Name: '我々は基本的に今パンデミックにいる'コロナウイルスに関するメイヨークリニックの医師 ('We're basically at a pandemic now': Mayo Clinic physician on coronavirus)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T09:35:40.000Z
Duration: 7 min 2 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：新型コロナウイルス,新型肺炎,COVID-19

再帰代名詞

more on the spread of Mr Information about the Corona virus and the spread of the virus itself.

Gregory Poland is professor of medicine and infectious diseases and the director of the vaccine research group at Mayo Clinic.

And Dr Scott Gottlieb is former FDA commissioner and now a CNBC contributor who is also a member of Visors board.

Gottlieb, I want to start with you and just try to get the numbers on the ground.

You were with us last week and said, at that point it was probably too late to stop the spread in China.

What do you think about the increased numbers we've sends her?

Well, I think we need to change our posture here in the United States.

We were going to try to detect outbreaks early, and that means broadening the screening criteria and brought in the capacity to do screening here in the United States.

Right now, the posture seems to be focused on preventing introduction of the virus into the United States.

That's helpful, but we have to assume authority here in circulating.

What we want to do is spot outbreaks early and step in to take measures to prevent small outbreaks from becoming large.

I thought that the CDC were the only ones who could actually do the testing on this.

Well, that's just that the CDC should broaden that test of public health agencies and local labs, maybe even hospital Abbas a simple PCR based tests.

We also should change the criteria for screening anyone who presented with an atypical of bad pneumonia that has a negative screen on what we call the multiplex test for viral forms of pneumonia.

They should probably get tested even they don't have been.

Even if they haven't been to China because it's what's gonna happen in a setting of an outbreak.

It's not gonna be someone who visited China gets sick.

It's going to someone who you interact with someone who visited China, who was sick, maybe asymptomatic or had mild illness.

That's how we're going to spot an outbreak right now.

If you believe that about 10 to 20% of people develop pneumonia, so it's only a small fraction will end up in the hospital.

You might need dozens of cases in the city before you have enough suspicious cases showing up in any one institution to elicit testing.

You want to get that trigger earlier so you can spot small outbreaks prevent becoming big outbreaks.

What do you think we're better at doing now than we were when stars came out?

Uh, first of all, absolutely agree with Scott and and his recommendations there.

We're basically at a pandemic now, and what we need to be doing in a situation like this is we need number one point of care diagnostics, which is what Scott was referring to.

We need to have a lower threshold for doing that.

And, you know, remember that SARS was controlled basically with very low tech but high efficacy measures like hand washing, social distancing, wearing mass etcetera.

So that's what we really need to be focused and concentrated on.

What we should be trying to do here is buy time to get to the spring and summer, when the epidemiology of spread might change and hope that this summer's a backstop.

It might not be a backstop because this is so novel.

People don't have any close community might still transfer in the summertime, but we should hope that that's going to be a back in the summertime.

Just let's talk about the economic impact for a second.

If you're trying to wait till the summer, what else you gonna have to shut down between now and then?

Look, I think the next two weeks of pivotal if we don't start to see outbreaks in United States within the next two or three weeks, we might have dodged the bullet here.

I think we're going to start to see secondary spread the United States in the next two or three way, and then what?

I think people are gonna start to shut down, you know, certain activity to try to curtail the spread of this.

The good news is probably that people it sufficiently concerned, and I think we will be willing to take measures that will be necessary to stop this from becoming a bigger epidemic.

But you know, we've had very limited second generation cases, as opposed to other areas like China.

Here, here in New York, for example, large, Ah, a lot of the Chinese immigrants moved to Flushing, Queens.

So if you take the seven line out there, there's a lot of people wearing masks.

Is that something that people in New York should consider doing?

Just generally or no masks have limited usefulness.

I mean, a simple surgical mask is gonna get moist in a small amount of time.

It's only useful for 10 15 20 minutes on and 95 mask.

But an N 95 100 mask is more useful for a longer period of time.

Most people aren't using that they're using nurses masks.

If you look at what they're wearing, I think the best value of a mass, frankly, is it prevents people from touching their face because this really transfers exactly through the country and tigers of people touching something in touching base.

If they have a mask on, the less likely it touch their face, they're doing some good.

You point out that since SARS thehe mount of train travel in China is up tremendously the amount of air travel and you'd probably say the same thing around the globe.

We are seeing people travel much more frequently.

Well, that's that's really what makes this of concern Number one.

You've got a novel virus that can infect humans.

We don't really understand its reproductive number.

We don't really understand the case fatality yet.

The number of cases that you're hearing about over 17,000 today is absolutely an underestimate.

Those air, the more severe ones that we know about, what that real denominator is, we don't know.

And, as you point out, unprecedented in the history of mankind has been the level of travel in one week.

In China, there were about 2300 flights at the beginning of January, out from China to the rest of the world.

I mean, we know the numerator, we don't even really know the numerator is trying is under testing right now from what I'm here.

We definitely don't know the denominator.

This probably tens, if not hundreds of thousands of cases in China.

So when you when you start the factor that every case fatality rate isn't 2% it might be more like 20.5%.

But even that would be devastating if that are not the transmissibility is 2 to 3 new cases for everyone.

Case, if you have something that has a case fatality rate of 30.5% the fluids but comparison 0.1% is gonna be devastated.

I mean, if you look at 15 million people who had influence or here in the United States you have 8000 people who died, I think it's closer to a point.

Remember, this could burn it in a word, population more efficiently.