Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferroll and Lisa Brownwitz Jaily. We bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcast, sun Cloud, Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: and of course on the Bloomberg terminal. Some of the
Speaker 1: dynamics that we see right now in well time to
Speaker 1: speak with Burrot Marmorti nationally got on a Council Deputy director.
Speaker 1: And what it's so important here is it is experience
Speaker 1: for the democratic politics of this nation and working with
Speaker 1: committees as well. Broad I've got to go right to
Speaker 1: your work with Senator Warren years ago and the tax
Speaker 1: the tax frenzy the media has right now and the
Speaker 1: reality of the committee process. How will the Biden administration
Speaker 1: work with the committees in this modern politics? Sure so
Speaker 1: that the President has laid out of tax agenda during
Speaker 1: the campaign. It involved higher taxes on big corporations, multinational corporations,
Speaker 1: taxes that tax changes that were intended to drive more
Speaker 1: investment into the United States rather than abroad. Uh and
Speaker 1: higher taxes on extremely wealthy individuals, those people making more
Speaker 1: than four hundred thousand dollars a year, and so UH
Speaker 1: we we hope to work with Congress to accomplish those goals. UH.
Speaker 1: The President's tax plan is intended to make sure that
Speaker 1: middle class families are are not paying more than their
Speaker 1: fair share, and that the wealthiest folks who buy in
Speaker 1: large have done quite well over the last several years,
Speaker 1: including during the last year, are paying a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Part of our social fabric is the single versus married split.
Speaker 1: Are you gonna play with the social construct of our
Speaker 1: tax system and particularly joint had a household and single dynamics. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't believe that there's any plans for that as
Speaker 1: you as you know, the tax recognizes that, you know,
Speaker 1: different UH thresholds are wererant it depending on whether you're
Speaker 1: filing as a single person or married. I don't think
Speaker 1: that there's any plans to fundamentally change any of that.
Speaker 1: But as I said, the key here is that the
Speaker 1: President believes strongly that the biggest corporations and those folks
Speaker 1: who have done extremely well over the last several decades
Speaker 1: should pay a bit more to finance to support investments
Speaker 1: UH in in the U. S and country. I help
Speaker 1: me understand this, because something really important is happening down
Speaker 1: in Washington. You've just called anyone earning over four d
Speaker 1: extremely wealthy. At the same time, down in Washington, we've
Speaker 1: decided that a family earning a hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: is deserving of a relief check as well. Are we
Speaker 1: defining something important here? Are these just numbers plugged out
Speaker 1: a thin air? Is there a message underlying these numbers? Sure?
Speaker 1: I mean, the president's view is that you know a
Speaker 1: teacher and a nurse who collectively make you know, a
Speaker 1: hundred and ten thousand dollars UH her relief And what
Speaker 1: we've seen in the data is that families with that
Speaker 1: kind of profile have suffered. I mean, it's important to
Speaker 1: remember that, according to the latest data, one and seven
Speaker 1: American families reported going hungary during the pandemic. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of need. That it's very widespread need. And remember,
Speaker 1: in addition to the fact that the unemployment rate is elevated,
Speaker 1: there's also evidence that folks have had to cut back
Speaker 1: on hours, had to take wage cuts in order to
Speaker 1: make it through the pandemic. So there's widespread need and
Speaker 1: the economic impact payments the checks reflecting although there is
Speaker 1: a difference between a hundred and fifty and twenty, there's
Speaker 1: a difference between a hundred and fifty and no income.
Speaker 1: And this raises a question of whether this is trying
Speaker 1: to simulate spending and ignite some sort of economic growth
Speaker 1: versus plugging a gap and evening out the playing field.
Speaker 1: Which is it. Well, I think that the American Rescue Plan,
Speaker 1: which recently passed, targets money towards those lower income and
Speaker 1: middle income families. Remember, it's not just the checks. There's
Speaker 1: an expansion of the child Pax, which is going to
Speaker 1: provide parents with children additional support. Obviously, there's an extension
Speaker 1: of unemployment insurance, which is obviously targeted at folks who
Speaker 1: have lost their jobs. You no fault of their own.
Speaker 1: So collectively, what you what you've seen, and what the
Speaker 1: objective independent analysis and analyses have shown, is that this
Speaker 1: approach is going to drive a tremendous amount of support
Speaker 1: to lowering from folks, especially lowering from folks with children.
Speaker 1: And we think that that's appropriate. Remember, uh, this plan
Speaker 1: is going to cut child poverty in the United States
Speaker 1: in half, and we think that that's one of the
Speaker 1: main benefits of it. Is it a goal to make
Speaker 1: the child tax credit permanent? The President said that he's
Speaker 1: interested in looking at that. Obviously we're not quite bit
Speaker 1: at that point yet. You want to make sure that
Speaker 1: in the short term all of the good relief provisions
Speaker 1: in the American Rescue Plan actually end up in the
Speaker 1: pockets of the American people. And so this week and
Speaker 1: next week, what you're seeing is the administration traveling the
Speaker 1: country trying to explain to people how they get actually
Speaker 1: acts us the relief that they're entitled to under this bill.
Speaker 1: That's really important. Rot This is an important question. It's
Speaker 1: a curiosity for our global Wall Street audience day to day.
Speaker 1: What do you observe in the White House is to
Speaker 1: how the President takes in his economic advice. What does
Speaker 1: the Biden method of taking in your wisdom and for
Speaker 1: that matter, Secretary Yellin's wisdom. Yeah. So, look, this is
Speaker 1: a very data driven, empirically based approach, and you've seen
Speaker 1: it in the arguments that the President has been making
Speaker 1: over the last several months about the need to go
Speaker 1: big in response to this crisis, and the point that
Speaker 1: the cost of doing too little UH is greater than
Speaker 1: the cost of doing too much in the situation, UM.
Speaker 1: And you also see it in the fact that the
Speaker 1: President has said, UM that it's totally reasonable and the
Speaker 1: right thing to do economically, UH to deficit finance this
Speaker 1: relief plan, because in the long term, the cost of
Speaker 1: not providing this relief and letting the economy stagnate for
Speaker 1: longer is also quite severe. All Right, it's great to
Speaker 1: catch up and we appreciate time. So come back soon
Speaker 1: one year rama the National Economic Council with Deputy Director.
Speaker 1: This is a joy and this is what it's all about.
Speaker 1: It's what Jonathan Pharaoh, Lisa Bramwints and I agree on
Speaker 1: stop and talk to smart people. Patricia Moser is one
Speaker 1: of the most wonderful economists we have at Columbia. Yes,
Speaker 1: a former New York FED official, yes, but her heritage
Speaker 1: from Carl Case at Wellesley on to M. I. T.
Speaker 1: And Blanchard and Fisher and onto her first rate economics
Speaker 1: sets her up. Is truly someone with perspective on Jerome
Speaker 1: Powell and this Fed. Professor Moser, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us today. I want to go to M I. T. Economics,
Speaker 1: which is the X axis and the time continuum. What
Speaker 1: in God's name, does transitory mean to someone that's studied
Speaker 1: under Fisher and Blanchard. Well, I was listening to a
Speaker 1: banker for a lot longer than I studied with stand
Speaker 1: Fisher and Olivia black Shards. So I'm going to answer
Speaker 1: that a little of both. UH. Transitory depends on the
Speaker 1: market and the circumstances. Macro Economic transitory is a few quarters. UH.
Speaker 1: Financial market transitory is if you're lucky, it's a couple
Speaker 1: of minutes, but you know, maybe a day or two tops.
Speaker 1: So UM, I think it depends on the it depends
Speaker 1: on the circumstances. UM. From a monetary policy standpoint, if
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk about the FED, I think that it's uh.
Speaker 1: It's transitory is something that they're looking at from a
Speaker 1: matho perspective usually unless they're explicitly talking about markets, and
Speaker 1: that means a quarter or two. And to the comment
Speaker 1: that that was made a couple of minutes ago about
Speaker 1: looking through this, I think that's basically a simple bankers
Speaker 1: interpretation of what's happened in the last few months. Is
Speaker 1: the reason that um uh nearly everybody I know and
Speaker 1: I certainly agree with this. I think that this is
Speaker 1: good news toole point is to get the economy growing faster,
Speaker 1: real interest rates up, inflation expectations up. And both of
Speaker 1: those things have happened. Uh. Now it's at the cost
Speaker 1: that you know, it's not good news for if you're
Speaker 1: fixed income investor. Uh. But but otherwise it's actually very
Speaker 1: incommicy news from a map. Stan Fishers stopped the Economic
Speaker 1: Club of New York a couple of years ago with
Speaker 1: the discussion of the percentage move from low yields. Are
Speaker 1: you taken aback by the abruptness of the move and
Speaker 1: low yields to a higher point or even up to
Speaker 1: focus Landau's two point to five predicted this morning. So, um,
Speaker 1: it was speedier than things that we've seen the last
Speaker 1: ten years, ten twelve years or so. But let me
Speaker 1: be blunt. Anybody who has uh thinks about what I
Speaker 1: call normal monetary policy, which is kind of four eight. Um,
Speaker 1: this is not ridiculously abrupt. It's actually kind of stereotypical behavior.
Speaker 1: Toward the second half of the recession. Your kirk gets steeper,
Speaker 1: the long end reads, the short end out, inflation expectations rise,
Speaker 1: real rates rise, and by the way, risk premia at
Speaker 1: the same time, this iss gone has been going on,
Speaker 1: have actually gone down. I think how you'ld how you'ld
Speaker 1: spreads upon like forty basis on into this period. So
Speaker 1: this is not a sign of like tight credit and
Speaker 1: things going wrong. This is a sign of things going
Speaker 1: right right. But Patricia, there is a concern about whether
Speaker 1: we could see as some sort of additional tantrum, I
Speaker 1: mean against nord Vaga. Exante was just on and he
Speaker 1: was saying, really it will hinge this week, and whether
Speaker 1: the Fed gives guidance on how far they're willing to
Speaker 1: overshoot with inflation before they start to get nervous and
Speaker 1: start to talk about rate rises, and he said, it's
Speaker 1: a big difference if it's two point one percent inflation
Speaker 1: or if it's two point five percent. Do you expect
Speaker 1: the Fed to give guidance and what do you think
Speaker 1: the reaction could be? Yeah, I doubt if they're going
Speaker 1: to give that explicit guidance um right now. Will they
Speaker 1: eventually have to do that? I think it's entirely possible
Speaker 1: that they're going to have to And perhaps the way
Speaker 1: they'll give that guidance is through a series of speeches
Speaker 1: rather than through a formal agreement. Because based on history,
Speaker 1: and my guess is that there's not complete agreement on
Speaker 1: the E and C about how far amongst this particular
Speaker 1: set of members about exactly how far above two they
Speaker 1: would go. You know, transitory, if it's truly transitory for
Speaker 1: a few quarters. This is what we're um the word
Speaker 1: of the word of the morning. Um. Uh. Then I
Speaker 1: think I'd almost all agree that having transitory inflation at
Speaker 1: two and a half percent for a while, if their
Speaker 1: forecasts and their excellent economic reasons to believe that's not
Speaker 1: going to last, um, like the reversal of supply shocks
Speaker 1: from a year ago, for example. UM, then I don't
Speaker 1: think you're going to have a problem with the vast
Speaker 1: majority of the the F one s TEA members. They're gonna
Speaker 1: say that's fine, particularly if it gets us from under
Speaker 1: one and a half to closer to two percent on
Speaker 1: a long run basis. That's that's what they're after. Um,
Speaker 1: and more of all utility, a little bit more, a
Speaker 1: little bit more volatility and inflation is exactly what they're
Speaker 1: aiming for. I think that the question about whether there
Speaker 1: will be another tantrum is slightly different though. Um, It's
Speaker 1: not that the Treasury market is completely immune from supply effects.
Speaker 1: And there's gonna be a lot of supply of treasury obviously, Um,
Speaker 1: there was going to be anyway, but with the fiscal
Speaker 1: stimula package, there's going to be a lot and very
Speaker 1: occasionally rarely. Um. It's one reason I get so much attention. Uh,
Speaker 1: you can get real supply effects in the treasury market.
Speaker 1: I called the pig in the python problem. Um. And
Speaker 1: of course dealers are a lot healthier financial institutions than
Speaker 1: they were twelve years ago, but their balancutes are also
Speaker 1: a bit less flexible and as a as a result
Speaker 1: of the changes, and so I think they're regulatory changes.
Speaker 1: And so given that the odds of this of having
Speaker 1: a few bumps along the way and a little more
Speaker 1: volatility than we've had, I think I think it's hot.
Speaker 1: But honestly, there's been no voluntarity for twelve years since
Speaker 1: it's partly what everybody's expectations are how fixed income markets
Speaker 1: should behave. UM. Sorry to be a little bit you know,
Speaker 1: old school about this, but um, well but Patricia or
Speaker 1: worried about too much supply, like more than investors want.
Speaker 1: That's a very rare thing to happen in treasury markets.
Speaker 1: It hasn't happened since the eighties. Um Um, I don't
Speaker 1: think it's very likely, but it's always a risk. And
Speaker 1: that's why I thought what Secretary Yelling said the other
Speaker 1: day about eventually doing something when the economy is in
Speaker 1: debt or shape, about about the fistal deficity is important. Well,
Speaker 1: but no worries. I mean, these are all really important points.
Speaker 1: And it brings me to the Fed's balance sheet, the
Speaker 1: idea that we have the seven point six trillion dollar
Speaker 1: balance sheet, and there's a question of how much the
Speaker 1: Fed will operate as an absorbed, as an absorption tool
Speaker 1: basically for all of this supply. At what point will
Speaker 1: they essentially monetize the debt buying the dead of the
Speaker 1: United States And basically it's a wash if they don't
Speaker 1: ever shrink their balance sheet. Do you think that they'll
Speaker 1: give guiding about how much the actimist capacity and continue
Speaker 1: to expand their balance seat despite the incredibly easy monetary
Speaker 1: conditions that we've seen. So um, I don't think they're
Speaker 1: in a rush to get out of it. Because one
Speaker 1: of the things I think that's very interesting is how
Speaker 1: uncertain everybody sort of things, Okay, this is good news
Speaker 1: about inflation, but the uncertainty about medium term inflation is
Speaker 1: very high right now. Honestly, COVID is a completely different
Speaker 1: kind of shock going to they have, and so understanding
Speaker 1: what the implications are going to be for prices and
Speaker 1: wages two years out now is incredibly difficult to do.
Speaker 1: And so I that's one reason that I think they're
Speaker 1: going to be hesitant to give too much guidance because
Speaker 1: they don't want to give the impression they're gonna right now,
Speaker 1: this very minute. They don't want to give the impression
Speaker 1: they're going to pull back too soon. But they will
Speaker 1: give guidance. They they did a pretty decent job of
Speaker 1: it when they not the paper tantrum in but after
Speaker 1: that they learned, uh, and they did a pretty decent job.
Speaker 1: And they're gonna do this way ahead at time. And
Speaker 1: I don't think they're there yet because I don't think
Speaker 1: the economy is strong enough and inflation is on where
Speaker 1: they wanted to be. Um Uh. The one thing that
Speaker 1: I will say, um though about um the the the
Speaker 1: Fed's balance sheet is that from a dealer capacity standpoint,
Speaker 1: the Fed buying treasuries and creating reserves doesn't really help,
Speaker 1: but just sort of trades one kind of state Bassett
Speaker 1: for a different kind of state Bassett on the bank's
Speaker 1: balance sheets. Um, and it doesn't sort of solve the
Speaker 1: capacity problem, the flexibility problem per se. Actually, I think
Speaker 1: what the bank regulators decided to do about the supplementary
Speaker 1: leverage ration of this month, I think that's decided before
Speaker 1: the end of them up. Maybe more important there something
Speaker 1: we'll focus on a little bit more in the days ahead. Professor,
Speaker 1: thanks for time this morning, because most of that of
Speaker 1: Columbia University. An hour ago we beat to duth Ian
Speaker 1: lingon a BEMO Capital Markets. Abramowitz and Ferrell absolutely killed
Speaker 1: the translation of its notes. He has had of US
Speaker 1: rates at BEMO Capital Markets. And Mr Lincoln joins us
Speaker 1: this morning and I make jokes about it, but it's
Speaker 1: not funny. It is a record issuance of debt. What
Speaker 1: is the distinction of this record issuance of debt? Well,
Speaker 1: I think that the real defining characteristic of what we're
Speaker 1: seeing at this moment in terms of new Treasury issuances.
Speaker 1: It's not going to all be in the front into
Speaker 1: the curve. The Treasury Secretary wants to turn it out
Speaker 1: so we're seeing more thirties, more twenties, more tens, and
Speaker 1: it's coming at a moment where the FED is content
Speaker 1: to characterize the back up and yields as a positive
Speaker 1: sign because it reflects in improving economic outlook and inflation expectations.
Speaker 1: There will be a point in which we look back
Speaker 1: at the higher rates we're seeing and say, wow, that
Speaker 1: was a great buying opportunity. The question, in my mind
Speaker 1: is is that one sex deten ye yields or is
Speaker 1: it one seventy five? And we'll get there in and
Speaker 1: I want to elaborate a little bit about how to
Speaker 1: know and what to even gauge out. But there's a
Speaker 1: question we talk about all this supply. How much is
Speaker 1: the FED buying? I mean, they've sucked up a substantial
Speaker 1: portion of this. Will they continue to absorb the us
Speaker 1: IS ample and record debt sales, Well, they won't be
Speaker 1: buying the entirety of net issuance. In fact, we're projecting
Speaker 1: somewhere around one point eight trillion dollars off net new
Speaker 1: issuants out find of what's going into SOMA or at
Speaker 1: the FED. So they we will really need underwriters from
Speaker 1: different parts of the economy and different parts of the
Speaker 1: market in different parts of the world to actually get
Speaker 1: the US bet. So, why do you think that treasure
Speaker 1: yields are capped at one seventy five or that it
Speaker 1: becomes a buying opportunity there? Why not two percent to
Speaker 1: and a quarter percent, which is what some houses are saying.
Speaker 1: I think at one seventy five, we start to look
Speaker 1: at what's going on in the US in terms of
Speaker 1: the treasury market, versus what's going on in Europe, what's
Speaker 1: going on in Japan, and on a comparative On a
Speaker 1: comparative basis, we're already starting to book attractive another fifteen
Speaker 1: twenty basis points I suspect will be the point where
Speaker 1: we start to see wobbles and risk assets and bring
Speaker 1: in those sideline buyers. But to be fair, I could
Speaker 1: certainly envision a situation where the Fed gives the green
Speaker 1: might to the very steepening tomorrow and we take a
Speaker 1: shot at a two handle tins and that would be
Speaker 1: a I think that would be a shock to the
Speaker 1: equity market. And can you give us a game plan
Speaker 1: for the twenty year issue? Who actually buys the twenty
Speaker 1: year and how much of a read across can you
Speaker 1: take from the twenty year issue today just for the
Speaker 1: broadest treasury market? So the twenty year issue, obviously it's
Speaker 1: a recent reintroduction to the benchmark. It has a set
Speaker 1: of natural buyers because it's the CTD for the classic
Speaker 1: bond contract and so there has been a solid bid.
Speaker 1: Auctions tend to tail slightly, but it's not a big
Speaker 1: foreign issue unlike tins for example, so it's a It
Speaker 1: does have structural buyers, but as a read for what
Speaker 1: it means for the rest of the market. The only
Speaker 1: way that the twenty year auction matters this afternoon is
Speaker 1: if we get a repeat of what we saw at
Speaker 1: February seven sevens, which was a significant tale despite a
Speaker 1: reasonable concession. Do you think that should be ignored that
Speaker 1: way in at this stage. I think that there's plenty
Speaker 1: of underwriting demand. At some stage, if we continue to
Speaker 1: see supply indigestion comparable to the sevens consistent tail versus
Speaker 1: the one pm win issue rate, that's going to merit
Speaker 1: a more significant repricing. That would be one of my
Speaker 1: biggest concerns in terms of how supply could truly reshape
Speaker 1: the curve in Lincoln year the bank amount you all,
Speaker 1: and I know when this pandemic is over, they're going
Speaker 1: to drag you up to my After all, you're gonna
Speaker 1: go with the big shots to see the Canadians beat
Speaker 1: the leaves. And someone's going to turn to you between
Speaker 1: the second and third period and say, look, my biggest
Speaker 1: fear as the foreigners don't show up. How do you
Speaker 1: answer the age old question that the foreigners will not
Speaker 1: show up to buy the United States full faith and
Speaker 1: credit paper. I think that the classic bond market adage
Speaker 1: that there's no such thing as a bad bond, just
Speaker 1: a bad price, is particularly apt in this context. People
Speaker 1: will show up to buy US treasuries. The question is
Speaker 1: at what yield will they need to be enticed in
Speaker 1: from the sidelines. And that's what we're seeing defined as
Speaker 1: the outpost. One outlook continues to brighten this Lisa's ice
Speaker 1: hockey games. Is that what you're implying to the Lisa
Speaker 1: shows up to an ice hockey game and I'll see
Speaker 1: and yeah, really it depends where you are. If you're
Speaker 1: in North Dakota, pretty exciting, it's always exciting. Actually, Rangers
Speaker 1: game is pretty exciting. To do you really want to
Speaker 1: have this conversation John, it's she holds in the boxes
Speaker 1: at Madison Square Garden. You can hear a pin drop
Speaker 1: when she starts terrible. If we get a briefing now,
Speaker 1: which has become extremely anticipated for all of our viewers
Speaker 1: and listeners, I'm Adalgia is a John Hopkins Center for
Speaker 1: Health Security and has provided just immense, immense value to us.
Speaker 1: All in the media love the charts of cases. They're dramatic,
Speaker 1: they're emotional, they're the easily accountable. The pros look at
Speaker 1: deaths and hospitalizations. When would you assume the public will
Speaker 1: finally shift onto your territory of death and the hospitalization dynamics.
Speaker 1: I think they're already starting to as they see that
Speaker 1: people get there, are getting vaccinated, as they don't hear
Speaker 1: about hospital pacity problems anymore, As they realize that nursing
Speaker 1: homes have been vaccinated, I think they're starting to understand
Speaker 1: that the concept really is not to get to COVID zero,
Speaker 1: but detain the virus to defend it so that it
Speaker 1: doesn't have the ability to cause serious disease, hospitalization and death.
Speaker 1: And I think they're going to get there because eventually
Speaker 1: that's all everybody is going to be looking at because
Speaker 1: that this is what this is what flatting the curve
Speaker 1: has always been about, as being below hospital capacity. And
Speaker 1: if you're in that position, we're dealing with a very
Speaker 1: different virus than we were a year ago. And I
Speaker 1: think that it's gonna take some time and the media
Speaker 1: is going to have to report more on on that
Speaker 1: than they are on on cases, and it's going to
Speaker 1: be a shift, but I think it is going to occur,
Speaker 1: and it is starting to occur, so it's more attentionally
Speaker 1: drawn to that. People will ask whether we can aggressively
Speaker 1: wide and broaden the eligibility full vaccinations. Do you think
Speaker 1: we're at that point right now? I do think we're
Speaker 1: starting to see states get broader. We've we've heard about
Speaker 1: We've heard about Alaska broadening. There's other states that are
Speaker 1: now broadening eligibility. It's just a question of being supplied
Speaker 1: constrained right now, and the supply is going to get
Speaker 1: better each day gets a little bit better as as
Speaker 1: we get closer and closer to delivery dates for Fiser Maderna,
Speaker 1: for Johnson and Johnson for bigger amounts of this vaccine.
Speaker 1: So I do think it's going to be a point
Speaker 1: than we're just vaccinating in anybody that wants to be vaccinated.
Speaker 1: As the President said, I can make an appointment in May,
Speaker 1: and I think we're looking at at summer, hopefully a
Speaker 1: little bit earlier than that late spring, where that can
Speaker 1: be the case, because that will really get things completely
Speaker 1: back on track and we'll see the clear trajectory out
Speaker 1: of this pandemic. It's already already sensing frustration amongst certain people,
Speaker 1: including myself, and I'll be very open about that. The
Speaker 1: idea that smoke has in certain states have seemed to
Speaker 1: jump the line. A choice to smoke has given you
Speaker 1: the opportunities get a vaccine before people have chosen not
Speaker 1: to smoke. What's the best way of dealing with these issues?
Speaker 1: You have to remember that the vaccine is about really
Speaker 1: decreasing decreasing the pressure on hospitals by vaccinating high risk individuals.
Speaker 1: So when we look at this as a public health problem,
Speaker 1: they were trying to say, how can we stretch this
Speaker 1: vaccine supply the best so that our hospitals never get
Speaker 1: in trouble. So if you're a smoker, you're more likely
Speaker 1: to be hospitalized. So it's on any kind of personal
Speaker 1: approval of your behavior. It's just your behavior puts you
Speaker 1: at risk for severe disease. We're worried about hospital capacity,
Speaker 1: is worried about I cu bed, So we're going to
Speaker 1: give you a vaccine so hospitals don't have to worry
Speaker 1: about you. That's how That's how I put that. You've
Speaker 1: done that, Dr Adult. In the meantime, over in Europe,
Speaker 1: you have a growing number of countries suspending the use
Speaker 1: of the astro Zenica vaccine. What's your view on the
Speaker 1: efficacy of this particular inoculation and whether it ought to
Speaker 1: be continued to be distributed. I think it should be
Speaker 1: continued to be distributed. We've seen tremendous success in the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom with this. It's actually approved in Canada as well.
Speaker 1: This is a vaccine uses innovative technology. I think they've
Speaker 1: had some difficulties with the EO, difficulties with dosing, and
Speaker 1: now there's been some reports of blood clots, but they're
Speaker 1: not above the background rate that you would expect in
Speaker 1: a population that's been vaccinated. Uh. And I think this
Speaker 1: is just one of those spurious associations because and people
Speaker 1: need to be explained that just because something happens after
Speaker 1: a vaccination doesn't mean that it's been caused by vaccination.
Speaker 1: We're gonna stop the show. This is really really important,
Speaker 1: Dr Adlga. Are you telling us that the uproar in
Speaker 1: Europe nation to nation about the astra Zeneca vaccine is
Speaker 1: overdone or the uproar is off the mark, or incorrect
Speaker 1: all of the above. I don't think that this is justified.
Speaker 1: Other countries like the UK have not suspended this, this
Speaker 1: this association with blood clots. Everyone has looked at the
Speaker 1: data so far and said, this doesn't look like as
Speaker 1: a biological mechanism. It is not above the background rate
Speaker 1: of what you would expect and in a population that big,
Speaker 1: and this is something you know we see with vaccines
Speaker 1: when you give them to large population, certain things happen
Speaker 1: and doesn't mean it's caused by the vaccine. It's important
Speaker 1: to look to understand and try and figure that out.
Speaker 1: But I don't think in the midst of a pandemic
Speaker 1: where people are dying where you're many European countries are
Speaker 1: going into lockdowns, that a vaccine that's been proven to
Speaker 1: be highly effective in the United Kingdom should be suspended.
Speaker 1: I think it's the wrong decision, don't to. We appreciate
Speaker 1: your time, your insight, your perspective. As always stilt to
Speaker 1: animish it down to that Jones Health can sense if
Speaker 1: a house security a scola. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. Join us live weekdays from seven to
Speaker 1: ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television
Speaker 1: each day from six to nine am for insight from
Speaker 1: the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. And
Speaker 1: subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, and of course on the terminal. I'm Tom
Speaker 1: Keene and this is Bloomberg