Return to Transcripts main page


Fauci, Top Health Experts Testify on U.S. Virus Response; Fauci to Public: "Avoid Crowds of Any Type No Matter Where You Are". Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired July 31, 2020 - 10:30   ET



REP. NYDIA VALEZQUEZ (D-NY): Dr. Fauci, you said in a recent interview, and I quote, "if you're going to do contact tracing and the test comes back in five to seven days, you might as well not do contact tracing because it's already too late." Dr. Fauci, if a five day testing delay is too long, then is it fair to say that a 16 day delay is absurd? What are the consequences from these delays?

FAUCI: I believe you can get a more detailed answer from Admiral Giroir, but as I said before that is a delay that would interfere with the effective contact tracing and we're trying to decrease that, but the exact numbers of the delay, I believe Admiral Giroir has more precise information on that.

VELAZQUEZ: Yes, sir. (Inaudible). What are the consequences from these delays?

GIROIR: Thank you, Ma'am. So as I talked about, about half the tests are done either at point of care or within hospitals which are pretty rapid. The current data we have from these large commercial labs is that 59 percent of all tests are reported within three days, 76 percent within five days -- and I am sure there is an outlier at 12 to 16 days because that happens, but that's very atypical. And in the cities you talked about...

VELAZQUEZ: Sir, that is not what we are hearing from places like Arizona, Florida, and Georgia.

GIROIR: So, I get the data every single morning from every single state and can tell you specifically what that is, and we have surged testing -- we have brought federal resources to massively surge in Phoenix, and that's why it has totally gone down (ph), in Miami totally going down, Jacksonville...

VELAZQUEZ: Reclaiming my time.

Dr. Redfield, I would like to turn to you. Does the CDC have comprehensive information about the wait times for test results in all 50 states?

REDFIELD: I didn't quite hear you. Sorry. VELAZQUEZ: Does the CDC have comprehensive information about the wait times for test result in all 50 states?

REDFIELD: I -- I would refer that question back to the admiral.


GIROIR: Yes, we have -- we have comprehensive information on wait times in all 50 states from the large commercial labs.

VELAZQUEZ: And do you publish this data -- this data?

GIROIR: We talk about it whenever -- always. I mean, it was on -- it was on -- I was with...

VELAZQUEZ: And you don't think that it was important...

GIROIR: I was with 69 journalists yesterday, and we talk about that frequently. So if you would like to see that, I'm very happy to do that.

VELAZQUEZ: Well, it would be great so that those that are making decisions at the state and city level, we have access to that information.

GIROIR: They do.

VELAZQUEZ: Because it is important to understand the trends.

GIROIR: They -- they do. They -- they have that information, in fact, from the commercial labs. When they place an order they're told exactly what the expected wait time is for that order.

VELAZQUEZ: So we cannot expect to reopen the economy safely if the virus is spread -- is spreading unchecked. Testing, contact tracing and isolation will not be effective unless we call (ph) the turnaround time for test. And I don't want to talk about Puerto Rico. That's another story.

Chairman Powell said this week that the (inaudible) of the economy is going to depend, to a very high extent, on the course of the virus and on the measures that we take to keep it in check. He said also that the Fed will use its full range of tool to steer the economy out of recession. Gentlemen, if the -- is the federal government using its full range of tools to get the virus under control like other countries have? Many states are reconsidering their reopening plans after experiencing its shocking increase in new cases and being unable to stop the spread.

Dr. Fauci, what roles does the lack of sufficient testing and contract tracing play in states' inability to control the virus?

FAUCI: Testing and contact tracing is one of a number of tools that are used to -- to control the kind of surging we've seen, but I would also like to point out, Congressman Velazquez, to reemphasize again what I said in my opening statement: that we could do a really good job of controlling it if we paid attention to five fundamental principles, one of which is what we're doing here...


FAUCI: ... with masks, crowds, distance, bars, washing hands.


FAUCI: That is critical.


FAUCI: Testing is absolutely an important part of it, an important part of the process.

VELAZQUEZ: And I understand that. But the largest and most important pulpit is the one -- Pennsylvania Avenue. It doesn't matter what you say if what you said is undermined by the president of the United States.

CLYBURN: The gentlewoman's time is expired. The chair now recognizes for five minutes Mr. Jordan.


JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Fauci, do protests increase the spread of the virus?

FAUCI: Do protests increase the spread of the virus? I think I can make a general statement.

JORDAN: Well, half a million protesters on June 6th alone.


JORDAN: I'm just asking, that number of people...

FAUCI: No, yeah.

JORDAN: ... does it increase the spread of the virus?

FAUCI: Crowding together, particularly when you're not wearing a mask, contributes to the spread of the virus.

JORDAN: Should we limit the protesting?

FAUCI: I -- I'm not sure what you mean, should -- how do we say limit the protesting? (inaudible)...

JORDAN: Should government limit the protesting?

FAUCI: I -- I -- I don't think that's relevant to...

JORDAN: Well, you just said that it increases the spread of the virus. I'm just asking, should we limit it?

FAUCI: Well, I'm -- I'm not in a position to determine what the government can do in a forceful way.

JORDAN: Well, you make all kinds of recommendations.

FAUCI: No...

JORDAN: You -- you've made comments on dating, on baseball and everything you can imagine.

FAUCI: No...

JORDAN: I'm just asking -- you just said...

FAUCI: Yeah.

JORDAN: Protests increase the spread.

FAUCI: (inaudible).

JORDAN: I'm just asking, should we try to limit the protests?

FAUCI: No, I think I would leave that to people who have more of an -- a -- a position to do that. I can tell you that...

JORDAN: Government's stopping people from going to church, Dr. Fauci.

FAUCI: Yeah.

JORDAN: Last week in the Calvary Chapel case, five liberals on the Supreme Court said it was OK for Nevada to limit church services.

FAUCI: (inaudible).

JORDAN: I mean, Justice Gorsuch said it best. He said, "There's no -- there's no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesar's Palace over Calvary Chapel." I'm just asking, is there a world where the Constitution says you can favor one First Amendment liberty protesting...

FAUCI: Right.

JORDAN: ... over another, practicing your faith.

FAUCI: I'm not favoring anybody over anybody. I'm just making a statement that's a broad statement, that -- avoid crowds of any type, no matter where you are because that leads to the acquisition and transmission, and I don't judge one crowd versus another crowd. When you're in a crowd, particularly if you're not wearing a mask, that introduces the spread.

JORDAN: But it's a -- it's a simple -- it's a simple question, Doctor: Should we limit the protests?

FAUCI: (inaudible)...

JORDAN: Government is obviously limiting people going to church.

FAUCI: Yeah.

JORDAN: And -- and look...

FAUCI: (inaudible)...

JORDAN: There's been no -- there's been no violence that I -- I can see at church.

FAUCI: (inaudible)...

JORDAN: I haven't seen people during a church service go out and -- and harm police officers or burn buildings.

FAUCI: (inaudible)...

JORDAN: But we know that -- I mean, for 63 days, nine weeks, it's been happening in Portland.

FAUCI: Right. Yeah.

JORDAN: Well, one night in Chicago, 49 officers were injured, but no limits of -- no limit to protests, but boy, you can't go to church on Sunday.

FAUCI: I don't know how many times I can answer that. I am not going to opine on limiting anything. I'm just going to tell you (inaudible)...

JORDAN: You've opined on a lot of things, Dr. Fauci.

FAUCI: Yeah, but I'd never said (inaudible)...

JORDAN: This is something that directly impacts the spread of the virus...

FAUCI: (inaudible)...

JORDAN: ... and I'm asking your -- your -- your position on the protests.

FAUCI: Yeah, I'm -- well, I'm not going to opine on limiting anything. I'm telling you what it is, the danger, and you can make your own conclusion about that. You should stay away from crowds no matter where the crowds are.

JORDAN: Government has stopped -- government has -- government has stopped people from going to work. In fact, just in New Jersey four days ago, Ian Smith, Frank Trumbetti were arrested for opening up -- for trying to operate their business, their gym. They were arrested. But I -- my -- my bet is if these two individuals that owned this gym were outside just in front of their gym, and all the people who were working out in their gym were outside protesting, they'd been just fine. But because they were in the gym working out -- actually, running their business, they got arrested. You think that's OK?

FAUCI: You know, I'm not going to opine on who gets arrested and who does not. I mean, I -- I -- you get where I'm going? I'm telling you as a public health official, I say crowds...

JORDAN: Do you see the inconsistency, though, Dr. Fauci?

FAUCI: There's no inconsistency, Congressman. There's no...

JORDAN: What? There's no -- so you're allowed to protest, millions of people on one day in crowds, yelling, screaming, but you try to run your business, you get arrested? And if you stood right outside that same business and protested, you wouldn't get arrested? You don't see an inconsistency there?

FAUCI: I don't understand what you're asking me, as a public health official, to opine on who should get arrested or not. That's not my position. You can ask me as much as you want, but I'm not going to answer it.

JORDAN: No, you've advocate -- you've advocated for certain businesses -- you've for certain businesses to be shut down. I'm not -- I'm just asking you on your position on the protests.

FAUCI: (inaudible)...

JORDAN: I mean, I haven't seen one -- we've heard a lot about hair salons. I haven't seen one hairstylist who, between haircuts, goes out and attacks police to set something on fire. But we've seen all kinds of that stuff during protests, and we know the protests actually increased the spread of the virus. You've said that.

FAUCI: I said crowds. I didn't say specifically -- I didn't say protests do anything (inaudible)...

JORDAN: So the protests don't increase the spread of the virus?

FAUCI: I didn't say that. You're putting words in my mouth.

JORDAN: No, I -- I'd want -- I would -- I just want an answer to the question. Do the protests increase the spread of the virus?

FAUCI: I -- I don't have any scientific evidence that anything -- I can tell you that crowds are known, particularly when you don't have a mask, to increase the acquisition and transmission, no matter what the crowd is...

JORDAN: So you don't have a position on whether the protests increase the spread of the virus or don't increase the spread of the virus?


FAUCI: I'm saying that crowds, wherever the crowds are, can give you an increased probability that there's going to be acquisition and transmission...

JORDAN: But do you understand Americans; concern? Protesting, according to -- particularly according to the Democrats, is just fine but you can't go to work, you can't go to school, you can't go to church. There's limits placed on all three of those fundamental activities...

CLYBURN: The gentleman's...

JORDAN: ... activities but protesting is just fine.


CLYBURN: The gentleman's time is expired but I'll just ask the gentleman to just think about his question and put it in reference to crowds that gather in political -- at political meetings, at fund- raisers without masks, an oil rig in Texas, nobody wearing a mask, nobody socially distancing but a fund-raiser.

With that -- be problematic -- with that, I yield five minutes to Mr. Foster.

FOSTER: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Fauci and Dr. Redfield, I'm -- I'm a scientist, as -- as you are, and so you know how important it is that when a great scientific breakthrough reaches the public, that the proper credit is given, not to just those who show up and claim credit at press conferences, but to the long list of federally funded researchers who have made these breakthroughs possible, and also to the enlightened -- enlightened federal employees and the politicians who funded that research.

I remember back when -- a few years ago when we had newspaper headlines about all of the miraculous cures in cancer immunotherapy, where I gave a floor speech in the U.S. House saying yeah, this was great but equally great were the decades of federally-funded research and the researchers who made those clinical breakthroughs possible and also frankly that some of the credit goes to the Democratic and Republican members of Congress who resisted the proposals for massive budget cuts to science that were proposed by Republicans for years, in the Paul Ryan budgets and by the Trump and Mulvaney budget cuts since then.

Now, in the case of the mRNA vaccines that have been so much in the news this week, the story does not start with Operation Warp Speed, it does not even start with a historic 63 day sprint from the publication of the viral genome to the first patient injected by the mRNA test vaccines.

The sprint, I believe, began when President Trump -- when President Trump -- well, this sprint actually began when President Trump was still ridiculing the idea of the pandemic -- the sprint actually started when dedicated employees at NIH and Moderna, who understood the danger of COVID-19 and began working day and night.

The story of federal investments in mRNA vaccines actually starts, I believe, back in 2009, when President Obama, who was at the time unhappy with the speed of response to the H1N1 swine flu epidemic, convened his scientific advisory panel PCAST, which they did back in those days, and famously asked them "if you guys are so smart, how come you still make vaccines with chicken eggs?"

OK, so one year later, in August 2010, PCAST put out a report on re- engineering vaccine production for pandemics, which emphasized the potential of new technologies to make vaccines and therapeutics available far faster in a pandemic.

Heeding the advice of his scientific panel, which they did back in those days, in 2013, the Obama administration awarded a $25 million DARPA grant to a start-up called Moderna to develop their mRNA vaccine platform for pandemic response.

This was followed in 2015 by a $125 million investment by BARDA so that by the end of the Obama administration, Moderna had mRNA vaccines and therapeutics under test in both animals and humans. So why is it that the Obama administration prioritized mRNA vaccines and therapeutics?

Well, first off, it's their speed of development, which we saw realized in the 63 day sprint. It's the speed of manufacture, which has to do with the high yields of -- of in vitro transcription reactions and their potency. Scientifically, the exciting news of the last few months is that a potent human immune response can come from doses as low as 30 micrograms of mRNA vaccine.

So 30 micrograms, what does that mean? What it means is that this one liter bottle, if it were full of mRNA vaccine, would contain over 30 million doses. This is enough to vaccinate every one of Americans doctors and first responders or all of its seniors over 75 years old, and that is why the Obama administration invested in mRNA vaccines and therapeutics starting back in 2009 and without those investments, frankly, Project Warp Speed would not have squat.


Now, Dr. Fauci, would you agree that when there are great medical breakthroughs that the public needs to be reminded about the long line of federal R&D that's led to vaccine and therapeutics successes that we're anticipating?

FAUCI: Yes, Congressman, and it even goes beyond what you're saying. Everything you say is -- is very well taken and I think maybe it's a good time to recognize the fact that the generosity of the Congress through multiple administrations, both Democratic and Republican and whether or not the Congress was controlled by Democrats or Republicans, the support for biomedical research that goes back decades, leading to everything that you're talking about but even before then -- some of the monoclonal antibody work, some of the work that's being done with the molecules that are directly antiviral molecules.

I think we often forget that when we think of the product and often forget, as I think you've appropriately pointed out...

FOSTER: Well, what are the scientific investments we should be making now to ensure that we're better prepared for future pandemics and -- and how can we support those investments with the kind of science budget cuts that we're seeing proposed by the -- in the Trump and Mulvaney budgets?

FAUCI: Well, I mean, I hope we don't get cuts but in fact we have been very...

FOSTER: Well, that's been proposed -- they've been proposed again and again. OK.

FAUCI: Yeah.

FOSTER: Anyway, it looks like my time is up...

JORDAN: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, over here.

CLYBURN: (Inaudible)?

JORDAN: Yeah, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a story from June 5th, 2020 underscoring what Dr. Fauci wouldn't answer today. Dr. Fauci says "large protests taking place across the country are a perfect setup for spreading COVID-19." So he said that a month ago, even though he wouldn't say it today. So that's a story from Business Insider but I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a June 12th story, "Dr. Fauci tells ABC Powerhouse Politics that attending rallies, protests is risky," even though today his position seems to have changed -- obviously his position's changed on many things, many times over the last several months but I'd ask to enter those two articles for the record.

CLYBURN: Let -- let -- I'll yield to Dr. Fauci.

FAUCI: Like I said, any crowd -- any crowd, whether it's a protest -- but any crowd in which you have people close together without masks is a risk and I'll stick by that statement. It's a public health statement, it's not a judgment on why you're there in the crowd, it's a statement related to the fact that you're in a crowd.

CLYBURN: Thank you, Dr. Fauci, and -- and without...

JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't ask him a question and you let him respond, I was -- I was making a unanimous consent...

CLYBURN: For -- and I'm going to run this meeting.

JORDAN: Well, -- but I -- I -- I would like a chance to respond to...

CLYBURN: Just -- just remember, I'm going to chair this meeting.

JORDAN: No, I understand...

CLYBURN: Now, without objection...

JORDAN: ... that's why I said "Mr. Chairman."

CLYBURN: Without objection, your statements, whatever you've got there, will be entered into the record. And without objection, any gathering -- whether you're protesting or whether you're politicking, any gathering would be risky, and that's what the man has said...

JORDAN: Yes, but that's not what's happening -- that's my point. CLYBURN: Oh, you're telling me...

JORDAN: That is not what's happening. There are limits -- people can't go to church, can't go to work, can't go to school...

SCALISE: Mr. Chairman, that gentleman is out of order.

JORDAN: ... but they can protest all they want.


CLYBURN: That goes for the Democrats and Republicans, I'll make the decision as to who is out of order. I'm going to be as gentlemanly as you will allow me to be.

JORDAN: I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.

CLYBURN: OK. Well, thank you. And with that, I yield five minutes to Mr. Green.

GREEN: Thank you, Chairman, and Ranking Member, and witnesses for your amazing service to our country, thank you.

First, Dr. Fauci there was a bit of an uproar about a picture of you at the Nationals game without your mask on. I think you were seated with your wife, you had a close friend there with no one else nearby you. And that gentleman who was with you had his mask on. I think you have said in the press since that you were -- you took it off to take a drink of water.

I just want to point out, according to an article in "The New England Journal of Medicine," and I quote, "significant exposure to COVID-19 means face-to-face contact within six feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes, and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes the chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal."

The science seems to be pretty clear, we should absolutely wear masks when we're in close contact with those outside of our household, I think that was just the conclusion of that discussion. It's not a crime to pull your mask off to take a drink of water in 100 degree temperature when you're seated next to your wife and someone else is there.

I guess I make the point to show how the media has created all of this hype which has led to some officials across the country making decisions that are not based on science, and there are real consequences to those. I mean, if people are hot they shouldn't get heat stoke and not take their mask off.


So I'd like to move on to some other troubling actions that were done this week. This week, the Chairman of the Committee sent four letters, all to Republican governors in red states demanding extensive documents related to coronavirus response.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force report has 21 states listed in the so-called red zone. This isn't about transparency, it's about ridiculing four states including my home state of Tennessee, and it distorts the truth.

The letters singled out four GOP states, but what about the other 17 states? Why didn't California get included in the letter? They've seen an explosion in positive cases, they're in the spike -- they're in the 21 listed red zone states.

Targeting only Republican governors when clearly 17 other states, many of whom are Democrat -- are also experiencing the spikes and in the red zone shows this effort has nothing to do with getting answers, and is as the Chairman has said in his opening comments, politics over science.

No scientist who wants the truth samples just Republicans, honestly it's a laughable partisan strike. It also compounds the insult to all Americans for the failure of this Committee to look at the real culprit.

As I said in previous testimony, a Columbia University study showed that 66 percent of American deaths could have been prevented if China had spoken up one week earlier -- that's thousands of American lives that could have been saved.

So instead of addressing the cause of 66 percent of our causalities, the select Committee on the coronavirus picks on American businesses, the Trump administration and now four state governors, all Republican when we know other blue states are in the exact same situation.

This is the definition of partisanship, but I can hear it now -- didn't the right send a letter to certain governors? And yes, we did. We sent it to every single governor who refused to follow the Trump plan -- emphasis on plan, and sent COVID positive patients back to nursing homes, killing patients. We didn't select just a few of those.

I applaud Congressman Foster who approached me as a physician and asked me to join a bipartisan partnering with the administration to assist in the execution of Operation Warp Speed plan. That's how we should be functioning, that kind of bipartisan action.

Finally, on a positive note I wanted to mention the Swedish study and then ask Dr. Fauci some questions about that because I think it really illuminates some of the exciting findings in science. T-cells are a type of white blood cell, they regulate immune response.

The Swedish study found that many people with mild asymptomatic COVID demonstrate so-called T-cell immunity to the coronavirus. The study further found that twice as many who tested positive for antibodies had T-cell immunity.

So we know there are tons of people out there with immunity that we aren't testing, and I would love for you, sir, if you could comment -- educate America, educate all of us a little bit on T-cell immunity and what the ramifications are to the plans. Thank you.

FAUCI: Thank you very much, sir. I'll very quickly try to answer that. So there are two limbs of the immune response. One is an antibody which is a protein that is made by the cells of the body to bind to the virus, and is usually the hallmark of protection against infection.

There's another limb of immune response called the cellular immune response of T-cells, and those T-cells have the capability of essentially suppressing or killing cells that are infected, and preventing the cells that are infected from making new viruses.

So there are two parts of it, even though one is generally felt to be protecting against the initial infection, the other is an important complimentary. And you're right, the Swedes came out with a paper, and also a paper from NIH grantees from Lajolla (ph) just came out in the journal Cell showing the same thing, that individuals who are infected and recovered they had T-cell responses, but importantly there was T- cell reactively also detected in non-exposed individuals which means that maybe there's some memory from other coronaviruses that are benign cold viruses that you're exposed to that might -- and I say might, explain why some people -- even children, might be protected, that they had exposure that's not measured in antibody, but measured by T-cells. This is work that we really need to pursue, we're just at the cusp of understanding the importance of this type of response in COVID-19.

Thank you.

GREEN: Thank you.

CLYBURN: The gentleman's time has expired. And as I yield to Mr. Raskin for five minutes, may I address the letter which I have responded to -- you have an answer from me.


(UNKNOWN): (Inaudible).

CLYBURN: You have not seen the answer.

(UNKNOWN): (Inaudible).

CLYBURN: Just -- OK, well just be sure since you put the letter in the record here, let me put my response on the record. My response had to do with the four states that have refused to comply with the critical recommendations from the Task Force, and all four have governors who have publicly stated that they do not plan to comply.

In contrast of that, we did not send the letter to those states that did indicate that they were going to comply with the Task Force, and that's -- three of those states had Republican governors and they did not get a letter from us. So this has nothing to do with partisanship, but the political response rather than responding to the science in our responses (ph).

With that, I yield to Mr. Raskin for five minutes.

RASKIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing on The Urgent Need for a National Plan. A stack of paper is not a plan. A large and unwieldy stack of paper is not a plan. A plan is a comprehensive and coordinated strategy for victory and we haven't seen anything like a plan, no one has shown us anything.

Blaming other countries is not a plan. Blaming China is not a plan. Blaming China is not even a good excuse for the lethal incompetence and disinformation of President Trump. China's early cover-up of the disease only deepens the responsibility and complicity of President Trump who, on 37 different occasions as I've demonstrated by submissions to this committee, defended and excused and praised the Chinese government and President Xi.

A plan is a plan, and we haven't heard what the plan is. And this is what has bedeviled us from the beginning. Mr. Chairman, we've got 4.4 million cases. We lead the world in case count. We lead the world in death count. More than 153,000 Americans are dead right now.

Fifty-four million people filed for unemployment benefits. We've seen a one-third drop in GDP; a one-third drop, unprecedented in economic activity.

The chart behind me demonstrates the astonishing and terrifying growth of this disease. It took us 98 days to reach 1 million cases. It took us 44 days to reach 2 million cases. It took 26 days to reach 3 million cases. And it took us only 15 days to reach 4 million cases.

Director Redfield, when do you estimate we're going to get to 5 million cases? What's next?

REDFIELD: Thank you, Congressman. I think one thing I've learned about this virus is it's not predictable. I will say one thing that's important: that what happens next is really dependent upon if the American public fully embrace what we've asked. If they fully embrace those five steps, we'll get control of this pandemic.

RASKIN: Well, I thank you for that. And I thank both you and Dr. Fauci for restating the absolute imperative importance of everybody wearing their masks when they're out on public, and everybody maintaining social distance, and following the other public health protocols.

But the public health officials have been subjected to harassment -- and we've even seen some today, have been subjected to ridicule and have been subjected to ludicrous, absurd contradiction.

So I want to go through some of the propaganda and disinformation quickly just as a public service announcement because America is watching you.

And Dr. Fauci, why don't I start with you. Are children almost immune to the disease? Just yes or no because I've got a lot to get through, please. Are children almost immune to the disease?

FAUCI: (OFF-MIKE) have to... RASKIN: OK.

FAUCI: ... be a little more precise -- you mean almost immune. Do children get infected? Yes, they do.

RASKIN: Have hundreds of thousands of children been infected?


RASKIN: Hundreds of thousands of children have been infected, so children are not almost immune to the disease.

Is COVID-19 going to magically disappear, Dr. Fauci?

FAUCI: I do not believe it would disappear because it's such a highly transmissible virus. It is unlikely that it's going to disappear.

RASKIN: Does wearing a mask give people COVID-19?

FAUCI: Does wearing a mask give it? No.


FAUCI: Not -- not to my knowledge.

RASKIN: All right. Is COVID-19 a hoax?


RASKIN: Should people take hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID-19?

FAUCI: The overwhelming cumulative evidence of properly conducted randomized controlled trials indicate no therapeutic efficacy for hydroxychloroquine.

RASKIN: ... should people take hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID- 19?

FAUCI: The overwhelming cumulative evidence of properly conducted randomized control trials indicate no therapeutic efficacy for hydroxychloroquine.