Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane Jailey.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. We
Speaker 1: are thrilled to bring back John Bolton. He appeared with
Speaker 1: It's just a few weeks ago with his wonderful book
Speaker 1: The Room Where It Happened. It is a controversial book.
Speaker 1: I guess you know. I sold twelve copies, Abassador Bolton,
Speaker 1: but I think you did out of the box seven
Speaker 1: eighty thousand copies of your book. Did that statistics surprise you? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I thank you very much. I was surprised at it.
Speaker 1: But but I think you know, this is a year
Speaker 1: when trumps a lot is needs book sold even more.
Speaker 1: Bob Woodward has a book coming out in September, and
Speaker 1: there have been plenty war besides, so there's there's obviously
Speaker 1: a big demand. But it was an enormous number. I
Speaker 1: was very very happy with it, that's for sure. In
Speaker 1: your book, I want to get to Belarus in a moment,
Speaker 1: which is the topic of the hand. But there is
Speaker 1: and the reason you came on with us today the
Speaker 1: legacy of Brent Scolcroft. I had a chance to interview
Speaker 1: him a few times. What a gentleman, what grace your
Speaker 1: study of that great moment where Baker and Skocroft assisted
Speaker 1: President Bush and getting to the end of the Cold War.
Speaker 1: What did the late General Skulcroft accomplished? Well, he was
Speaker 1: an amazing figure. And I knew him during the Bush
Speaker 1: forty one administration. I didn't didn't know him during the
Speaker 1: Nixon and uh and Ford administrations. But but he was
Speaker 1: really a dominant figure in policy, uh you know, beginning
Speaker 1: with Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in and liberation of Kuwait,
Speaker 1: the breakup of Yugoslavia, the breakup of the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: the collapse of the Warsaw Pack, the end of the
Speaker 1: Cold War. I mean, it was it was busy back
Speaker 1: in those days. And uh, you know, he was a
Speaker 1: very level headed guy. And I think obviously somebody that
Speaker 1: George H. W. Bush knew very well, which is why
Speaker 1: he made him National Security Advisor. Are you confident that
Speaker 1: either party can get back to the grace of Brent
Speaker 1: Scocroft after a given length of a Trump era. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's gets harder and harder to do, which
Speaker 1: is one reason why, you know, for the first time
Speaker 1: in my adult political life, I'm not going to vote
Speaker 1: for the Republican nominee for president. I think we can
Speaker 1: correct what's happened after one Trump term. I'm very worried
Speaker 1: that two it might might not be possible to correct.
Speaker 1: He's not the only cause of the lack of civility,
Speaker 1: although he's made almost every aspect of it wars and uh.
Speaker 1: I just don't even know how how Brent Scocroft would
Speaker 1: react to the way it is today. Does Joe Biden
Speaker 1: need to do to make it a one term Trump Well,
Speaker 1: I think he. You know, I'm not going to vote
Speaker 1: for Biden either, as I think I think we may
Speaker 1: have discussed before, but I think I think if he
Speaker 1: uh in the remaining days of the campaign project projects
Speaker 1: even handedness, steadiness, UH, courtesy, a sense of humor, a
Speaker 1: lack of indictedness, you know, being a normal guy, would
Speaker 1: would go a long way. I really do think people
Speaker 1: crave that, and I believe that even if many Republicans
Speaker 1: with whom I've spoken who will vote for Trump because
Speaker 1: they fear the left wing of the Democratic Party. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's they're they're not happy about that either. And I
Speaker 1: think many of those people might yet vote for Biden
Speaker 1: if he if he simply says, you're my ideas, but
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna pursue them in in what we
Speaker 1: used to think of as a as a more civil fashion. So, ambassador,
Speaker 1: give us just your sense of kind of where the
Speaker 1: whole feeling of internationalism is. It served the United States
Speaker 1: so well post World War Two in terms of defeating, um,
Speaker 1: you know, winning the Cold War, but internationalism seems to
Speaker 1: really have taken a back seat in the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: whether it's NATO or the Transpacific Partnership or other just
Speaker 1: partnerships around the world. What's your sense of where internationalism
Speaker 1: is right now? Well, I think Trump is an anomaly
Speaker 1: even within the Republican Party. And one of the reasons
Speaker 1: I'm confident the damage he's done can be corrected is
Speaker 1: that there is no Trump is um. There is no
Speaker 1: Trump doctrine, there is no Trump philosophy, UM. And I
Speaker 1: think that's one of the reasons why why it's so
Speaker 1: perilous to have somebody like him in the White House,
Speaker 1: but it also means it's it's easier to to police
Speaker 1: bafter there's just one idiosyncratic response after another. I would say,
Speaker 1: in fact that even under Obama there there was a
Speaker 1: fair amount of isolationism. I think Obama was was overfocused
Speaker 1: on domestic issues, and I think UH in too many
Speaker 1: cases as his idea of foreign policy was to leave
Speaker 1: it to the United Nations to engage in multilateral diplomacy
Speaker 1: for the sake of it. So I think America has
Speaker 1: got to pursue its interest. I think the right way
Speaker 1: to look at it, to summarize it very quickly, is
Speaker 1: in a Reaganesque kind of way of peace through strength.
Speaker 1: Where do you think the biggest security issue is for
Speaker 1: the United States right now as we kind of exit well,
Speaker 1: I think existentially China is the main threat we face
Speaker 1: throughout the twenty first century. I think Russia is also
Speaker 1: a strategic problem because of its nuclear capabilities. I think
Speaker 1: the immediate problems remain the threat of the proliferation of
Speaker 1: nuclear chemical and as we now understand better than ever before,
Speaker 1: biological weapons, UH and international terrorism. These are problems we've
Speaker 1: had now for twenty years. They've changed their manifestations but
Speaker 1: they remain threats to the United States, and I think
Speaker 1: the people ought to understand that as they as they
Speaker 1: look at this presidential race and the race is for Senate.
Speaker 1: Now is just your US worldwide? John Bolton with us
Speaker 1: the room where it happened to White House Memoir, his book. Uh.
Speaker 1: He joined us a few weeks ago, where thrilled he
Speaker 1: could come back and visit in remembrance of Brent Skullcroft.
Speaker 1: The script changes, Ambassador, and it changes to Belarus. You
Speaker 1: did what you do, which is you showed the flag,
Speaker 1: you attended. It makes that horrific Holocaust Memora one of
Speaker 1: the most emotional uh that's out there. And then you
Speaker 1: met with the leadership of Belarus. Folks. This is to
Speaker 1: get the map out. You go to Berlin, you go
Speaker 1: east to Warsaw, you bend to the north a little bit,
Speaker 1: and you go across a piece of land on the
Speaker 1: road to Moscow. Ambassador Bolton, how important is that piece
Speaker 1: of land of the United States this morning? Well, it's
Speaker 1: extremely important. I went to Belarus. I was the highest
Speaker 1: ranking American to go there when I went in August
Speaker 1: of last year, I think in about eight years. And
Speaker 1: I did it not because I loved Lukashenko, the president
Speaker 1: and authoritarian figure there, but because I didn't want to
Speaker 1: see Belarus reabsorbed by Russia into a into a latter
Speaker 1: day Soviet Union. Now we've seen this amazing election process
Speaker 1: there that people are out in the streets. It looks
Speaker 1: so much like what happened in Eastern and Central Europe
Speaker 1: and the former Soviet Union when the Iron Curtain fell,
Speaker 1: uh some years back, and it's I think it's critical,
Speaker 1: uh that we do what we can to make sure
Speaker 1: the Russians don't intervene. You know, when I when I
Speaker 1: went on to Warsaw for the for the anniversary of
Speaker 1: the Nazi invasion, the eight anniversary, the polls and the Ukrainians,
Speaker 1: and I give them both credit, arranged a four way
Speaker 1: meeting of the national security advisers of their two countries,
Speaker 1: the US and Belarus. First time that ever happened. That's
Speaker 1: how important Belarus is, the Poland in Ukraine. And I
Speaker 1: think therefore to us, well, this is so important is
Speaker 1: it's buttressed up as a buffer almost between Russia and
Speaker 1: a NATO that expanded to the east to Poland and
Speaker 1: And how do we actually project this in the coming days?
Speaker 1: What would you advise Secretary POMPEII or even the President
Speaker 1: in discourse, in body language, to make clear to Mr
Speaker 1: Putin that this is not some of the sad stories
Speaker 1: that we've seen over the decades. Well, I think, uh,
Speaker 1: we've done actually some good things with respect to Poland
Speaker 1: to strengthen our defense cooperation. I think we could do
Speaker 1: more with Ukraine. It's not a NATO member, But when
Speaker 1: George W. Bush was president, he tried to make that happen.
Speaker 1: The Europeans objected. I think the dilemma right now with
Speaker 1: belaruss is I think we want to support the emerging
Speaker 1: view that we see it in the streets. The people
Speaker 1: aren't asking for anything extraordinary. They just want to be
Speaker 1: able to elect their own president. We ought to encourage that,
Speaker 1: but in a way that makes sure that Lukashenko does
Speaker 1: not continue to ask Putin to step in, especially with
Speaker 1: military force. So it's a delicate moment. I think a
Speaker 1: strong statement to Putin it can be done in private,
Speaker 1: if that's the way to do it. That he needs
Speaker 1: to stay out of Belarus is very very important. Ambassador.
Speaker 1: That goes to I guess the bigger picture is give
Speaker 1: us your sense of what our position is visa the
Speaker 1: Russia here and how perhaps uh our position should evolve,
Speaker 1: you know, over the next several years as it relates
Speaker 1: to Russia. Well, you know it's uh. What Putin is
Speaker 1: doing is playing a wee hand, very very well in
Speaker 1: trying to re extend Moscow's influence in the territory of
Speaker 1: the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere.
Speaker 1: And while we've done a number of things in the
Speaker 1: past three and a half years to push back on that,
Speaker 1: we have not done nearly enough, not not the least
Speaker 1: of which is the continuing concern about Russian interference in
Speaker 1: our elections, where we've also taken steps not not the
Speaker 1: Trump accepted them easily. He accepted them, kind of complaining
Speaker 1: all the way. But I think Putin is a classic
Speaker 1: case of an authoritarian leader who pushes until you push
Speaker 1: back at him, and then he'll withdraw. So I think, UH,
Speaker 1: just a stronger indication of how much we prize our
Speaker 1: own elections and UH and or will take steps against
Speaker 1: foreign interference. And likewise, in Belarus, I was hoping for
Speaker 1: a Susan Rice vice presidential pick because Ambassador Bolton that
Speaker 1: would have been a good theme to speak to you.
Speaker 1: We don't have that, we have Senator Harris instead. But
Speaker 1: you think of a Biden foreign policy and there's got
Speaker 1: to be a place there for Ambassador Rice to participate
Speaker 1: clearly with her service to the cause over the last
Speaker 1: number of weeks, Susan Rice is a Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: would be radically different than Secretary of State Pompeille. What
Speaker 1: kind of secretary of state would she be? Well, looking
Speaker 1: at her record, I think she'd try and reverse a
Speaker 1: lot of what I think the Trump administration did a
Speaker 1: cop push in the Middle East. I think her positions
Speaker 1: have been strongly anti Israel over the years. I think
Speaker 1: she clearly wants to revive the Iran Nuclear Agreement, which
Speaker 1: was a disaster in TIF hadn't gotten any better with age.
Speaker 1: And if I were Israel, I'd i'd be very worried.
Speaker 1: Now you know this is uh. This is going to
Speaker 1: be a problem for Biden, I think because I don't
Speaker 1: believe those are his views. Uh. And and I think
Speaker 1: there's gonna be if he prevails and becomes president. I
Speaker 1: think Susan will become secretary of State. You know, I
Speaker 1: always root for former national security advisors to move up
Speaker 1: in the world. But uh, but I think, uh, I
Speaker 1: think there's enormous tension within the Democratic Party. You know,
Speaker 1: the press likes to talk about divisions in the Republican
Speaker 1: Party on national security issues. Within the Democratic side, I
Speaker 1: think they've got big problems and I think Biden, Biden
Speaker 1: is gonna have some hard choices to make. Ambassadors, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. A memory of Brent
Speaker 1: Scullcroft today, John Bolton with a book out that's done
Speaker 1: uh pretty well at the stands here the room where
Speaker 1: it happened, John Bolton, thank you so much. Right now,
Speaker 1: we turned to the markets and there was some really
Speaker 1: good research. You know, so Michael Schoel, he's a market
Speaker 1: field Asset Management, their chief executive officer and someone who
Speaker 1: looks across asset as well. Michael, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for looking at this recovery from Marching the equity markets
Speaker 1: as compared to that August, the two augusts where we
Speaker 1: are right now, and also even back to December of
Speaker 1: night seven. Was it a correction? Was it a bear market?
Speaker 1: What was it? We just lived through. I believe it
Speaker 1: was a collection in the bull market we started in
Speaker 1: two thousand and nine. I mean, you know that there's
Speaker 1: certainly at the mark slow. You could make an argument
Speaker 1: of that bullmarket died on it's eleventh anniversary, UM. But
Speaker 1: you know, we we came out of it um extremely quickly,
Speaker 1: and we came out of it with with very similar leadership.
Speaker 1: You know, technology was clear leadership going into it, technologies
Speaker 1: clear leadership coming out of it. So you know, certainly
Speaker 1: parts of the of the US equity market, UM. You know,
Speaker 1: I think we're you know, went into a secular bear
Speaker 1: market at that point in time, but it's really COVID
Speaker 1: related equities which which went from ball to bear, and
Speaker 1: you know, the bulk of the equity market is in
Speaker 1: bold and in fact, interestingly, some of the cyclical stuff
Speaker 1: which has really been uninteresting for you know several years,
Speaker 1: has started to look very interesting again. We've seen that
Speaker 1: in the railroads and of course small caps doing better
Speaker 1: as well. Michael, I look at this equity market and
Speaker 1: I look at the commitment of people to it, and
Speaker 1: what we hear conversation after conversation is it's really not
Speaker 1: an enthusiastic market. That there's too many walls that worry
Speaker 1: out there. Do you agree with that assessment? I mean,
Speaker 1: certainly if you you know, I think sentiment measures are
Speaker 1: very poor given where the equity market is. We've seen
Speaker 1: worse sentiments measures over the years, but I don't think
Speaker 1: we've seen sentiment this with the equity market this VI high.
Speaker 1: Having said that, you know, I think because passive investment
Speaker 1: has been so important for the last few few years,
Speaker 1: I think people are committed, even if they're reluctantly committed. Michael,
Speaker 1: good morning. Is Anna here do we learn anything if
Speaker 1: we look back at LTCM and the like. Do we
Speaker 1: learn anything from these previous crises about about the way
Speaker 1: this then goes because you've drawn this parallel. Yes, I
Speaker 1: mean I think that the you know, central banks react
Speaker 1: um and you you have a sort of general liquidation
Speaker 1: which you come out the other side of and you
Speaker 1: tend you know, And certainly in the late eighties and
Speaker 1: late nineties, in both cases you had a narrowing of
Speaker 1: leadership and in the end a sort of excessive commitment
Speaker 1: of capital to what people thought worked. So in the
Speaker 1: late eighties it was all about Japan and markets like
Speaker 1: Taiwan um you know, that made highs that in Japan's
Speaker 1: case haven't been approached ever since. Taiwan. We finally made
Speaker 1: made that new higher couple of months, a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago. Um, you know, and of course in the
Speaker 1: late ninety nineties, I'm sure everybody knows, you know, technology
Speaker 1: came out and completely dominated you know, that ball market.
Speaker 1: Tech had done well, but it wasn't the only place
Speaker 1: where people wanted to be. So you know, my feeling
Speaker 1: is that you do see now again and knowing of
Speaker 1: leadership as an excessive commitment of capital to portions of technology, um,
Speaker 1: and perhaps a couple of other sectors you know, strangely
Speaker 1: enough managed to jump on the bandwagon as I think.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm quite bullish about precious metals. I think
Speaker 1: they have the ability to to get on board, or
Speaker 1: certainly are on board, and I actually think we're going
Speaker 1: to see a boardening. Um. You know. I think the
Speaker 1: physical global economy is going to do much much better
Speaker 1: than the global services economy. And I think that's you're
Speaker 1: starting to see about play out in equity market and
Speaker 1: why and why is that supportive to precious metals then,
Speaker 1: because of course gold has gone a long way up, Michael,
Speaker 1: because of fears about the global economy. But you're talking
Speaker 1: about what you're talking about precious metals that are useful
Speaker 1: in industrial processes. Is that that the distinction you're making? No, No,
Speaker 1: I think I think precious medals are very sensitive to
Speaker 1: global equidity, and central banks are going to be in
Speaker 1: full emergency mode for the foreseeable future. UM. And even
Speaker 1: if we do get pickups and things like inflation and
Speaker 1: and good data coming out of it, they say, the
Speaker 1: physical economy, I think is gonna look is gonna look okay.
Speaker 1: There's going to be so much COVID related weakness in
Speaker 1: the in the service economy, and prevailing unemployment rates are
Speaker 1: going to be so much higher than they were eight, nine,
Speaker 1: ten months ago that you know, I think central banks
Speaker 1: are going to you know you are going to be
Speaker 1: doing more of what they're doing today. And that's that's
Speaker 1: really quite positive. And precious metals, I think that's not
Speaker 1: that contentious. I think where I probably am more contentious
Speaker 1: as I think that the the industrial the industrial side
Speaker 1: of the commodity markets look like they can get going
Speaker 1: here um and that that I'd say, any kind of
Speaker 1: acceleration in the physical portion of the of the global economy,
Speaker 1: whether it's the US housing market or the Chinese hearth
Speaker 1: housing market or Chinese infrastructure spending. You know, I think
Speaker 1: that that that you're going to see a you know,
Speaker 1: you're going to see some of the industrial medals. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, really hitch a right on the very narrow
Speaker 1: pressures medals rally that we've had so far. Michael, sure,
Speaker 1: do you assume the industrial recovery that you're suggesting is
Speaker 1: a recovery of concentration where we're going to see a
Speaker 1: lot of them and a activity transactions and combinations because
Speaker 1: people are desperate to find revenue growth. Um. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think you might see some of it. But I
Speaker 1: also think that that actually, as they say, physical activity
Speaker 1: is going to be okay, and it's going to be
Speaker 1: okay partly because of the disruptions of COVID. So we
Speaker 1: see it already, for instance, in the US housing market,
Speaker 1: anything housing related is starting to accelerate. Even if people
Speaker 1: aren't buying new homes, they're renovating the you know, they're
Speaker 1: innovating their existing homes. Um. And I think this is
Speaker 1: this is going to be boreder than just than just
Speaker 1: a U S story. So they say it's very easy
Speaker 1: to see the destructive impact of COVID. UM it's very obvious,
Speaker 1: it's very real, but there has been a constructive impacts
Speaker 1: of COVID as well. In other words, it's four people
Speaker 1: to go out and spend on things that they hadn't
Speaker 1: necessarily expected to haven't necessarily expected to spend on. That's very,
Speaker 1: very true. Michael schul, thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: us today with market Field Asset Management. Right now, Leslie
Speaker 1: Benjamurry joins. She's a chadow mouse in London, but she
Speaker 1: is expert on pass blue Ribbon in Milwaukee, and we're
Speaker 1: thrilled that she could join us right now. What a
Speaker 1: strange convention? Dr Vinjamurray, I guess it's a non convention,
Speaker 1: but it's not. I haven't ansked this question this morning,
Speaker 1: so let me go to you, with all your study
Speaker 1: of American politics. If it's not Chicago or Harry Truman,
Speaker 1: what is Biden gonna look like? Well, you know, I
Speaker 1: have to say, Tom, I think it's it's actually a
Speaker 1: very exciting convention. It's specifically because we kind of don't
Speaker 1: know what to expect. We've always known for the you know,
Speaker 1: the last long period, who's going to be the candidate
Speaker 1: coming out of any convention. But this is gonna look very,
Speaker 1: very different. And I think, you know, the lineup is
Speaker 1: is interesting. I think the goal, of course, is to
Speaker 1: get voters excited about this ticket, the Biden Harris ticket,
Speaker 1: rather than just being driven by you know, voting against
Speaker 1: the sitting president. Um. But the lineup, you know, from
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders, John Kasik, Andrew Cuomo, I mean
Speaker 1: you can see that the drive is really too to
Speaker 1: unite the party, to bring in the young and progressive voters.
Speaker 1: Also to create an opening for those who from the
Speaker 1: Republican Party who might want to vote Democrats. So it's
Speaker 1: it's going to be a very interesting few days, even
Speaker 1: if not surprising. This came up this weekend, and you know,
Speaker 1: within my amateur take Leslie Benjerbury, it's simple. They have
Speaker 1: to get out the vote. How do they get the
Speaker 1: youth of America, many are so upset with President Trump.
Speaker 1: How do they get them to actually show up and vote?
Speaker 1: You know, I think there's um, there is a drive. Obviously,
Speaker 1: this is a real concern um that the young people have.
Speaker 1: As we know from the data, they've been hit hardest
Speaker 1: by unemployment, they've been hit hardest by school closures. My
Speaker 1: online education, by the uncertainty that's facing them in September,
Speaker 1: they look to go back to campus or not. So
Speaker 1: I think that there is a lot of any energy
Speaker 1: there and it really is about inspiring them to turn
Speaker 1: up and to put that vote forward. Um uh. You know,
Speaker 1: President Trump is trying with his play to a deferring
Speaker 1: student interest race on student loans UM. But the Democrats
Speaker 1: have this challenge and that is really going to be
Speaker 1: what a lot of the next four nights are about.
Speaker 1: And I think that's why we see Bernie Sanders having
Speaker 1: a very important role at this convention, because of course
Speaker 1: he's been very much liked by a lot of young
Speaker 1: voters um and and he's not the only one. So
Speaker 1: I think that that is a real and very generous concern.
Speaker 1: But remember that young voters don't face the health constraint, right,
Speaker 1: they don't. They aren't as worried about being hit by
Speaker 1: the actual virus UM what there are concerned. They don't
Speaker 1: feel them to the same degree. So they're more likely
Speaker 1: in that sense if they could be inspired to actually
Speaker 1: turn out and take the risk of voting. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: mean some minority groups might feel more vulnerable, and perhaps
Speaker 1: that might be an issue for the Democrats, Leslie, good
Speaker 1: to speak to you today, just crossing the Bloomberger and
Speaker 1: mixed signals from the President this morning in terms of
Speaker 1: his mood towards China, as Tom says, praising what they're
Speaker 1: doing on agricultural products, but then going so far as
Speaker 1: to say that Quawei spies on the United States. He
Speaker 1: also made the points over the weekend that the Democrats
Speaker 1: haven't said much about China. Will they be pushed by
Speaker 1: the d NDC to comment on China or are they
Speaker 1: trying to stay away from that subject. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think right now, so much of the focus was going
Speaker 1: to be on what is happening at home in America.
Speaker 1: It's about the concerns over trying to obstruct the actual voting,
Speaker 1: about the postal service, it's about the pandemic, it's about
Speaker 1: an employment. But China, of course, is the ongoing foreign
Speaker 1: policy concern for the United States. The Democrats won't be
Speaker 1: seen to look um, the weak or soft on China.
Speaker 1: I think they will rise to that challenge. But I
Speaker 1: think really the focus is going to be primarily on
Speaker 1: the domestic agenda, Leslie, You know, again, China seems to
Speaker 1: be the only bipartisan issue that's out there as well.
Speaker 1: Will Abiden policy be that different from a Trump policy,
Speaker 1: not in discourse, not in heat, but in final outcome
Speaker 1: with China? You know, I think one of the key
Speaker 1: differences is that a Biden administration, as we know, is
Speaker 1: going to turn up in Europe and and ask the
Speaker 1: Europeans to line up to ask the UK, which is
Speaker 1: an easier ask right now because you get moving its position, um,
Speaker 1: But to look across Europe and to say, let's take
Speaker 1: a unified approach towards negotiate playing a tough card with
Speaker 1: China on its economic agenda, um, but I think it
Speaker 1: will dial down some of the focus on tariffs among
Speaker 1: the terra forms and actually look at a much broader
Speaker 1: set of questions that are concerns, you know, across both
Speaker 1: sides of the but that haven't really been the focus
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration's de pressure on China. Dr Vinjamurry,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, greatly appreciated, leslie. Vinjamurray is with
Speaker 1: Chatham House right now in the pandemic and this is
Speaker 1: wonderful because we get away from virology and epidemiology over
Speaker 1: to the idea of policy. Is she's at the Duke
Speaker 1: Margolius Center for Health Policy, and their deputy director, Marta Volshinska,
Speaker 1: joins us this morning. Martha, it's a silly question, and
Speaker 1: I don't mean to be smart about it, but what's
Speaker 1: changed in the last six weeks in our knowledge of
Speaker 1: where we're going? What's the new of where we're going
Speaker 1: in is pandemic. Well, for one, we have had rapid,
Speaker 1: rapid increase in the number of cases. Really, when we
Speaker 1: were earlier in the summer, I don't think anybody anticipated
Speaker 1: the amount of spread that might occur between now and
Speaker 1: before school we're going schools were going to open. I
Speaker 1: think when we were thinking back early in the summer,
Speaker 1: we really did think that we might be able to
Speaker 1: reopen schools because we did think that there's going to
Speaker 1: be some control over this epidemic. But in the meantime
Speaker 1: we have had just rampant spread um in in this country.
Speaker 1: If you look at Europe, I believe in Great Britain
Speaker 1: um they have about maybe a couple of days ago,
Speaker 1: thirteen million cases uh for thirteen cases per million. The
Speaker 1: United States right now has about a hundred and sixty
Speaker 1: cases per million, and that's on on across the country,
Speaker 1: and some states have much much more. So we've we've
Speaker 1: sort of really started to lose control of the situation,
Speaker 1: which is um, really dis concerning. Well, that's where we
Speaker 1: wanted to go, Marta. What I noticed here, and I
Speaker 1: guess it's part of the generation, is I measure the
Speaker 1: Vietnam's and we're coming up on three Vietnam's of death
Speaker 1: since I guess March, maybe February as well. That's an
Speaker 1: extraordinary scope and scale. And I say this with immense
Speaker 1: respect for the sacrifice in Vietnam and what professionals are doing. Now,
Speaker 1: do you just extrapolate out that this nation at some
Speaker 1: point we'll have four Vietnams of death? I mean, in
Speaker 1: many ways, we probably might already have more, because it's
Speaker 1: difficult to measure excess deaths. The deaths that we have
Speaker 1: are actually confirmed cases, um, and so there might have
Speaker 1: been many more excess that's are significantly higher um. And
Speaker 1: we're not done with this. I mean, we still have
Speaker 1: a long way to go, and we have winter coming up, UM,
Speaker 1: and that's this is going to We're gonna lose a
Speaker 1: lot of America lies unfortunately in this pandemic, and in
Speaker 1: the meantime, good Morning team. Answer. In the meantime, we
Speaker 1: hope for a vaccine. We we watch closely all the
Speaker 1: headlines around vaccines from wherever they come in various parts
Speaker 1: of the world. Is there any way to know how
Speaker 1: long protection from a vaccine will last other than just
Speaker 1: allowing a vaccine to run its course? Is there any
Speaker 1: way to answer that question? And unless we just tested
Speaker 1: and wait until we tested and wait, that's how you
Speaker 1: answer the question. So when we do see a vaccine available,
Speaker 1: we will know how much of an immune response it
Speaker 1: will generate initially, but we're not going to know really
Speaker 1: how long the protection lasts. That will have to continue
Speaker 1: to be studied. If we want to have a casine
Speaker 1: really soon, we're going to have partially answers and to
Speaker 1: how effective it is. We will know that it can
Speaker 1: protect you in the short term, but we don't know
Speaker 1: for how long. And frankly, I mean the rollout strategy
Speaker 1: be for I was just gonna ask you about the
Speaker 1: rollout strategy when we get a vaccine. I know not
Speaker 1: there yet, but if we do, when we do, let's
Speaker 1: be hopeful. What should the rollout strategy be? Should it
Speaker 1: focus very much on healthcare workers to start with what
Speaker 1: is the best way to provide the most protection and
Speaker 1: to stop the transmission to kind of cut that path. Yes,
Speaker 1: so you will need to identify the highest risk populations
Speaker 1: and it might include healthcare workers, especially healthcare workers with
Speaker 1: underlying conditions or for them that are pregnant, health care
Speaker 1: workers who are also at high risk, and and other
Speaker 1: popular populations that are at high risk, and they will
Speaker 1: be the priority. And it really will be necessary because
Speaker 1: to produce the number of doses of the vaccine that
Speaker 1: we will need is just really tremendous. So you and
Speaker 1: I are likely not going to be vaccinated until the spring,
Speaker 1: perhap summer, but we're hoping that the vaccine will be
Speaker 1: available this winter and we will start being to be
Speaker 1: able to vaccinate high risk, high priority individuals. Then, Dr
Speaker 1: thank you so much, greatly appreciate it. With Duke Martinous
Speaker 1: center there on health policy this morning. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene Before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio