Michigan Capitol TRANSCRIPT: 4/30/20, All in w/ Chris Hayes

Elizabeth Zimmerman, Max Rose, Aneesh Mehta, Marc Lipsitch, Asawin Suebsaeng

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: That`s a great scene there. Thank you for being

with us. And don`t miss the exclusive interview with former Vice President

Joe Biden. That is tomorrow morning 6:00 a.m. on “MORNING JOE.” Don`t go

anywhere “ALL IN” with Chris Hayes is up next.


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. It is

not right what is going on in America right now. It is not right. I mean,

all of it, the public health disaster that we could have mitigated if we

had a better president and better leadership, the economic devastation, the

tens of millions of Americans are now facing, but specifically, the way

this country is now failing to honor with dignity and grace the more than

62,000 men and women we have lost.


We`ve all seen the stories about the overwhelming number of fatalities. At

one funeral home in Brooklyn, New York 50 decomposing bodies were found on

ice inside four trucks including rental trucks from U-Haul. The funeral

directors said they were put there because he had no more room in his



“I ran out of space,” he said. “Bodies are coming out of our ears.” A

cemetery worker also in Brooklyn says he is struggling to keep up with the

onslaught of bodies.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sometimes I`ll leave my work, arrives as early as 3:00

a.m. and stays late just to lessen the load for the next day.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sometimes I do 14, 15 hours a day and it`s very





HAYES: People tasked with burying the dead cannot keep up with – keep up

with the sheer number of deaths. Because the virus is so contagious and so

deadly. Many families had not been able to say goodbye to their loved ones

in person at the hospital. And they often cannot have traditional funerals

or sit shiver or otherwise come together to collectively mourn because of

physical distancing rules.


It`s just a horrible thing to go through. And then comes the cost. At a

time when many are suddenly out of work, in New Jersey where 460 deaths

recorded today, a son could not afford the funeral bills for his parents

who died three days apart.


In Chicago, the family of a nurse, a nurse, who contracted the virus had to

set up a GoFundMe page to cover her funeral expenses.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She gave what we taught a human touch, a mother`s

touch, and that she did for everybody. We`re all just dumbfounded that this





HAYES: Here`s the thing. It doesn`t have to be like this. There`s a very

simple thing the federal government, our government can do right now to

help. They could step in and pay for burials for those who have fallen, but

Donald Trump has not done it. He has not released the money.


Now, in the past after disasters like Hurricane Katrina in Superstorm

Sandy, the government has stepped in to cover funeral costs. After three

hurricanes in 2017, as ProPublica reports, FEMA paid out about $2,700 per

approved application.


So far, we`ve lost more than 62,000 men and women to the virus. If federal

government wanted to provide that same amount of money $2,700 to each of

the families that ceased so they don`t have to go scrounging on GoFundMe to

cover funeral costs, it would cost the federal government around $170

million. That`s it. At a time we`re spending literally trillions of

dollars, $500 billion for big business, tens of billions for the airline

industry, tens of millions for the luxury hotel company that owns the Ritz

Carlton in Atlanta.


Two weeks ago, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Congresswoman

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both in New York, were calling on the government

to step up and do this very, very simple, obvious thing.




REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): The least we can do is help families

bury their loved ones in the most impacted communities in America. It is

the very least we can do. It is the very core basic measure of human

dignity. And in the richest country in the world, we should be able to

allow people to bury their loved ones in dignity.




HAYES: The least we can do. It is the least we can do, but Trump will not

do it. He doesn`t need to go through Congress. I want to be clear here. He

just needs to authorize FEMA to release the money. As former FEMA

Administrator Craig Fugate told ProPublica, FEMA does not have the

independent ability to turn on the programs at will. It has to come from

Trump. In fact, approximately 30 states and territories have requested the

funding but Trump will not free up the money.


Now the president is refusing to take this very simple action as a small,

small grace towards the citizens of this nation. It`s unconscionable. And

that small little bit of inaction, an utter cold-heartedness, it says

everything you needed about know about the way he has navigated this crisis

from the beginning.


As the bodies pile up at funeral homes and the cemetery workers become

overwhelmed and the death toll crosses that of the Vietnam War, the

President is raged tweeting in unhinged fashion in the middle of the night,

and this afternoon saying things like this.





a better job with testing, with ventilators, with all of the things that

we`ve done. And our death totals, our numbers per million people are really

very, very strong. We`re very proud of the job we`ve done.




HAYES: He just said, the United States just said today, our deaths per

million are really very strong. More than 60,000 American is gone,

thousands more every day, day after day after day after day. He`s very

proud of the job he`s done. They just do not seem to think American is

dying in mass as the federal government looks on is that big a deal. In

fact, there`s a whole group of the President`s supporters who just come out

in say, no biggie.




BILL O`REILLY, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: Many people who are dying both here

and around the world were on their last legs anyway and I don`t want to

sound callous about that.


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, you`re going to get – hold on, you`re

going to get hammered for that.


O`REILLY: I don`t care. I mean, a simple man tells the truth.




HAYES: A simple man tell the truth, last legs anyway. On Sunday, the

Washington Post published a story breaking down what Trump had said in 13

hours of his Coronavirus briefings. And while he spent 45 minutes of that

praising himself and his administration, he spent only four and a half

minutes, four and a half minutes at a 13 hours expressing condolences for

the victims of the virus.


What is happening right now in America is a catastrophe. It`s a nightmare.

It is caused for mass grief and for national mourning, for flags to be

flown at half-mast. Yet the families of the victims watch their federal

government fail them. They have suffered this horrible loss often without

being able to say goodbye or properly mourn.


And now amidst the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression,

they are being deprived of the money many need to give some last bit of

dignity to their loved ones. And that is not right. For more on the lack of

action from the Trump administration on this, I`m joined by Elizabeth

Zimmerman, former FEMA Associate Administrator for Response and Recovery.


Elizabeth, can you – can you tell me about this program that FEMA

administers, one that I was actually not that aware of until recently?



RECOVERY, FEMA: Sure. FEMA has an individual assistance program. And within

that, there are several different things that can be provided to disaster

survivors and those families of the victims that have fallen. So this

program offers everything from housing assistance, rental assistance,

disaster case management, crisis counseling, funeral benefits, medical

benefits, when individual assistance is declared by the President.


HAYES: And the President can – again, just to make sure I have my facts

straight on this, the President can declare this amidst an emergency, and

FEMA has been authorized to sort of release that money including funeral

assistance for folks if the president were to authorize it.


ZIMMERMAN: That`s correct. So this is one of the programs when he declares

a major disaster declaration of which all 50 states and all the territories

in Washington DC have.


HAYES: This the article from 2012 is actually FEMA`s press release from

December. Disaster assistance for New Yorkers, this is in the wake of

Sandy, which helps eligible applicants with funeral expenses caused by the

disaster. I imagine that for folks coping with disaster, this is before

this virus, just other disasters. This is a pressing need and problem for

surviving family members of people who have died in a disaster.


ZIMMERMAN: So yes. So this is offered up. Obviously, if people have

insurance or other means to pay for this, FEMA is not the first step to pay

for it, but they are – they do offer with the assistance for disaster

surviving families to be able to cover those costs. It is a program that is

cost shared with the state. And the amount of assistance that can be

provided to an individual family is determined by the states in their

administrative plans for this program.


HAYES: It just seems to me that given the fact of what we`re all going

through, given how difficult this has been on families that have lost loved

ones, often and I`ve talked to many of them having to Face Time their

goodbyes if that. And given the trillions of dollars we`re spending right

now, this is a drop in the bucket and just a simple action for the federal

government to take. Like, why on earth would we not do this?


ZIMMERMAN: So these are, as you`ve noted, Chris, I mean, these are

unprecedented times with all of the states under the same situation looking

at what the other resources are that can be brought to bear with all of the

different appropriations that have been made. But this is a program that

once turned on is pretty simple to be able to administer on behalf of the

federal government.


HAYES: One of the things that has more broadly happened I feel like with

FEMA here is that many of the existing infrastructure for disaster crisis

response in the U.S. government have not actually been fully utilized.

There`s all sorts of institutions throughout the U.S. federal government

that spend all day, 365 days a year, when there isn`t a crisis or an

emergency, planning for it, thinking about it creating protocols. Is it a

fair assessment to say that institutional knowledge has largely not been

fully utilized by this administration?


ZIMMERMAN: So, for this event, being the pandemic, typically FEMA and

through the Stafford Act, it goes for natural disasters. Those things that

are the hurricanes, the tornadoes, that also have a lot of this individual

assistance provided to them. This being a pandemic is something that`s

different and does fall outside of the bounds of the Stafford Act, but not

saying that the public health and safety is the measure here.


There is a major disaster declaration, as I said, for everybody that`s been

made. So that does open up the avenue to be able to use the programs within

FEMA to be able to help alleviate these situations.


HAYES: All right, Elizabeth Zimmerman, thank you so much for your time.


ZIMMERMAN: Thank you.


HAYES: For more on the President`s actions in the face of this crisis, I

want to bring in Democratic Congressman Max Rose of New York. And

Congressman, obviously, New York has been hit particularly hard by this and

I personally know a lot of folks who have been hit by this in the city. I`m

sure many of your constituents have.


It does seem to me that this, what your colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

and Chuck Schumer have called for, this just seems like a very obvious and

simple thing the government should be doing here.


REP. MAX ROSE (D-NY): You`re absolutely right. Look, FEMA, and it`s not

often acknowledged is an incredibly flexible vehicle by which the federal

government can reimburse states to execute and address a whole host of

things that happens in a natural disaster. About a month ago, I wrote a

letter to FEMA calling on them to basically follow up on these requests for

individual assistance.


FEMA can also reimburse for unemployment assistance, FEMA can reimburse for

housing, and certainly FEMA can reimburse for funeral costs. So this begs

the question, why aren`t they doing it? I mean, they didn`t even respond to

my letter, so why aren`t they doing it?


One can only imagine that they`re not doing it because they don`t know what

the costs will be. They`re worried about managerial expenses or this or

that. Well, then come back to us. Tell Congress what you need, because I am

certain at least I hope that they are not OK with New Yorkers or other

Americans dying and then being left in the street.


They can`t be OK with this. So tell us what you need, and I promise you, we

will give it to you. And if we don`t, then you will see me very loudly

turning on Democrats or Republicans that won`t fund you accordingly.


HAYES: You and I have spoken before about your experience in Afghanistan

when you served in the armed forces and about experience with loss in that

context. And I`m just curious your thoughts – I mean, it strikes me right

now that there is a kind of absence from the – from the top particularly

of any expression of collective grief, collective mourning, collective

honor frankly for people and compassion and empathy for people that have

struggled through this. At this moment when we are facing this, it really

is essentially unprecedented situation.


ROSE: Look, we know need moral leadership right now. We need the President

of the United States to be not only the commander in chief, but the uniter

in chief and someone who we can see express the incredible grief that we

are all feeling. There is not one New Yorker who has in some way, shape or

form, experienced this crisis in truly and utterly tragic ways.


And beyond that, and this is one of the evils of this crisis, we are forced

to grieve within the confines of our own home. We can`t even go through the

normal traditions associated with losing a loved one. And especially right

now, we need our leader to actually say something about that. We need the

president to say something about that. That is, in my mind, just as

important as allocating these resources that we just refer to.


HAYES: I want to ask you about a scene that played out today, not in New

York, in the state of Michigan, not dissimilar from the scenes we`ve seen

another state capitals, relatively – again, a relatively small group of

people quite unrepresentative of national political and public opinion,

given all the polling we`ve seen and quite marginal, but a striking scene.


This was – these were protesters in Michigan, which it is their American,

right, of course, to freely assemble, but armed, armed to the teeth. You

know, sometimes banging on doors, yelling at guards inside the Michigan

State House, obviously not physically distancing at all. You know, what do

you make of protest with weapons like that in an American Statehouse?


ROSE: Those are scary images. I say that as someone who spends a good

portion of my time in Congress considering this issue of domestic terrorism

and the rise of a far-right organized movement that is actually global in

nature often connected to people who have significant military training and

weapons training and who are equipped accordingly.


But we have to note this, OK. We are seeing numbers right now in New York

that are starting slowly, not fast enough, slowly to go down. And that is

not – that wasn`t inevitable, OK. It`s not like the projections were

wrong. No, we changed the reality of the projections. And we did that by

all of us banding together and changing our social behavior.


And we`re not out of the woods yet. We will all – there will continue to

be a deep interdependence to this crisis. So of course, we have to know the

economic pain that people are going to. It would be naive and even cold to

just disregard that.


But with that being said, though, we can`t just forget about the reality of

this virus, which is that if we disregard the advice of medical

professionals, then we will go right back to where we were seeing an

ungodly surge of new positive cases and death.


HAYES: I`m curious, actually, you`re interestingly situated here both

politically, geographically. I mean, you represent part – Staten Island,

parts of Brooklyn. You`re in a district that was previously held by a

Republican. It`s a district that voted for Trump in 2016. I am curious to

hear what do your – what do your constituents think about all this there?


These are not this is not a liberal district necessarily at all. It`s also

a district that is seeing firsthand the effects of this. What do you hear

from the folks that you represent?


ROSE: It`s not a liberal district, it`s not a conservative district, it`s a

patriotic district. And what I hear from people in my community is very

simple. This is not the time to play games. This is not the time to be

unnecessarily divisive. This is a time when we have to assume an attitude

that one would assume during Total War, which is to address the threat at

hand and utilize all the resources that we have to save people`s lives

because people`s lives are absolutely on the line.


Now, that doesn`t mean that you don`t hold people accountable. That doesn`t

mean that you don`t exercise oversight. That`s my job. And that certainly

doesn`t mean that you call – that you don`t call someone out when they

tell New Yorkers to drop dead as Mitch McConnell and now his lackey, Rick

Scott, recently have.


I have no problem and they have no problem openly saying that that is

wrong. It`s ignorant, it`s naive, it`s cold, and it`s economically stupid.

But what they do not want to see is anyone getting in the way of us saving

lives, getting in the way of putting people back safely to work. That`s

what they deserve.


HAYES: Yes. Congressman Max Rose, thank you so much for making some time



ROSE: Thanks again.


HAYES: Up next, I`ll talk to the lead investigator running trials on

Remdesivir, the drug that`s showing the most promising treatment of COVID-

19. What his team is learning after this.




HAYES: Yesterday, Dr. Anthony Fauci often viewed as the most credible voice

on the Trump Coronavirus Task Force was very positive about a study of an

experimental drug to treat Coronavirus called Remdesivir.





DISEASES: The data shows that Remdesivir via has a clear cut significant

positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery. If you look at the

time to recovery, being shorter in the Remdesivir arm, it was 11 days

compared to 15 days. Although with 31 percent improvement, doesn`t seem

like a knockout 100 percent, it is a very important proof of concept

because what it is proven, is that a drug can block this virus.




HAYES: Now, that announcement occasioned a big debate among all sorts of

folks that I read and I`m in contact with, medical folks, public health

experts, clinicians about what exactly the study shows and how encouraging

it really is, so I wanted to get to the bottom of that.


And here to talk that through is Dr. Aneesh Mehta. He`s the lead

investigator at Emory University for this Remdesivir trial. He`s also an

associate professor of infectious diseases at the Emory University School

of Medicine.


So Doctor, first, can you just take us through what the clinical trial was?

What did you guys do and try to test?



you, Chris. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the trial that we

have been working on. This is called the NIH adaptive COVID-19 trial of

therapeutics or AC-Trial, as we like to call it. And as we knew in

February, there were no good medication that was available to treat COVID-



And so, the scientific leaders at the NIH looked through a catalog of

potential medications and found that Remdesivir which had been tested for

Ebola seem to have very good activity against coronaviruses. And so, they

put together this large international study in an adaptive clinical trial

model to examine whether Remdesivir seemed to – would help patients with



We were fortunate at Emory to be one of the initial sites along with our

colleagues on the NIH tech network. And we were able to initiate the study

in very early of March. We very quickly enrolled much more quickly than we

thought. And therefore, we have answers as that was released by Dr. Fauci

yesterday. They`re preliminary data but important data.


HAYES: So you`ve got – you`ve got – presumably you got a control group

and a variable and group. The control group not on the treatment, the

variable group is getting – is getting the treatment. Can you – can you

describe the folks that are getting the treatment? How sick are they and

how is the drug administered? And what does it do?


MEHTA: So those are excellent questions, Chris. So this drug is

administered IV through the – through the vein. And so it can only be

delivered to patients in the hospital. And the trial is designed as a

double-blind placebo-controlled trial. So half the patients received the

medicine, half the people receive intravenous fluids, but the

investigators, the doctors, the nurses, and the patients and their families

do not know which ones they`re getting and will not know until the they`ve

completed the study.


HAYES: And what does the – what is this – what does it do? I mean, what

is – what is the drug doing and what are the results showing that Dr.

Fauci seemed to find promising?


MEHTA: So Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine. So, when a virus infects the

human body, it gets into the cells and hijacks the cells machinery to try

to make more of itself. And when it makes enough, it breaks out of that

cell and tries – in several copies try to infect other cells of the human



So the goal of this type of antiviral medicine is to block the virus`

ability to create more of itself in our own cells. So that process takes a

little bit of time to start working. So we don`t see this being an

immediate change in patient with COVID-19, but it`s a more slow process to

block that virus from making more of itself.


So again, not a magic bullet as Dr. Fauci mentioned, but it is something

that seems to be helping patients get better, more rapidly.


HAYES: I saw someone compare it to Tamiflu which is – which is obviously

very different because it`s not it administered intravenously, and it`s for

the flu. But the idea behind Tamiflu, if people have had experience with

this flu, is that it`s not a magic bullet against the flu, but if you take

it early enough, it really can improve the course, it could shorten the

duration that you`re knocked out by the flu. Is that – is that a

reasonable thing for people to think as they`re trying to sort of conceive

of what this drug means?


MEHTA: Yes, Chris, I think that is a reasonable analogy to make. Also,

Tamivir, the medication in Tamiflu shortens the length of illness of

influenza. This is similar to the primary finding that the NIH released

yesterday about this medication. The Remdesivir seems to shorten the time

compared to patients on placebo, so 15 days versus 11 days on average, 11

days for the patients on Remdesivir.


So we`re getting patients home potentially more rapidly to their families.

We`re also by getting them home more rapidly are able to prevent some of

the complications of a more prolonged illness and a prolonged hospital

stay. And then also, importantly, as our healthcare systems prepare for

even more patients, the more rapidly we can get patients home, we open up

more beds that we can make that available to future patients.


HAYES: Final question for you here, Doctor. I mean, one of the things that

has struck me in both reporting on this and my own interactions with

various clinicians who have dealt with COVID is this sort of maddening

frustration of having this thing is presenting and not having an

established treatment protocol. A feeling like at your wit`s end, that you

zig, and the virus zags and being sort of wrong-footed by it. What does it

mean to just start creating some genuinely double-blind clinically tested

treatment protocols to deal with this?


MEHTA: So Chris, I`ve been taking care of patients with my colleagues here

at Emory and in – with colleagues around the country and around the world

for the last two months and more, and it has been a fascinating and

frustrating endeavor. We have patients that seemingly look like they`re

going to get better and then quickly get worse.


Fortunately, through the amazing care of our ICU colleagues and multiple

other teams in the hospital, many of them are getting better. But we really

would like to have something that will help us get these patients better

faster, maybe prevent them from leaving needing to go to the ICU. And so

with this trial, we are getting some data that Remdesivir may help with



But this is not the final answer. We need to continue to do more research

to see which patients Remdesivir really helps in and if there are other

medications either with combination with Remdesivir, or by themselves, may

additionally help patience get home to their families.


HAYES: Dr. Aneesh Mehta, who is doing amazing work and gave one of the

clearest clinical trial explanations I`ve ever heard on television anywhere

else. Thank you so much, doctor.


MEHTA: Thank you, Chris.


HAYES: All right, still ahead, what`s the deal with Sweden? Their hands off

approach to dealing with Coronavirus is drawing attention for the

Coronavirus truthers. Is it working? We`ll discuss right after this.




HAYES: The Coronavirus truthers have been desperately searching for a

little contrarian data points that they can use to say the virus is not a

big deal, end the lock-down now, get back to work you trolls.


Last week it was two urgent care doctors from Bakersfield, California who

argued Coronavirus is just like the flu, although that was widely debunked.


This week it is the country of Sweden, which has taken a genuinely unique

approach to Coronavirus, as you can see from these pictures of night life

in Stockholm, which look unlike other places in the world. They have also

faced a death rate approximately three to six times as much as their

Scandinavian neighbors.


But Sweden`s approach to keep almost everything open has resulted in

Coronavirus truthers pinning their hopes on Sweden like, look, let`s be

like them. And in fact one Trump super fan even pressed the president on

Twitter asking why he didn`t follow the Swedish model, and the president

responding, “really? Have you looked at the numbers lately?”


All right, so what exactly is going on in Sweden? Is it a counterpoint, a

different way of approaching this?


Joining me now someone I really trust to walk me through this kind of

thing, Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard University`s

TH Chan School of Public Health.


And Mark, I want to start by saying that I think unlike – you know, there

is always areas of good faith disagreement and kind of bad faith crankery,

like, the Sweden question seems to me in the category of good faith

disagreement, like we`re learning things about the virus in response. What

is your conclusion about both Sweden`s approach and how effective it has or

has not been?


MARC LIPSITCH, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Well, I think the first thing to say is

what you just said is that they have a higher death rate than their

neighbors, and that`s clearly attributable to in part their choice of

response. And when we look around at places that have done very early and

effective social distancing, like, say, Austria, which is now getting to

very low case numbers, you can see the difference. One is continuing to

experience high cases and high deaths and the other is – has it really

under control. And it`s different policies.


So what`s remarkable about Sweden, I think, is that despite a relatively

open policy, they have not yet had the problems of intensive care overload

that we`d experienced in New York and that other places have experienced,

and on the other hand, they are – they – as I understand it, doubled

their capacity and are now having about one-third of their beds empty,

which is they are over capacity. They just doubled it.


HAYES: Right.


LIPSITCH: So, I think there`s something to be learned.


HAYES: Yeah…


LIPSITCH: …to be learned but it`s not the end of the story. Yeah.


HAYES: So I want to share that graphic again, just to compare them to their

neighbors. I mean, they really do have a death total, you know, per capita

that is considerably higher than their other neighbors – Norway, Finland,

and Denmark – you can see that.


Although, when you compare them to other countries that have been very hard

hit, Marc, to your point when you compare to the U.S., they have a higher

death rate than that, but a lower one than the UK or Italy or Spain.


I guess the question is, two-fold. One is a lot of people say they are sort

of features of Sweden that make it possible to do this, huge percentage of

Swedes live alone, so they`re not transmitting in their homes, that there

are huge kind of high degrees of social – trust and trust in authorities

to sort of take seriously the social distancing measures they do have.


What do you think about the idea of the applicability here – particularly

as people talk about things like reopening.


LIPSITCH: Yeah, well, I think we were having a discussion among our

research group about what is going on in Sweden and because it is an

interesting history how they have escaped the absolute worst while still,

obviously, having their economy largely open. And several people said,

well, my friend in Sweden says that they are social distancing, and someone

else said well my friend is social distancing. And my first response was,

well, yeah, but we know people who are academics or students or whatever

who can afford it, and what about all the people who can`t afford it?


And then I thought, well, it is Sweden. And maybe one of the secrets of

their success, such as it is, and it`s not complete success, is that they

have invested in their health system and in having a more equal society

where there aren`t enormous concentrations of people in tight living

quarters with low paying jobs that they have to go to and co-morbidities.


So, I would be very curious to what extent that is part of the reason that

they have been able to weather this, albeit with a high death rate.


HAYES: You know, this sort of leads to another question that has been

bedeviling me. And I`ve been talking to folks, experts about this, which

is, you know, we look at these comparisons across countries, across

regions, and it`s clear that how quickly you move and policies and social

distancing have effects, but I guess I wonder like how much of this is

random, you know, stochastic essentially, like, when the virus sort of

first got there secret and undetected, and how bad the initial outbreak was

and what chain it followed and how much and how much is under our control

in terms of policy?


LIPSITCH: Yeah, I think that`s a really important point. And one of the

first things we did as a research and sort of public health assistance

project when this epidemic started getting underway was to make a little

simulation of introductions, because public health departments around the

country were saying how many cases do you think we might have?


And one of the things we found when we did that simulation was that two

places that have no difference in how they respond, but just either

different numbers of imported cases or different luck in which of those

imported cases happens to spur additional cases can have very, very

different outcomes.


Exponential growth is this process that gets – once it gets going, it can

really make a lot of cases, but if it doesn`t get going for an extra week

or two, that puts you in a better position at least for those couple of



So there is no doubt a stochastic element, a random element, that some

places do better because of good luck.


HAYES: The final question for you is just about sort of go back to Sweden

is – I want to note the fact that the idea that – and this relates to

something we said last night, the idea that like Sweden is totally normal,

they`ve banned all gatherings over 50 people. They are not doing big sports

– I mean, there is a whole category of things that we think of as normal

life that even Sweden, which is a sort of most laissez faire on this, has

gotten rid of. And it feels like that is an important thing for everyone to

keep in mind as we think about policies moving forward. What do you think?


LIPSITCH: Yeah, I think the comparisons between countries and between

states as different states begin to reopen will help us to understand what

activities really are dangerous. And I think that is one of the lessons of

Sweden is that the package of things they are doing is clearly less

effective than the full package, and more effective than nothing.


So, if we can begin to make more comparisons across different combinations,

we`ll get a better



HAYES: Marc Lipsitch, a voice I really trust on all of this. Thank you so

much for your time tonight.


LIPSITCH: Thank you.


HAYES: Coming up, between his disastrous pandemic response, his lagging

reelection polling,

President Trump is desperate to change the project. His latest scapegoating

strategy next.




HAYES: Donald Trump is going to try to pretend that all is well, but more

than 60,000 have died, 30 million Americans are unemployed after six weeks

of the Coronavirus pandemic. And the president of the United States wants

to talk about something, anything, please, anything else.


There was a story that I read in The Washington Post that in some ways was

very similar to a 1,000 other articles you may have read during the Trump

years, because it involved the president getting mad at the person who

brings him bad news.


The Post reporting that Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale showed

President Trump polling that had him trailing Joe Biden, that he was

slipping in a bunch of swing states, and the president dropped a bunch of

obscenities and said he didn`t believe it, and according to this reporting

he threatened to sue his own campaign manager, perhaps jokingly.


And none of this is new. I mean, you`ve read stories like this dozens,

hundreds, of times. This is exactly the person that we`ve come to know over

the last several years.


But here`s the thing, take that exact mindset and now apply it to the worst

pandemic in 100 years. It explains everything about Trump`s reaction to the

Coronavirus. He didn`t want to hear the bad news. He got mad at the people

who brought it to him. And so he wished it away and pretended it wasn`t

there and now we`re in the midst of this crisis that can`t be washed away

and it can`t be denied, and the president is desperately searching for some

escape or some scapegoat, or some change of news, some change of topic,

some way out.


He`s tweeting at cable news all the time, and his allies on Trump TV are

trying to desperately rub two sticks together to start a fire under the

Michael Flynn story. Michael Flynn, yeah.


Today The New York Times reports pushed our intelligence agencies to,

quote, hunt for evidence to support an unsubstantiated theory that a

government laboratory in Wuhan, China was

the origin of the Coronavirus outbreak.


So, obviously, if you can push that intelligence so they can blame the

China, they can blame them for what`s gone wrong, but there is no way out.


He is locked in the room with the virus and we`re all locked in there with

him. And rather than try to solve the problem, all the president can do,

all he`s able to do, wants to do, is try to change the subject.


But it`s not working. We`ll talk about that next.




HAYES: The president is incapable of getting it, right? We have more than

30 million Americans out of work, more than 60,000 dead, perhaps the worst

challenge this country has faced since World War II. And yet today when he

was asked about pardoning former national security adviser Michael Flynn,

who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, Trump whined to a CNN reporter

about their coverage.




TRUMP: What I really hoped, because CNN tormented him, in all fairness – I

really hoped to see, because they haven`t been doing it – and I appreciate

your question – I hoped to see that CNN will, not even apologize, which

they should, but just cover it fairly, because he`s in the process of being





HAYES: Yes, please, we need more Michael Flynn coverage at this moment

amidst the Coronavirus pandemic in the worst situation since the Great

Depression and the worst pandemic in 100 years, Michael Flynn news, please.


The president desperate to talk about anything about the catastrophe that

is in front of him.


Joining me now is Asawin Suebsaeng, White House reporter at the daily

beast, co-author of

“Sinking in the Swamp.”


And Asawin, you reported a lot about the White House. You`ve reported a lot

on the sort of tendencies and dysfunctions there. And I feel the kind of

headline here has just been all of the pathologies and dysfunctions that

we`ve seen throughout the years often brought to bear on relatively trivial

things are now being brought to bear on the most important governing

challenge the president has faced in maybe, you know, 70 years.


ASAWIN SUEBSAENG, DAILY BEAST: I mean, it is weird to see this particular

commander-in-chief railing for a good stretch of time about quote-unquote

lying Brian Williams, in the context of bodies piling up on the grown,

hundreds of thousands of Americans dead, a global pandemic, and a cratering



It really does go to show what Donald Trump has exhibited during every

crisis of his presidency, and every major scandal, he tries to work the

refs, he tries to go out to the media as much as he can. He would much

rather change the subject, and turn this into a tiff between him and late

night hosts, comedians, and/or cage news hosts than actually deal with the

problem at hand. It is just that usually when he is doing this it is a

creation of his own making or it`s significantly more small ball

than, as we were both saying earlier, a global pandemic.


So all of this is really doing is just showing who Donald Trump really is,

and what his priorities are, during his policy making, his actions, and his

rhetoric, it`s just that he`s doing it when it feels like the world is

imploding in very dramatic, almost unprecedented sort of way.


HAYES: You know, one of our segment producers made the point to me today,

which I thought was right on the money, of like his – both his mental

model of an election, being 2016, which is very different in many way, and

also frustration with it not being 2016, and that this time around, it`s

he`s the president with the record, and there`s not, it`s not like some,

you know, wild, crazy, bomb throwing outsider, it`s you. You`re the

president. And you know, three months ago, they thought they were going to

run a campaign on GDP growth at 4 percent, and maybe people don`t like him,

but we could get enough voters that we can get over the hump. And it`s all



And you can palpably feel the morning and grief he has for that, not for

the people that we`ve

lost, but for that.


SUEBSAENG: Right, absolutely. And in terms of his precious economy, and how

he wants to change the subject now to an economic conversation as opposed

to say a massive death toll, the problem is he is not very good at changing

the conversation, even to the terms that he wishes to wage the 2020

campaign on right now.


When he keeps trying to talk about quote-unquote reopening the country and

all of the public/private work that his administration is doing, or

allegedly doing nowadays, he will do things like a couple of weeks or a

week and a half ago, where he tried to convene that large economic council

of various business leaders, and as we reported at The Daily Beast when he

convened that for a day of marathon conference calls, so many people who

were listed as, oh, they`re going to be on this great panel that`s

dedicated to figuring out the best and safest ways to open up the U.S.

economy this summer, many of them, including close Trump allies had no idea

they were going to be named to the panel.


He`s just grafting all of the omni-shambles of his administration and his

personal management style onto the management of the economy and the

pandemic response right now. And sometimes it`s darkly humorous, and other

times it`s a little more terrifying.


HAYES: It also strikes me that he – and this has been a lot of reporting

has come out – that, you know, it is very clear that after he was unable

to do rallies, he wanted to do the daily briefings, because those became

his version of rallies and he could – he didn`t have an adoring crowd

there, but he had these reporters he could fight with and kind of he

controlled the mic, he controlled the space, he controlled the air time.

And, you know, there`s all this reporting that he wants to do rallies as

soon as possible, that he loved doing the briefings.


These are the things – the reason he became president, the reason he ran

for president is to do those things, and he can`t do those things. What he

has to do is try to manage a horrible and very hard governing challenge.


SUEBSAENG: Right. And even with the briefings, he`s sort of stuck between

these dual impulses, where part of him, according to people I have spoken

to who work in the administration who talk to him almost every day, he did

become aware, it did dawn on him late last week, when his advisers have

been telling him for weeks, you might want to consider curtailing your

appearances at these daily briefings, because it does – the data does seem

to suggest that they`re helping Joe Biden, and they`re putting you at

greater risk for failing to get re-elected.


And come about Thursday or Friday of last week, it did start to sink in a

little bit. And he had started to be indicating to senior aides that okay,

I`m going to back away from it. But then he started seeing coverage of how

he was starting to back down from it, maybe, and how aides were starting to

get through to him. So this week, he`s kind of entered this weird footsie

period of maybe disengaging, but also commanding the cameras as much as he

can, which really gets at the sopopology (ph) in his personality, but so

much of this to him is just performing how he thinks he would look good,

and look like he`s commanding the crisis well, rather than actually getting

it down and doing the work.


HAYES: Yes, the performance of crisis management has been obviously front

and center from the beginning as opposed to actual crisis management.


Asawin Suebsaeng, who is one of the best reporters in the White House beat,

thanks for

your time tonight.


SUEBSAENG: Thank you.


HAYES: That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right

now. Of course, good evening, Rachel.







Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials herein are

protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,

distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the

prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter

or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the