Skip to main content

tv   Bill Gates Pfizer CEO Discuss COVID-19 Vaccines  CSPAN  November 22, 2020 12:23am-1:17am EST

12:23 am
full scare reproduction of the original ship. exploring the american story. watch american history tv, sunday on c-span3. >> bill gates joined the ceo of pfizer and the head of the vaccine confidence project for discussion on the coronavirus pandemic and an effort to develop a vaccine. they talked about the results ongoing vaccine trials from pfizer and moderna, the distribution process when a vaccine is ready, and the public's overall trust in getting inoculated. this is just under an hour. this is just under an hour. >> welcome back. it is a privilege to be with all of you. we have a very special conversation planned for right now. we want it to be as interactive as possible. we hope you join us in the comments for questions you can
12:24 am
bring to our guests, and also we are planning to ask you a couple of questions using the polling technology this afternoon. this is a conversation i have been looking forward to all day, and for many weeks. we are joined by bill gates, somebody who needs no introduction. i have had the privilege to know him for a long time and talk to him through the pandemic. he's the smartest person i know about setting the tables of where we are. i've called him a national treasure, but he's now a global treasure. he's donated $400 million to covid research. advancecalled this in in 2015, when he warned about a possible pandemic of this sort. i should also note he's trying to get into the journalism business, he's starting a podcast, which we can go out and get, as well. i should also introduce albert bourla. albert may no longer need an
12:25 am
introduction, either. he is the ceo of pfizer. he has done something quite remarkable with this covid vaccine and the trial results we have seen have been astonishing. we will talk to him about what that means and where it is all headed. then we have heidi larson, who runs the vaccine confidence project. one of the most important efforts that i know about to get people to ultimately take a vaccine. that, as we talked about with dr. fauci, is such an important element of how we are going to get out of this pandemic. let me start with bill. we have had a lot of conversations during this pandemic. you have always been able to level set me in a truthful way about where we are. we spent time with dr. fauci, who you know wha -- who you know well. we talked to him about an hour ago. he said something that surprised me. back to ar us to get
12:26 am
no mask wearing, no social distanced world, that he imagined the vaccination uptick, the percentage of people that would have to take it, would have to be north of 75%. as i thought about that in the u.s., i'm thinking that's 250 million people, these vaccines appear -- albert will talk about it -- have to be taken twice with a booster. that's 500 million visits to a doctor. talkonfident, and we will to heidi about confidence, but how confident are you that a year from now, having this conversation, hopefully in person, that we will get there? >> we are likely to be supply constrained on the vaccine for the next year, particularly if you look on a global basis. very good news from pfizer and moderna, we think it is likely
12:27 am
novavaxx,azeneca, and johnson will show strong efficacy. those three vaccines are a little bit easier to scale up the production at very low marginal costs and don't have thethose three vaccines are a little bit easier to scale samee requirement. the seconding world, source of great news we have with indian manufacturers to bee those three vaccines may part of getting the supply equation. it is fair to say that now that the supply is starting to merge, it may be-side, something important. i'm surprised we don't have a website from the cdc where people are registering their interest in taking the vaccine, where we can coordinate things. and we need some sort of digital certificate, because we are likely to say to people working in nursing homes, hospitals,
12:28 am
maybe even schools, that they need to authenticate that they have been vaccinated, and even travel will have some of that. it's exciting pfizer did a great job, broke every record, but now, this distributionit's excir challenge, including getting over 10 billion doses to the world, it is very daunting. >> were you surprised when you heard the results? >> i was very happy, because we -- one of ourking top vaccine people, who worked at pfizer most of his career, we had been tracking the antibody results. pfizer had good results, but so did a lot of the other vaccines. we just didn't know what the response would be. the fact that it is protective makes me think the other vaccines will be, as well. it was very well done to get it done as quickly. it wasn't the high-end of what
12:29 am
people expected, the biology is not totally predictable, but there a lot of heroes, including the willingness to team up with them and bring the strength to pfizer that mrn day and biontech had done. the whole story is a great story. in the years ahead, we will figure out how to avoid the cold chain and get the manufacturing costs, the scalability. this platform will be far more valuable than just covid elimination. >> albert, it's great to see you. thank you for the work you are doing. the entire country, when this gets out to people, owes you a debt of gratitude. help us understand this. i think there are so many questions about the vaccine. you hear these 90% plus numbers, moderna at 94%. people still don't know how long the vaccine will last.
12:30 am
thee are questions about age and severity of the illness. can you speak to some of the big questions you think are still unanswered? albert: there are many unanswered questions, but there are fundamental questions about having a vaccine, now with moderna, it has outstanding efficacy, it has been answered. i think the questions about the safety have also been answered. our safety milestone has been achieved already. we are preparing now for submissions. when it comes to how durable the protection will be, this is something we don't know yet. this is why we are following our subjects in the study, the 44,000, for at least two years, a we could see if there is fault in the durability or not.
12:31 am
if there is one, with the mrna technology, you can boost if you want. in this case, you don't need two doses, likely one will be needed. people do one dose, the next year -- then a year after they do the other dose. the immunity is quite durable right now. >> how concerned are you that people will take one dose and won't go back for the second dose? albert: i think that would be a big mistake, but this happens. on several occasions. usually with our vaccines, we have a good level of compliance. we hope all will be responsible to take their two doses. >> before we did this, we got so many questions for you. people want to know about the drug unto itself. want to ask you a couple of rapidfire ones.
12:32 am
this is in part because moderna gave more details than you did, but maybe you can say this. of the 94 cases of covid positive clinical trial participants, how many placebo and how many were in the vaccine group? can you say whether they had severe illness or not? albert: the reason why we didn't as wehe exact number, just said, more than 90%, at the end when the study concludes, there's always those that will go one point up or down, so i didn't want to confuse people. given we are very close to announce our final results, i would wait to announce the final results, and all of this information will be there. >> i have one more before i get to heidi. it's always an issue of confidence about all of this. frankly, how politicized. becomew that covid has
12:33 am
politicized. since the president accused pfizer basically of conspiring with the fda so the vaccine the news would come out after the election, that's the allegation, speak to it as directly as you can. albert: i will be very direct. we didn't conspire with anyone. have been very important for the president, but not for us. and this is why immediately after the first presidential debate, a letter to our employees was published, and i was saying someone has to move faster, someone has to move slower. i'm telling you you will move with the speed of science, which is what we did. i predicted we would have efficacy results by the end of october, and many people told me that is too soon and complained. then i announced it a few days later, i think the first week of
12:34 am
november, and many people told me it was too late. this is what science does. my mind wasing in to follow all of the processes scientifically and ethically, so once we had the results, we would be an disputable, and this is what we did. >> did you get a call from anyone in the white house saying you need to come forward with this before november 3? albert: no, i knew very well, because i had spoken to the president, that he would like to see it. but i did not receive any pressure on me to do something. it is not appropriate. i think everybody knew better not to ask something like that, because i would never do something like that. bring youi want to into this conversation and get at issue of confidence. the first question i asked bill about, which if we really get to a 75% uptake of taking this vaccine, putting aside the
12:35 am
supply constraint, and let's talk about the demand, what do you think the world looks like right now? would you anticipate we could get to 75%? what would you project and what would you do about it? chance. is always a we are not there yet, in terms intent, based on a lot of the global surveys. is 50, 60, that, it depends on the countries. it is quite variable across countries. that's only intention. i think sometimes there has been too much disappointment and prediction that it is going to be bad, because people don't know -- we have to appreciate that it has been a hyper uncertain time. i hyper uncertain time, so i don't think we should say we are never going to get there.
12:36 am
look at the political opinion polling. this week i think we will change the landscape, because the hope behind it, this has been a huge vote of confidence, in a sense. people want to know if it works. that's the big thing. they want to know if it is safe. and they want to know who is going to get it first? i think this week has shifted. we are about to rewrite a lot of surveys because this will change how people think. so i think there is hope. it won't be everywhere, and we have a lot of work to do, and we need to start building the awareness of the options and what it is going to take, sooner rather than later. don't wait for the vexing to be -- or the vaccine to be at the clinic level.
12:37 am
i got a torrent of tweets and other emails on social media from people who i'm afraid seem issuggest that this vaccine somehow not only being funded by you, but some kind of effort to track you or track people. how concerned are you about this? when you go home and talk to melinda and see this stuff online, what is the conversation like? , our up until the pandemic work on infectious disease was reasonably obscure, because malaria is gone from the rich countries, tv is very limited, eat -- even hiv is largely contained. so the world of people who think about vaccines and how we do all it's a very, important group of people who have done amazing work bringing
12:38 am
childhood death down payment we have lots of new vaccines, some of whom we are working with pfizer to get out for most of these childhood diseases. so it turns out our team of vaccine experts was outside the private sector, one of the largest groups. so the idea of, ok, how do we get these sorts of agreements with manufacturers? we were able to bring lots of that with some of our resources. only one, health experts have been saying that for a long time. it was unusual to have a software person say this is the biggest threat for all these deaths. so i'm surprised at the conspiracy theories. i think i'm supposed to make it clear they are not true, but where does that come from? is it because these are uncertain times? people prefer a simpler story
12:39 am
thatbiological stenosis took place? i hope it fades away, because we are just trying to play a constructive role, where a lot of these tools, antibodies or vaccines, you don't just want market-based pricing. you want all of humanity collaborating together, and we are helping to facilitate that. >> let me follow up and ask this. this was something we talked to dr. anthony fauci about as well. there is a behavioral science question going on about people who decide to wear mask or not wear masks, maybe get the vaccine or not get the vaccine. dr. fauci has probably done 2000 interviews where he has told the public as emphatically as he can about the science, yet there are people that, for reasons that may be inexplicable, or maybe you have an answer, they either don't understand, don't want to understand, don't want to believe it, or actively are
12:40 am
trying to do something to make it not the case. how do you think about that? that there the idea some people who think anything -- it's ok that there's going to be fringe groups. the fact that in the united states, the mask wearing skepticism or view that it is a worse thanct, it's other countries. is that because of our current leadership? is it because of our individualistic view of things? i think that is hard to attribute. i wouldn't have expected mask wearing to become controversial. i wouldn't have expected the administration to find the wildest french opinion possible and put that opinion as the leader of the coronavirus task force. so this thing is full of want tos, but people do
12:41 am
protect themselves. they do want to protect their parents and grandparents. i hope we are surprised on the upside by the demand for the vaccine. albert mentioned the president, the current administration. one of the big questions is the next administrations transition period. it sounds like dr. fauci has not had a chance to talk to the transition team, but you may have. have you had a conversation with them yet? albert: i haven't spoken to president-elect biden myself. but my team throughout the process kept informed with the white house and the biden campaign and the same happened with the leadership of the congress. leaders fromed the the democratic and the republican parties. so they were all well-informed,
12:42 am
and we keep doing that up until now with the vaccine data out. >> are you concerned about the transition period? i know there are a lot of challenges about distributing this drug to begin with, let alone having to deal with two different administrations in the middle of it. albert: i don't think it is ideal that we are starting in the middle of a transition. --s always better when it's when there's clear accountability of leadership, but i think it will not become a problem. to me the biggest challenge would be that in the beginning, the dose availability will be smaller than the demand. -- we zero concerns about feel very confident that we will send it to everywhere. theelp explain that to public so everybody understands
12:43 am
what is happening here. your vaccine does need to state a very cold temperature and therefore you will be sending it my in custom-made boxes, as understanding is, with dry ice in them. how does that work, and what does that do to the pricing of the drug? albert: our engineers have developed these boxes, actually. thermic boxese of and they have a temperature meter inside so we know at any point where the box is and what the temperature is at any given time. every box is a small box like that and can contain up to 5000 doses. cars, ship it in normal boats, planes, whatever. in the u.s. we are shipping most of it overnight. once we receive an address from the government, the next day,
12:44 am
the product will be there. once people receive it, they can keep it for weeks in the box, or they can keep it for months in freezers, or they can keep it for a week. , it'smand will be so big going to be distributed -- not distributed, but injected in hours, rather than days or weeks. demand intobout the how much is going to be needed, your company made a particular point of saving you were not part of the operation warp speed program, but the government did commit to buy $2 billion worth of the vaccine. in retrospect, now that we know -- do you think you should have persisted -- participated and you could've ramped up even more? albert: i think it's an
12:45 am
relevant. first of all, let me be clear. it's not that we are not part of operation warp speed because we are discussing with them in every form that we can find useful. we didn't take a single cent from anybody and as a result we didn't follow any recommendations and protocols -- it's all developed by our scientist. the reason i did it was because i wanted to liberate our scientist from the bureaucracy that comes together and you accepting money from a government organization. we didn't take money from anyone. also i wanted to keep pfizer out of politics. even without taking the money, you see what's happened. we are company that is very well known. this whole thing will cost us $2 billion, if we were unsuccessful , we would have to write off $2 billion.
12:46 am
this is painful for any corporation, but it was not going to break us. on the contrary, if we were successful, the fact that we -- notdependent and we only good service to us. i don't regret a single moment that i didn't do it, and i wouldn't regret it even if we had failed. >> i want to go back to something you been saying for months, which is the issue of testing and what a mess testing has been in the united states. i talked to dr. fauci about this earlier. are you of the view that we ,hould be doing massive effectively surveillance in the united states, or at this point, given what we hope is going to be coming quite soon in the form of vaccines? bill: even if we get reasonable coverage say eight or nine months from now, there's a lot
12:47 am
of lives still to be saved between now and then. over 250 thousand lives are potentially at risk in terms of both our behavior and using the testing data to quarantined. so whether it's schools or theing homes, yes, continued scale up of the test, getting the results back quicker, and now there's a very complicated thing of understanding where the whereled antigen test, those are appropriate and where they are not. because that's the main thing, otherwise there's a gradual increase. there may be a few breakthroughs in january and february that get out in time. we've got the self-test idea, which is the thing that our foundation proved out that can help a lot. so testing is still very
12:48 am
important, and likewise, getting these monoclonal antibodies out as a therapeutic, which you need to give the patient fairly early , that is also super important. if we had one wish, it would've been the vaccine, but we also still have wishes about getting those antibodies to reduce deaths up to 80%, and reducing the infection rate in the 8-9 months before we get widespread dosage, even in the united states. can test fornk we anybody's before distributing the vaccine, given the limited supply we may have? bill: no, if the anybody tests -- is probably not as perfect -- protective as protection.
12:49 am
we should give the vaccine to everybody, independent of whether they feel they were infected before hand. albert, can you weigh in on that issue as well? i've seen people suggest that as a way to deal with how to approach distribution. health authorities are responsible and accountable for every country in every state. they should design programs, how they can use the available doses. i agree with bill that it's not for me to make this decision. moreld start giving it to vulnerable populations and first-line responders, but again, as i said, the process should be tailored by the states and for state governors to make cdc.operation with the >> i want to ask two other
12:50 am
questions before we pivot off the vaccine question. this, mra.d to when you look into the future of what this -- what these results represent, what do you think the greatest opportunity is here? first ithis is the isnk confirmation and it confirmation of the power of technology. i believe the technology has a lot to offer. the vaccines, for example, and other medical applications, against cancer, for example. i'm very optimistic that pretty soon we will start seeing a lot of follow-up innovations that thebuilt on the basis of
12:51 am
successfully proven vaccine. >> as happy as we are about the vaccine, there have been questions raised about some of the stock sales that pfizer and yourself are engaged in as part of the pre-plan -- i appreciate and understand that you put that in place last winter, but you reaffirmed it in august, and i wanted to ask about confidence and credibility, saying whether you think it was a mistake not to have ended that program, given the conversation questions being asked now. understand, because this comes with the territory. always there will be things that will be criticized. have 27 years with pfizer, and something you don't know is that this is the first time i ever
12:52 am
sold any pfizer stock. so for 27 years, i accumulated the stock. ofet this up in february i said i wanted for the first time in my life to sell shares. and i renewed the plan with the exact same conditions and i did it for one year. in fact on monday, i didn't know that i sold the stocks. i didn't sell as an administrator. i never saw the stock price when askingor the price i was . me, it's because for i became some that
12:53 am
famous, and from a hero to what you saw in one day. i was very happy, then i was devastated and i saw what was written. i wish i didn't have to deal with that, but as i said, it's coming. it comes with the territory. you change the program going forward? meaning are you going to end the program? albert: i don't have any other program right now. that was the first i ever did in my life. that's a first time that i ever .old any shares thene final question, pharma industry has long been considered a villain oftentimes in washington and in the public sphere. changethink that will
12:54 am
with the vaccine, will it change the perception of the people in the industry that you work in? and i thinkpe so, this represents a unique opportunity to reset the value proposition in the perception of people to society. but i would necessarily to clara victory. i think there are many more things we need to do because is lost in buckets. i hope we will continue doing the miracle, and i hope that people will see -- will be a little less suspicious about conspiracy theories, as you discussed before with bill. this country is the crown jewel of technology. we will get the recognition and reputation that we deserve. there is no other interest in my
12:55 am
life, there is no other industry that produces so much benefit for humanity than this issue. albert, i want to thank you very much. i know you're going to jump off, but we will stick with ill and heidi. -- bill and heidi. some of the projects are working on strike to get people to take the vaccine, the reason i ask about this, in particular, some of the specific efforts you are engaged in to try to get this out on a grassroots level. one of the things we've been talking about is the idea that is not necessarily going to come from the president of the united states, it may come from a pastor, from your local doctor, from people that live in your community. and what do you think has to be done to accomplish that, especially in places where there seems to be so much resistance? heidi: i think actually, bill would know this. covidrned a lot with the
12:56 am
eradication issue about getting as local as you can and really getting in and listening, in some cases, to religious leaders. somewhere else, it might be the teachers. ishink when the top distrusted -- even when there is clarity at the top, you still want to build that community is, aum, and the reality lot of the distrust and the people who are believing more and are more anxious are in communities which are not going to follow national guidance. they're not going to be following who guidance. they want to hear it from their neighbor. >> there are certain jobs that people have where it's required that you take the vaccine. do you think that employers, especially in places like the united states, should require
12:57 am
it, and that will create more compliance or will you get further\? compulsion in general, particularly in this current environment, there's not a lot of appetite for compulsion . i think there's a lot of resistance to the idea of control in general. but there are a lot of precedents, as bill mentioned earlier, forgetting your certificate for certain things, whether it's to work in hospitals, to go to school, so it's much more setting based then a government requiring it more broadly. it's so you don't spread to the virus.e so it's feasible, but i don't think we are there yet, because also we don't have enough supply ready to deliver. when you demand something, you
12:58 am
need to have the supply to be requiring everyone to take it. >> before we continue the rest of the conversation i want to talk about therapeutics and what you think will be happening over the next period. we have polling her tens of thousands of people have the ability to answer a pole. the conversation we just had, if the fda approved a pfizer or madonna vaccine, would you take it? but here's a question, would you take it in the first month? hopefully at the end of the conversation we will come back and talk about the result. we talked a lot about the vaccine, but let's talk about the importance of therapeutics and what you actually see on the horizon. what are the most interesting ones out there, and how part -- important?
12:59 am
? will they ultimately be to all this? therapeutics area has been a disappointment. we can divide therapeutics into the early stage that mostly -- or the late state -- late stage that moderates the immune reaction. that's a study early on had over 30% benefit. the early stage -- [indiscernible] surprised we haven't had more. the one thing in that category that is actually very exciting is monoclonal antibodies.
1:00 am
authorization 4.7 gram infusion of the single anybody just a week ago. now we are working with him to so you could avoid with ausion and just go shot of .3 grams. up a lotes scaling it easier because infusion is difficult, even in the u.s. because we don't have a lot of capacity for that. so i'm very hopeful about that. reserved a we factory to make this anybody so that we would have the capacity to get it out to countries and in the next month we will see if this simple formulation of .3 grams, does that work as well as the .7 grams we got approved. >> this may be counterintuitive, but if you are successful, does that mean -- doesn't mean that
1:01 am
people will take the vaccine. if people think they can walk into cvs and take a different drug, is that going to change the dynamic? bill: if the anybody was like 95% or 100% effective, then yes. but it won't be, it will be more like 80% effective. so i think people know not to roll the dice unless they get infected themselves and hope that the antibody will save them. with hiv, the medicines are so effective that we do have this challenge with that, but i don't think we will see that in this case. >> i just want to understand social media. bill on social media as part of this whole situation, and i wonder what you think the social media companies, i should tell you, that mark zuckerberg and jack
1:02 am
dorsey are testifying today virtually what do you think theyo ? heidi: i think they have an absolutely key role in reining --the application amplification of these very damaging and harmful misinformation that is out there. i think it's a challenging thing in terms of, not everything is so straightforward like drinking chlorine to cure you. i mean, that is explicitly harmful and they can take that down. but there's a lot of very ambiguous questioning that's much more difficult from a freedom of speech point of view, as well as ethically to take down. but what they can do is clip it off of the back edge, so to speak. it's really, what's different between now and these
1:03 am
anti-vaccine leaks in the 1800s is the rate and the speed and the amplification, beyond what anyone who puts out there really even realizes. so i think that's where there is a critical role. because what we see even with the cards and the flagging of misinformation in the campaign, what happens is, when the anti-groups and the ones propagating the misinformation see that one of these companies is restricting what's on the face end, they just move. there's plenty of alternatives these days. plenty of other places. i think we have to be strategic or encourage them, let's see what they have to say about that, but that's what i would say. they a platform that should have free and unfettered speech?
1:04 am
the number of messages that originated on those services or gigantic. some of them are more the nature of a small group of people you know well. large are like publishing groups, and asking them to be the arbiter of all these things is pretty tough. the extreme stuff, like you and on or certain other conspiracy or otheranon conspiracy theories, they have been more active in recent months, particularly about medical misinformation. some election misinformation, too, but hopefully we are past most of that. but i think they have a very tough job. they should see things that are catching on in a kind of exponential way and they should
1:05 am
pay particular attention to, including being able to mark and you should read that this is believed to be false. i think we are sort of finding , either leave it alone all the time or strict liability, which if you have strict liability, it's not her that they can even stay in business. fascinating that is parler.ise lately of even if you have some companies voluntarily try to manage this, you have others who may approach it in a very different way. you lived with the regulatory be in washington before, but do you think ultimately regulation is required? regulation.will be
1:06 am
at least when someone goes to i like they are saying crazy stuff, i'm over here. so you're not taking the mainstream thing as far as a family -- how family stays in touch. to,e literally going over what's the craziest thing that anyone is saying? so it's a choice you are making. if you want holocaust denial, parler is going to be great for you. facebook services are the primary way people access news and they get brought into more and more extreme stories, including some of these vaccine are conspiracy things. that person who hasn't started stuff,ing i want crazy they see things that are titillating, and that's where it's almost a human weakness and
1:07 am
so deciding how much we should make that less common, it's tough. the anti-vaccine movement has always been there. fortunately, it has mostly been on the fringes. when we need a lot of people to understand about the and somewherels, in the hierarchy to have someone who can talk to them about the benefits vastly outweighing the risks. >> before we in the conversation, i just want to talk a little bit about what you think will happen to society after this. heidi, if you can speak to what happens after pandemics of other sorts, and how does it change societies. is it something it's going to come and go and hopefully we can all forget about it? heidi: i don't think this will be forgettable. i think there's going to be like
1:08 am
before and after covid, if we have an after covid. i think this is up there with h1n1.18 it's marking history. how it changes us as a society, it's absolutely changing. i think people are rethinking the way they work. interestingly, it has accelerated the use of technology in different ways. book calleda "stuck." i talk about the digital revolution and how we get through this. we are kind of stuck. what has happened with covid is, because we are so dependent on it, is made people who were hesitant to go there, certainly in universities and other places, authorities were not usually -- not using it for more than appointment reminders are
1:09 am
kind of forced to use it. so the transition i was talking about in my book that may take a while is actually been accelerated. other things have taken a toll, and in a way, it has been traumatic. so i think it will change us. i think we are yet to see how it will change us. >> talking about change in us, you wrote about this, by the way in one of your first books about what you thought the world was going to look like, and it's starting to come true, maybe not the way you expected it, in terms of people moving out of big cities, going to other places. do you think this is a long-term aren'tnon, that people going to go to meetings in person? if your salesperson or some kind gobusiness where you have to
1:10 am
kiss the ring of this client, and if one person gets on a plane of the next person is going to have to get on a plane, and then we are back to where we were pre-pandemic. bill: my prediction would be traveler 50% of business and over 30% of days in the office will go away. that now that it's not the gold all the, and yes to fly way here to sit in front of me, you can do the virtual connection. it will be a very high threshold for us to take that business trip, and there will be ways that you can work from home a lot of the time. companies will be extreme on one end or the other. i just don't like talking to african leaders. there are so many conferences in europe that you are expected to
1:11 am
come to, and yet in their country, it's so important, like their education or health system collecting taxes or just stability, and yet they spend half their time on all these trips. the fact that now we can go in and do a 20 minute call about what's needed, touch base with them again, it's been pretty impressive how a lot has gotten -- there is ag ceo roundtable and we used to fly to new york for that. we've done five of those this year, all virtually, to talk about how the industry is working together, and communicating about how they see their role. the office,o to some will do some business travel, but dramatically less. >> have you made any new friends
1:12 am
or business friends since all of this began? i will ask both of you. bill: the fact that the software doesn't have any sort of serendipitous thing the people you run into after the meeting or gathering, there is some work to be done there. i haven't runo, into somebody and made a new friendship. so yes, there is something missing there. >> heidi, have you made any new friends during the pandemic? researchth the kind of i've been doing, which involves a lot of social listening, it hasn't so much been in a friend capacity, but i've met a lot of other researchers and a lot of other people trying to do innovative things. that has been great.
1:13 am
people that i might not have looked for, there has been more of an urgency to find other people trying to figure out this problem. and that's been quite interesting. up, we askedwrap people on a scale of one-five, meaning most would agree they would take the vaccine within beingrst month, 1-5, five that would absolutely do it, one being that absolutely wouldn't do it. what do you think this audience wants to do? bill: 3.8. heidi: that would take it the first month? 50. think
1:14 am
probably 40. >> 40%? heidi: yes. >> you're both very close. i think bill is going to be the winner. you're good at numbers. 3.63. bill: this is a fairly elite audience, so it will be very interesting to look at a more broad number and what went on there. then i think the number would be lower. >> fair enough. ill, heidi, i want to thank you for this opportunity for joining us. i want to thank everybody for joining us virtually. this is one grand experiment for all of us. fabulous number of
1:15 am
sessions plan, elizabeth warren and others tomorrow morning, starting with jamie diamond. we hope you will join us for all of those. heidi, bill, thank you once
1:16 am
>> former president barack obama live monday at 11:30 a.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. ♪ john we are back with cribb, historian and author of the historical novel "old abe."


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on