: Did you see the Connecticut governor's comments yesterday where he
Speaker 1: said that the Monday through Friday commute from Greenwich, Connecticut
Speaker 1: maybe a thing of the past. Yeah, exactly. It's interesting.
Speaker 1: You know, as a thirty year commuter on New Jersey Transit,
Speaker 1: that is a fascinating thing to think, you know, So
Speaker 1: as we think about that, so we'll have to see
Speaker 1: how this plays out over time. When we talk about
Speaker 1: reopening economies, a lot of it has to do not
Speaker 1: only with testing, but tracing. This raises a whole host
Speaker 1: of questions. Who will do the tracing, how will they
Speaker 1: do it, What kinds of personal privacy issues does this raise?
Speaker 1: And how organized is United States? Not to mention, who
Speaker 1: pays for it? Joining us now to answer all of
Speaker 1: these questions completely and fully is take him technology calumnists
Speaker 1: for Greenberg opinion, no pressure or anything. Hey, let's get
Speaker 1: started with big tech and how they have offered to
Speaker 1: help track and trace everybody in order to prevent the
Speaker 1: spread of the of the coronavirus. So on, April Tense,
Speaker 1: about a month ago, Apple and Google announced this unprecedented
Speaker 1: joint effort. I mean they've never really worked together like
Speaker 1: this before to develop smartphone technology to do context tracing.
Speaker 1: Basically the learning users that they've been in the proximity
Speaker 1: of a detected person so they can get tested in
Speaker 1: self quarantine. Um the crux and my column was a
Speaker 1: lot of countries in Europe have adopted the Google Apple
Speaker 1: proposal and plan Germany, Italy, Austria, even the United Kingdom
Speaker 1: is considering it. And I'm a little worried that the
Speaker 1: US is not doing anything on a national basis. Um
Speaker 1: President Trump days after it was first announced that it
Speaker 1: looked great, but he needed to talk to all these
Speaker 1: experts and he's gonna make a vision and that he's
Speaker 1: doing weeks, and it's been about four weeks, and we
Speaker 1: haven't heard anything from the American government. So I'm worried
Speaker 1: that the US is not actively working on this while
Speaker 1: all these European countries and countries around the world are
Speaker 1: basically accepting this great proposal that Apple and Google are presenting,
Speaker 1: and the US doesn't seem to have his app together.
Speaker 1: So tay, do I even need the US approval. Don't
Speaker 1: I just download it from my Apple you know apps
Speaker 1: like any other apps. Unfortunately we do. UM. Apple and
Speaker 1: Google's plan they don't actually create the app. They say
Speaker 1: one app per country. A public health authority needs to
Speaker 1: create the app to use their software technology, and for
Speaker 1: it to work, it really has to be a national
Speaker 1: app because everyone has to get involved. We have to
Speaker 1: have to share specific duty to do it. UM. It
Speaker 1: looks like in the US we have like the Utah
Speaker 1: making app in North Dakota, state by state. Thing is
Speaker 1: not going to work. We need the whole country to
Speaker 1: get behind it. And for that to be effective, we
Speaker 1: need the president, we need the federal government to be
Speaker 1: behind it and basically say, this is a great idea.
Speaker 1: Let's have the CDC where n I h to put
Speaker 1: out an app so everyone can use it. But I
Speaker 1: just don't see that happening here. And I'm very worried
Speaker 1: that we're not going to use this despective tool UM
Speaker 1: to Really we need to fight this virus with every
Speaker 1: tool we have. UM. It's a public health crisis and
Speaker 1: we're not doing it. So what's the main opposition to this?
Speaker 1: Is it a is it a security issue? An independence
Speaker 1: issue or is it a lack of organization issue you
Speaker 1: I think a lot of it is just people were
Speaker 1: really worried about kind of health and privacy big technology companies.
Speaker 1: That reputation has been getting hit in the last few years,
Speaker 1: especially after the whole Facebook stuff a couple of years
Speaker 1: ago with Cambridge parent Wika, And I mean, this is
Speaker 1: just me postubly, but I just fear that politicians and
Speaker 1: officials are so worried about the political risk of partnering
Speaker 1: with still calm dality because they have this reputation, um,
Speaker 1: they don't want to do it. And the issue is
Speaker 1: this Apple Google plan is actually a really good plan.
Speaker 1: They vigorously designed it to protect um consumer privacy, all
Speaker 1: identities to protected. They don't do physical location tracking at all.
Speaker 1: It's not GPS based on this you too through Ranks technology.
Speaker 1: It works, it's smartly engineered, it's greatly designed, and it
Speaker 1: seems like we're ignoring it alright, So t I'm still
Speaker 1: confused a little bit who is creating who has created
Speaker 1: this app as it Is it the Apple Google Consortium
Speaker 1: or is it the US government? And what's the role
Speaker 1: of these tech companies? So what Apple and Google is doing,
Speaker 1: is there um installing. They're going to create at the
Speaker 1: middle of this month, the software API that allows public
Speaker 1: health authorities to create apps that can do to contact tracing.
Speaker 1: So Apple, Apple and Google a kind of creating the
Speaker 1: programming a p I s let um a public health
Speaker 1: authority create an app. So Apple and Google aren't creating app,
Speaker 1: they're kind of doing the groundwork infrastructure software to let
Speaker 1: countries develop their own apps that can doing. Okay, interesting
Speaker 1: to see how this place is that. It's interesting because
Speaker 1: we've seen the European countries generally be more apprehensive about uh,
Speaker 1: you know, giving out personal information and you know, whether
Speaker 1: it's related to advertising or anything. So it's interesting to
Speaker 1: see that they are perhaps out of front relative to
Speaker 1: the U S. Take Cam, thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: US technology calumnists for Bloomberg Opinion. I mean, I think, clearly, Lisa,
Speaker 1: as you and the Governor Cuomo and others talk about it,
Speaker 1: the next big step in combating the viners is you know,
Speaker 1: kind of tracking and tracing, testing and tracing, testing and tracing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the question is how are they going to do that.
Speaker 1: I know that in New York City they're hiring a
Speaker 1: whole host of people to help do that. The question
Speaker 1: is how can you employ technology to help do that.
Speaker 1: I know that in South Korea, for example, you have
Speaker 1: to register yourself right away when you get off, and
Speaker 1: then that you get you get tracked and traced, and
Speaker 1: the same kind of things happen happened across Asia. I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering, what's the alternative. Yeah, I I agree. I
Speaker 1: think you know, again, given the importance of kind of
Speaker 1: you know, tracing, that's going to be to really combating
Speaker 1: this and confronting it and beating it back. I think
Speaker 1: that's going to have to happen to some exempt. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast. You
Speaker 1: can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or
Speaker 1: whatever podcast platform you prefer. Paul Sweeney, I'm on Twitter
Speaker 1: at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa Abram Woids. I'm on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Lisa abram woods One. Before the podcast, you can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio m