Theology in the Raw - 793: Covid-19 and the Politicalization of a Pandemic: Another Conversation with John C. Bivona

Episode Date: May 25, 2020

Due to the incredible response I got from John’s first appearance on Theology in the Raw (Ep. 788), I had to have him back on! John is an infectious disease expert at the University of Chicago and he gives us an update on the virus. We talk about lockdown versus reopening, the probability of a second wave, the politicalization of the whole mess, what churches should do as they reopen, and much much more. John has over 15 years’ experience working in high containment laboratories (BSL3) with high consequence pathogens (i.e. anthrax, plague, highly pathogenic avian influenza, Brucella abortus), with an effective history of training lab workers, clinical care workers, first responders, first receivers and custodial workers to safely work with and control high consequence pathogens such as MERS, SARS and Ebola. Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. Did you know that I have dusted off and resurrected my YouTube channel? I've been producing a lot of content on my YouTube channel. If you go to YouTube and just punch in my name, press and sprinkle, it should bring you to my channel. And a lot of these episodes that you're listening to on Theology in the Raw are also available on my YouTube channel. So if you actually want to see the dialogue taking place between me and my guests, then check out my YouTube channel. Also, I am putting up lots of other things that aren't on my podcast. So I've started a whole Old Testament in the Raw series on my YouTube channel where I'm walking through

the Old Testament. Some of you remember when I was putting recordings of my Sunday school class up on Theology in the Raw before COVID-19 hit and all that got shut down. So I've been going back through and redoing my Old Testament in the Raw class. It's on my YouTube channel. As of today, I think I have the first six episodes up, which brings us right into Genesis chapter one. We're kind of entering our way through. So please check that out. Old Testament of the Raw on my YouTube channel, along with many other interviews, including the one you're about to listen to with John C. Bavona.

John C. Bavona is an infectious disease expert from the University of Chicago. He was on the show six weeks ago. And I reached out to John because I got such great feedback from y'all about that previous episode with John. And a lot of you said, when are we going to have John back on to give us an update on COVID-19? So that's what we did today. We talk about all kinds of things related to lockdown versus opening up the economy, to the politicalization of the virus, to any new advancements in science in the last six weeks since we last had John on. So I'm super excited about this episode. Please welcome back to the show, the one and only John C. Babona. okay we are live here on my youtube channel thanks for joining me i am here with my friend john vivona john thanks for joining me again on my YouTube channel.

Sure. It's a pleasure, Preston. Glad to be here. So I know a lot of people are returning, listeners, viewers, because we had a conversation five weeks ago, about five weeks ago, and I just got such tremendous feedback, great feedback from that conversation. So for those who didn't maybe listen to that previous conversation, could you just give a snapshot of who you are and why? You may not like to say it, but why I'm going to say, you know, I think you are an expert. You're an informed voice on COVID-19.

So give us the background of who you are and what you do, and we'll jump into our conversation. Yeah, sure. So I work for the University of Chicago. I am a senior biosafety officer. I work in a high containment facility. So they're technically called biosafety level three facilities. And we work with high consequence pathogens, you know, anthrax, plague, Brucella, Bordas, high path avian influenza. high path avian influenza. So my job is primarily, I got really two things that I do, but primarily is to do risk assessments on high consequence pathogens like anthrax, plague, and even now we're working with the SARS virus, the SARS-2, which causes the infection COVID-19. So my job is to do a risk assessment of the pathogen um and then i train researchers on how they can safely work with pathogen how they can work with the specific pathogen so some of the things that we look at look at and these are kind of buzzwords in in in culture now incubation period modes of transmission um personal protective equipment, how stable something, you know, a pathogen is in the

environment. So basically we do that risk assessment and then we send that information to the researchers who are doing the research. And the research that we're doing is looking for therapeutics, therapies, and ultimately vaccines for some of these high consequence pathogens. So that's, I've been at the University of Chicago for 20 years, and I've been in this research for about 15 years as a safety officer. And then in 2014, people may recall the Ebola outbreak. So the National Institute of Health called on people that worked in high consequence pathogens, high containment laboratories like myself, to go around the nation and train emergency responders, nurses, doctors, clinicians, you know, fire emergency responders,

any emergency responders, all the way down to clinical care, all the way down to custodians on how to say, how to safely work with Ebola. So you have the Ebola patient. Most people in clinical care are used to working with like bloodborne pathogens, but they didn't have a lot of experience working with emerging infectious diseases, you know, infectious diseases that were with high consequence pathogen. So we went around, we did the whole, you know, Washington, D.C. to fire department, and we trained these people on the agent, how it works, like we talked about a second ago, and how to safely don PPE and doff PPE. So you fast forward from 2014 to now, where just about every hospital, clinical care, doctor's office, you know, retirement home, they're all using procedures now that we have been working with and using for years and years.

We have standard operating procedures, step by step, how to put PPE on, how to take some off. And now that's, it's basically mainstream. So, so that's what, that's kind of a little snapshot of what, what I do. Okay. So we had a conversation, I think it was about five or six weeks ago and you gave, I mean, and I've been listening to a lot of different stuff from experts, from political pundits of both sides and just trying to get my arms around this conversation. I think my conversation with you was probably the most helpful. I just feel like I got just a really good, honest evaluation of COVID-19.

We talked a lot about, as you said, an area of expertise of yours is determining how contagious things are, whether it's contagious through aerosols, droplets, airborne. I even ask specific questions like if I'm walking by somebody, should I hold my breath? How effective are masks? That was five weeks ago. Have you changed, progressed, refined, or continued to solidify

different thoughts you've had on COVID-19 in the last five weeks? Because a lot, I mean, every week things seem to be changing. New studies are coming out. Where are we at now with this virus? Yeah, I think for me, it's been, I use the kind of analogy of like a camera, the old cameras where you see something and then you can focus and get a little better, little clearer picture. So I think since we've talked last, things have become more clear, but I do want to make sure that everybody understands that because it's a new novel virus, things are still evolving. It's still only been on planet Earth for six, seven months. So we do have a clearer picture, but there's still a lot to learn.

But I think kind of the take home right now that's really clear is that we know it's really – it's very infectious. Morbidity rate, they would call it. So we know it's really infectious. very infectious, morbidity rate, they would call it. So we know it's really infectious. The reproductive number, which means how many people one person can give it to, is between two and three. So that means one person can give it to two or three people. What we want is if that number is below one, then we know that the outbreak is slowing down. So we're not there yet. I say two to three, and I put a little asterisk by there because that's the best information that we have because of this asymptomatic cases. So there's between 20 and 25% of cases that

people have no symptoms, no fever, no cough, nothing. So that's what's really hard about that reproductive number, because there are so many people that have the virus that would never go to a doctor because they have no symptoms. So that's been made more clear. We know it's relatively low mortality rate. So the death rate is relatively low. You know, everybody's in the news. We do know the elderly are really taking a hit on that. So that's that's, you know, something that's pretty clear. One of the things that has has been this has gotten even clearer is it's a thing called pre symptomatic shedding.

So let me explain that a little bit. So with the flu, usually you are most infectious to transmit the disease about three to four days in. Okay. So your viral load goes high, right? The virus builds in your immune system. And then as it peaks, that's when the most virus will come out where you can transmit it. With this, a lot of the studies now are showing that the pre-symptomatic shedding is really high. So before you have symptoms, before you have a cough, before you have fever, that is in a lot of cases where the peak of where you can transmit it. So that's a really big can transmit it. So that's a really big difference between flu. So that pre-symptomatic shedding is different, the

asymptomatic we talked about. So kids still in general have been pretty healthy. There have been some recent cases of kids that have had some greater autoimmune system, you know, symptoms. of kids that have had some greater autoimmune system, you know, symptoms. Not a big number, but there are some small numbers. So we got to kind of keep our eyes, be very intentional about looking at kids. And then finally, we talked a little bit about the recent, about aerosol transmission. So there has been some recent studies of aerosol transmission. But the question is, is it an actual aerosol or were they micro droplets? So last time we talked about droplets versus aerosols. Well, now they've even refined that droplets to droplets, which are bigger in size. So if you think about a quarter, not to scale,

but a quarter size, and then about six feet, everything drops, you know, with gravity and the size. And then the aerosol we know are really small. They kind of float in the air like a smoke. Well, now we've kind of discovered with the more research about a micro droplet. So it's still a droplet, but they go further than that six feet and they'll stay in the air a little bit longer. So they're not like a gas where they stay in the air, but they'll go, they'll travel a little bit farther. They'll be in the air a little bit longer. So they're not like a gas where they stay in the air, but they'll go, um, they'll travel a little bit farther. They'll be in the air a little bit longer, but then ultimately they'll, they'll, uh, you know, they'll drop with gravity. Okay. So of those, those recent studies of aerosol, people in restaurants and stuff like that,

um, overseas, they're not sure if it was aerosol or it was a micro droplet. So that's still to be determined. But I think just to kind of answer your question in a nutshell, I think things are starting to get a little more clear. That's not to say it can't change. I still have some questions about that as things start opening up now. For instance, my wife and I, we had our 19-year anniversary last night. So we went out to dinner, first time in a restaurant. Things in Idaho have opened up.

We're in stage two. But things are really spread out, right? I mean, tables were, it was actually really nice. It wasn't loud. It was kind of chill. We had a lot of, you know, good attention from our waitress. And is that, if you're inside, if we're inside a restaurant for an hour, hour and a half,

we're spread out, we're social distancing. Is it still more likely that we can catch something in the restaurant? Are we at higher risk than say walking by somebody on the street? The fact that we're in a closed environment, even if we are social distancing, or is it still, yeah, you're putting yourself at risk or is it like, well, it may be a tiny bit of risk, but it's not that big of a deal. What would be your thought on going out to a restaurant that's spread out? Right. Into the weeds a little bit. So obviously if you're outside, your risk is lower, right? Inside, I guess it would depend all on the airflow. So say there was someone that was infectious, you know, at table A and you were table B and airflow was

going that way and there was a cough and, you know, airflow was going towards you and you had those micro droplets. So it's low risk but i think it would just kind of depend on the situation but obviously um um we call it um you know time and separation so the further you're away um and the length of time um is going to reduce your risk right we can't eliminate it but we can greatly reduce it by if you're sitting at a table six feet away okay um and what about but yeah outside even even chicago they're starting to you know talking about opening it up and they're talking about closing down streets and making the streets um that are adjacent to restaurants part of the restaurant so they can do more outdoor seating okay so they're just kind of

thinking through that now related to that i'm still getting really confused about the whole mask conversation especially since it seems to have gotten politicized almost moralized um and maybe that's a good thing i don't know but like you know at first you know it was like oh yeah masks they you can't get sick if you're wearing a mask. Then when that pandemic hit, it was like, well, masks don't really do anything. And then it was like, you have to have an N95, otherwise it doesn't work. And then like, but don't get one because the doctors need it. Now they're like, you must be wearing a mask. And then they say, well, you can still get it with a mask, but you can't give it to others. So I'm just like, where everything keeps kind of changing or adding, like, can you tell us like tell us, what do we know about the mask?

Should we be wearing a mask in closed corridors or social distancing enough? Right. So two things. The first thing, before I answer your question, I think we might get into a little bit later. But when things change like that, that's where trust goes down, right? So and I understand that. But just to tell people that when you're dealing with something where it's a pandemic, as new things are going to change, but I think when people

see different opinions and things change and people aren't clear, you know, public trust goes down. And I think that's just, for lack of a better word, ignorance, where people didn't know the difference between a respirator and a mask. But in general, masks reduce your risk, right? So it doesn't eliminate it, but it reduces. Okay. So primary reason we wear a mask, again, is to keep your secretions contained inside your mask, right? So that's primary. Secondary, it does reduce your risk when you have a mask on. So if you think of someone

to spit in your face, to be kind of blunt, it's not going to eliminate it, but it's going to reduce it, right? If someone was coughing droplets in the area, it's not going to, it's not like a respirator. It's not going to eliminate it, but it could reduce it. Real quick, would it be fair to say it would highly reduce the risk of catching a droplet, less it would not reduce the risk of an aerosol? Would that be, like if I'm wearing a handkerchief, here's another question I have. Before they used to mock people saying,

look, if you just put a handkerchief around your face, that's not going to do anything. Now they're like, hey, just wear a handkerchief. And it's like, well, which one is it? So like droplets, just the logic of that. Obviously, if somebody sneezes and I'm having something covering my face, it's going to block that. But I can understand an aerosol. It's like, well, air is still coming through. So I would imagine it's not going to filter out an aerosol.

Would that be an accurate assumption? Absolutely. Okay. 100%. Okay. Right on. Okay. You're a junior biostatist.

set okay right on okay you're a junior biostat and i keep hearing it's it well i've heard people say i guess contrary to what you said you know it doesn't reduce your risk it reduces the risk of you passing it to others is there kind of a receiving passing yes i don't want to remember it's not eliminate right it reduces it right so that's, yeah, I think common sense along with the science will tell you if someone spits in your face or sneezes in your face, you're not going to get 100% of those droplets. Some of them are going to be stopped. The majority of them will be stopped by a mask. So it's not going to eliminate it. It's not going to eliminate your risk. It's going to reduce your risk.

So you would recommend in a building, in a closed quarters, social distancing plus mask just to reduce. You're not going to not get it, but it will reduce it. If I'm out walking my dog and I'm no more than 20 feet away from somebody passing by on the other side of the road, I don't need a mask. That's irrelevant, right? Yeah. In general, I want to stay away from absolutes here, but yeah, in general, 99%, yes. When I go jog, I don't jog. My wife will laugh at me if I say that. But when I go walk in and she's jogging or I'm riding the bike and she's jogging, we don't wear masks. But there are some places you're going to see universal masking, meaning everybody wears a mask no matter

what. So I think if you think individual masking, it reduces the risk. But if you think of public health where you have thousands of people, maybe in a hospital setting, then you're really you're it's not one to one, but now you're really reducing larger groups of people from contracting a disease. So so, yeah, you're going to see universal mask in Illinois. You, you go outside or you go to a public place, mask. Okay. And he commended. Okay. For those of you, for those who just joined us, I'm talking to John Bavona of University of Chicago. He's an expert in infectious diseases. I want to get to the whole political, politicalization of this whole conversation,

because I think that's, I don't know, with states opening up, I just seen the rhetoric, the partisan rhetoric just be really amped up. And depending on which news source I read, I feel like I'm living in two different planets. Before we get there, though, there's a new study you mentioned offline that came out that's really important. Can you tell us about that study? I think it's from the CDC. Yeah, this will open up, I think, a lot of questions. But I think this is kind of where we're going. So there's a Centers for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.

Centers for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. So I am part of my CV also is that I'm a registered biosafety professional with International ABSA. So that's American Biological Safety Association. So these are the biosafety experts from all over the world. We do conferences, best practices, stuff like that. So there is a group, like I said, Centers for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. So their expertise from epidemiology, virology, bacteriology, microbiology, all the best people in regards to biosafety. So what they did is they came out with a study, and it's been on the news a couple times, but let me just kind of give you the summary. But they looked at the last eight pandemics,

starting with 1918 flu. And they wanted to look for similarities, you know, different scenarios of how they peaked, when they peaked, if they repeat. So before I get into that, cause this is a good broad picture. Uh, most of us are Americans and, and we just think American, but this was just focused on Northern hemisphere. I wasn't focused on the Southern hemisphere. Um, so as bad as it is, or it could be here when there's outbreaks in Southern hemisphere, you think about the infrastructure that we have compared to them as, as night and day,

right? Comorbidity, so meaning other stuff that could lead to death, you know, Northern Hemisphere, you go to Southern Hemisphere, you talk about HIV, TB, malaria, malnutrition, you know, they have chronic respiratory diseases. So this study is just for America, Europe, kind of, you know, the Northern Hemisphere, because it's, so what we see, what I'm going to give you some scenarios, what it's going to look like there could be, you know, extremely worse. So they came up with a couple different scenarios, but this is based on if we don't come up with a safe and effective vaccine. So keeping that out, because that could be a game changer.

A little bit about vaccines, though, is that's what I do, right? So vaccines, I know there are some very ambitious conversations in the media by, you know, by even the president and about 21, you know, 2021, they will be very ambitious. You know, it's possible. Probability might be, you know, if I think of probability, 51%, not probable, 49, it's probably not probable, but it's possible, especially with the number of facilities that are working on it, right? So there's been tons of funding that have gone to research facilities. So that will increase, you know, the probability of getting a safe and effective vaccine. So with this study, they're saying, hey, we're not going to get it.

So of the eight pandemics, seven of them had early peaks followed by a bigger peak about six months later. So they talk about going back to normal, what that would look like without a vaccine. So you got to remember, they talk about herd immunity. So I'll talk a little bit about that. But that is basically when the herd, the majority have immunity. So if you don't have a vaccine, the only way that is going to go back to normal is when the majority of people have it and become immune to it. So the percentage is a little varied, but it's usually between 60 and 75 percent of the population need to get herd immunity. And then we're back to normal. So we're about 10% now.

Okay. So this study says it's about 18 to 24 months to get herd immunity. So that's two years, a year and a half to two years. So think in that. So there's some background information on that. So let me give you the three scenarios. Okay. You good?

Well, I was just going to say, so you're saying herd immunity plus vaccine are both probably not going to happen in four to six months. I mean, it's going to be 2021 best case scenario probably. That's correct. Okay. Yeah. And I'm going to give you all three scenarios that they give based on all the last eight pandemics. All of them go to 2021. None of them are done in July. And then it's like a light switch and we're up and running. So the first one, we'll kind of go through these quickly, but the first one is called peaks and valleys. So the first wave is what we're

going through now. And then we'll be followed by repetitive smaller waves until 2021. All right. And it'll vary by geographical location. So obviously you're in Boise. I'm in right outside Chicago. It's going to look a little bit different. The second one is called the fall peak. And that's what we talked about a little bit earlier. But it's one wave that we're in now, followed by a bigger wave, four, five, six times bigger than we're in.

That was consistent with 1918 and the 1957 pandemic. And then after that, we have smaller waves until 2021. And then the final one is called the slow burn, where we have the first wave that we're in and then for the next year and a half it's just there's really no pattern maybe little peaks little valleys but it just kind of slow burns until you know 2021 and again that would vary by geographical location okay so i think the take home is that for mentality preston is not a light switch and i know we like this in America. We like on, off, open, closed, you know, black, white. I think the mentality more has to be a dimmer switch, right? So a little bit open, a little bit closed, maybe a little bit more open, fall peak, come

again. I don't know what society will do. There's going to be some governments if we have a bigger peak that are going to shut everything down so those are kind of the scenarios that we're looking at and i think it's pretty pretty realistic there's always the hand of god that comes in right so that's the wild card that's the ace that um where we have um where it just, to quote Trump, it just disappears, right? So that's possible, probably not likely. But I think the mentality is that dimmer switch. Okay. So related to that, I guess, then, what are your thoughts then on slowly reopening? I mean, I think all 50 states now, last time I checked, have some kind of reopening happening. My state, we didn't really shut down that hard. Idaho and people move to Idaho because they don't want to obey any authority outside themselves.

so I mean we're by nature a lockdown probably wouldn't even have worked here but our lockdown was really mild our cases were very low we had a big outbreak up in the mountains and a small mountain town had a high I think I had the highest highest at one point infection rate per capita more than New York it was off the chart it was kind of contained and then you know I live in the most populated part of Idaho Boise and this this whole area. And we've had, it's been fairly mild. Our opening up strategy is, I think, pretty balanced. I think it's good. I think we have a four stage thing. So far, we're in stage two. Things don't seem to be, you know, the hospitals are empty. Anybody can get a test. There's, you know. There's more tests available than people getting it. People seem to be social distancing pretty well. Anyway, and I know each state's different. Florida and Georgia, you know, apocalypse that was going to happen because they opened up too early hasn't happened yet. Maybe it will, but it's given some people hope.

Other states I know like California or Southern California at least, you know, you can't even sit on the beach even if you're 100 yards away from somebody. To me, it doesn't make sense, but I don't, you know, I'm not an expert. Anyway, that's, you know, so I'm trying to, as a non-expert looking at all this stuff that's going on, then all the political rhetoric that's thrown into it is just like, and I'm nonpartisan. I don't have any investment on either side. I might have some values that would be more progressive, some more conservative, whatever. But like I could, I don't, which, you know, Babylonian tribalism doesn't really interest me. I'm an exile here. What are your thoughts on reopening and the politicalization of it all? I know it's a big question. Yeah, no. And I'm right here.

I'm, you know, five miles from the border of Illinois. So Illinois and Indiana have different. I think that Indiana is a little more less conservative where they're starting to open up. Actually, the 24th, I think we go to phase three, which I think that's 50%. Don't quote me on this, but they're opening up more restaurants to more people, still social distancing and stuff like that. They don't require masks. And then, so that's Indiana. And then Chicago or Illinois, I'm sorry, is opening up to like a phase two where they're starting to open up some restaurants, um, first. So I think as long as it's done, um, you know, um, I like, I like the phased approach, you know, that way you don't overwhelm stuff. But, um, so I think that's a good thing, you know, with the dimmer switch mentality, I think is my opinion is a good thing. Um,

I mean, you got to open up sometime, especially if, if, so if the public health people are telling us it's going to be two years, you can't stay closed for two years. Right. Yeah. So, um, but I think if it's done, you know, with intention and, you know, with, uh, in a responsible manner, I think it's good. Okay. Um, but I understand that if you get into, if you're in an urban area like Chicago, where you have Michigan Avenue where, I mean, it, you can, on a Saturday in June, you could get a million people down there. I don't, you know, I don't know how that's not going to spread it, because one of the things with infectious diseases, we'll get political in a second.

One of the things with infectious, what they do is they infect. So it's not Republican or Democrat, conservative, Christian, Buddhist. I mean, it does. They infect, right? So there's people on the right, people on the left. But the virus is going to infect people, right? That's the germ theory. I hope everybody doesn't think that's a conspiracy, that germs cause disease and germs can get in your hands.

And so but we're almost at that point, I think, pressing politically where people will. There's some people that want to open up no matter what, 100 percent. And if people die, they're going to die. But they're not thinking that germs, people are going to get sick and die, you know, if you just go 100 percent. people are going to get sick and die you know if you just go 100 so yeah i think politically i think wow i think we're at a really we could be really at a dangerous point politically because so i vote you know i pray for the leaders but um as i said earlier i grew up really really kind of i'm a child out of the moral majority and the right, what is the majority, moral majority and the religious right. And then through the years, I'm like, ah, you know, starting to get

uncomfortable about, you know, them creating the kingdom of God on earth with their kind of thought process. So, so I'm, I vote and stuff like that, but yeah,, yeah, it kind of scares me on both sides politically because I see for sure, I see both sides. I see the president politicizing this. I see the Democrats politicizing this. I see the news media politicizing this. Where I see that, you know, just the death numbers numbers i see reports um and i'm not an investor i i don't know you know i can't validate either of them but there are there are people that are saying that you know the government's you know um the the numbers of deaths are way too high

and if you're covet 19 positive but you die of something else, they're still using those as the number. And then I see people on the other side in Georgia and Florida where they are suppressing the numbers so they can open up. So I am not naive at all to think that any political person on the right or left will not use this above, you know, the public health. And I believe that's happening, you know, and it's corrupt. Everything is corrupt. I remember one of the articles you wrote is that, you know, when there was a fall of man, it corrupted everything. And I know you kind of get into the sexuality thing, which is 100% true, but it's corrupted the right, it's corrupted the left, it's corrupted the churches,

so it's corrupted public health, it's corrupted the U.S. government. So it's just hard to listen to politics and not your level of trust just go in the cellar. So it's very political. And I don't think it's going to get any better. When we talk about these scenarios, wow, it's in fall. It's an election year. Yeah. Thank you for that.

And I couldn't agree more and i've got my own kind of political thoughts as kind of a spectator looking on at this kind of tribal thing um there's some questions coming in if you do have a question please uh go ahead and raise it i'll give you here's a couple statements uh that you might appreciate um number one this is the most this is much more sane than the nonsense that's out there so i appreciate that comment another comment john's one of the most level-headed guys when it comes to this topic um so This is much more sane than the nonsense that's out there. So I appreciate that comment. Another comment. John's one of the most level-headed guys when it comes to this topic. So the first question, though, is what's the latest on the life of antibodies in our system?

Do they have any idea how long they last? And are there any cases of second-time infections? I had that same question. If you get it, are you totally immune or not? Or where's the science on that right now? Yeah, I was just in a meeting this morning and we were talking about that because we don't know yet. It's more likely than not that you will build immunity antibodies when you've had it. It's just a question of how long will that last? antibodies when you've had it. It's just a question of how long will that last? Will it last?

And then it depends on the individual, but someone could build up enough immunity, enough antibodies where they wouldn't get it. And then it's possible because we don't have a lot of data that you could, it's possible to be reinfected. You know, we don't know that. I have heard people that I've known that have been reinfected and I do air quotes because the question is, is have they been reinfected? So they got it, they tested negative and then they tested positive or did they get it and they had a false negative which we know there's some tests where there's 50 false negatives so or is it that their viral load is really low where that test didn't detect it and then their viral load peaked and then and then they got it again so yeah so those I think it's more likely that people just had the virus the entire time. But it is possible that you could get it.

You could be positive, completely negative, and then positive. But I think it's more like a positive, false negative, starting to feel better. And then your viral load goes higher. And then you test positive again, if that makes sense. Yeah. So at the end of the day, we just don't have definitive scientific evidence either way whether you can get it again or whether just a test the measuring what the people that have gotten it again is even accurate is that that's fair to say um is it possible to get it, but the virus is just kind of dormant or it's like it's not like you can get it again, but it's not going to affect you?

Is that, did I read that somewhere? Or that you can't even pass it on if you do get it again, it's no longer infectious or something? Or is that? I don't know if you could, the question about passing it along, but what would be consistent would be is if you could get it could get it again, it's possible to be asymptomatic and you don't have any symptoms. Okay. But I do think it's more likely now I don't want to be absolute, but it's more likely that the person was still positive, but they tested negative and it would depend on the timeframe of positive on this date. They got released from the hospital on this date and then they were positive again. So if it was like in a two month span, I would probably say it was the same infection. They just were false negative. Okay. As opposed if I saw six months where they were

healthy for four months, then, you know, I would, I would think maybe they got reinfected. Okay. Next question here. why has the conversation shifted so severely from flatten the curve uh that inferred we're all going to get it but we can't uh but we can't all get it at once two we can't open until we find a cure that's a good question i i we have flattened the curve right would that be fair to say is that is that kind of beyond dispute that the curve has been flattened i keep hearing that the hospitals, I know in Idaho and even I heard in L.A., that there's – we can handle lots of cases now, it seems like, right? We have more ventilators.

That's another question too. There was a desperate cry for ventilators, and now it's like we have so many ventilators laying around, I heard, and they don't really do much. Again, and I don't know who to trust because all this is so politicized. But anyway, the flatten the curve thing. How are we doing on flattening the curve? And what is it? Yeah, I can't speak firsthand of Chicago, right?

So outside of New York and maybe a couple other locations in the country were probably one of the places that had a lot of numbers. So yeah, we flattened the curves. University of Chicago has a lot of numbers. So yeah, we flattened the curves. University of Chicago has a lot of beds. One of the things of going to phase two for Chicago was to make sure that we did that. So I'm assuming that if it was University of Chicago, which is one of the biggest medical centers in Chicagoland area, that we're good. So, but yeah, it has shifted. The conversation has shifted a little bit until two. And I have colleagues on both sides of this where it

was flatten the curve, and now it's shifted to no one gets sick or until we get a vaccine. And that's a really good question. And I think that the decision makers really should be a panel of experts and not just public health. But sometimes I mean, public health obviously has a big, big, you know, seat at the table, but it shouldn't be the only table. So because it could get political and it could, you know, where people are just like, no, we don't we're going to wait. Like Illinois, there's a couple of states that have said that they're not going 100 percent open or back to normal until there's a vaccine or herd immunity. And those both, like you said, it's not coming in five or six months. You know, so are you going to flatten that? You know, are you going to be off, you know, for 18 months?

So yeah, good question. Go. Here's where I'm going to get really annoyed and political maybe, and maybe totally ignorant. Okay. This might be totally ignorant, but here's a genuine question. Is there any human being who is a strong advocate of staying locked down much longer that doesn't have a job that's unaffected by COVID-19. I'm going to hear loads of media outlets, whatever, saying we need to keep locked down.

Let's wait until we get a vaccine. Every single, 100% of my anecdotal experience is, well, they have a job that's unaffected. They're not sitting home with no money coming in, children to feed, rent to be due, a pantry with no food in it and no job. I don't know a single person that's in that situation. It's like, yes, let's stay locked down indefinitely. That just seems like an elitist kind of statement. And I, and absolutely, I think there's an irresponsibility of just blowing open the doors and running around and kissing everybody in the

street or whatever. Like, I don't, I don't know anybody that's even saying that, but to not kind of explore some kind of mitigated, like we can't just stay in our homes indefinitely. And yet I need to make some money because I can't just sit around and starve to death in my home. Is that a fair assessment? I mean, what am I missing here? The people that are pro-, I'm not pro lockdown,

but hyper pro lockdown, they all have job security. It seems like. Right. And, and yeah, no, I agree. I think we always talk about in general, right. That universities are ivory towers, right. And they dictate what goes out to the, you know, the lesser man, you know, and because I, my loyalties, you know, are towards the kingdom of God and God, I see that, you know, there's no doubt that there's media. It's easier for the people on the news to say, stay home when they have jobs. It's easier for the people on the news to say stay home when they have jobs. It's easier for public health and researchers to say stay home when I have a job. You know, I haven't missed a beat, you know, thank God.

You know, but yeah, I think there's a lot of societal components, you know, where you talk about the elite, politics. And then there are people that need to work, right? You know, there are people that can't social distance. If you go into urban areas, you know, and you have three generation, three generations living in the same house in an apartment, tell them to social distance, right? It's impossible. You know, so there's health. So those are all components, you know, the virus is a component where it infects. One of the interesting things is that for some reason, this virus is, when it comes to severe symptoms, is very ageist and racist, where it's affecting the old people and it's affecting in general black and brown hispanic and african-american where it's really targeting other other factors but it's really targeting

those those populations so yeah there's so many different societal components that is really merging for like this possible perfect storm yeah you know I don't understand this is kind of the elitist thing I don't understand why a mayor or a governor can say that Home Depot can stay open to sell flowers or liquor stores can stay open. Yeah, right. But a small mom and pop business that is selling, I don't know, stickers or whatever, you know, whatever their product is, why can't they, why can't small churches open and still have the guidelines, you know, six feet, you know, wear a mask? That's just not consistent to me.

So that's related to our next question that came up. This question says, what advice would you give to a church as this, you know, the stages of opening up are coming into play? So similar to a business, as you've already said, it isn't logical to stay closed for two years if we follow the projected models you suggest. So for churches, as churches are able to open up in some areas, I know it's different depending on the state or even the county. What advice would you give the churches that are starting to open up? Yeah, that's a really good question and a tough question because they're almost at, you know, they're almost conflicting lifestyles. We have a virus that infects with close contact and church is about community. It's about hugging your neighbor and good to see you and shaking hands and seeing their face to face. So I wrestle

with this. You know, I've had a couple of churches reach out to me, my, my, you know, two churches that say, Hey, what do you, what should we do? You know, you have these federal guidelines, six feet, obviously that's going to be regulated. Like, Hey, you gotta be six feet. And, but just in regards to still meeting. So say you had a church of a thousand and you're going to go down to 200, 200, still a big number, you know? And, um, I mean, there's been a lot of churches on the news that have decided to meet and now they've closed because there've been outbreaks. Yeah. So that's a really, you know, I just think good practices, the best that you can do with six

feet, all the stuff that government does, six feet. Elderly, so that's another question. How hard is it to tell elderly people to stay home, Preston? It breaks my heart. I have an 80-year-old mom, and she can't go to church. I mean, she was widowed, and God was her everything. And she can't see anybody now, you know, so my, so those are tough, tough questions. I don't know the answer.

And from my vantage point, I just, I don't want to equate church with large gathering in a building. I'm not against large gatherings in a building i do them all the time but it would be linguistically and theologically inaccurate to say that um you know the federal government is is not allowing us to kind of be the church or go to the there's many different ways you can be the people of god without gathering together in a large setting inside of a building i mean when did that happen in the new testament it never happened actually all the large gatherings were outside and and maybe that's the i think there's probably possibly some maybe creative ways to to even gather outside and parking lots whatever you know it's uncomfortable whatever well yeah but if you know if you too i'll But if U2 – I'm a U2 fan.

If U2 was going to put on a free concert outside, everybody would go, right? So we could do something outside that might be a little bit uncomfortable. I don't know. Maybe it's not even – it's raining. Again, if U2 is playing a free concert and it started raining, bring an umbrella. I'm not going to miss a free concert to see Bono. So, I mean mean i don't know like i and we can take care of grandma we can love our neighbors we can take care of each other

without gathering together and having a worship service in in a in a building and again i'm not saying that anything negative towards that thing i you know i love large gatherings um it's not we can still we can't we haven't we haven't been shut down from being the church in this moment. Cause I'm, I'm also nervous about, there was a church in Northern California that started gathering and a huge outbreak happened. It's like, that just doesn't, that doesn't send a good message to the world that Christians are truly about loving the Nate,

our neighbors herself when we gather together a huge outbreak and now there's people spreading it and people are dying. And it's like that just doesn't make the church look good, right? So I don't know. It is a hard – I don't know. It really is a hard balance. I don't know I have the answer to it. No, neither do I.

Some people – what you're talking, theology, I agree 100%, but some people don't think like that or agree. They think it's a building. For whatever reason, they can't get out of that mentality, and then they're shut down. You're right. That's a tough one. Do you have any thoughts on when sports are going to happen again? I mean, I just, that has to be, I mean, on the one hand,

I can't imagine Americans going without like the NFL or, you know, whatever, any sport really for very much longer. And yet that's got to be the worst place for a virus to spread. Sitting in hard surfaces, crammed quarters and everything. Do you have any thoughts on that? I mean, I just, yeah, I don't know what's going to happen. Yeah, I listen to, from time to time, I listen to sports radio, and they're with, so the two questions are,

can sports happen or with crowds, fans? I don't see how fans are going to be able to, even if they're six feet distance. I mean, I'm not thinking that through you know but i just for public health i can't imagine you can get a hundred thousand people and say okay we're only going to take 20 000 people and put them in the stadium i'm like i don't you know i don't think so that's with the fans and then i just think then it becomes with the with the athletes with the athletes you know um so they can get tested like five times a week, but I can't get tested,

you know, so that's going to be a big political football, you know, pun intended, where how come these athletes can get tested five times a week and, you know, my grandma can't or, you know, so I mean, they're making plans plans it sounds like they're trying to make plans but i think we're still a ways away because there's so many logistics that they got to think through that aren't just football related and social distancing related have to do with kind of practically having testing and stuff like that so so i've got kind of a related question and this is really directly related to my life i guess guess, is, um, speaking to income and job and ministry and church and everything. I'm like my, most of my income ministry livelihood is connected to speaking at

gatherings, you know, conferences and a big part of our ministry, as you know, is doing leaders conferences. When would you, and I would say our, the attendance would range anywhere from a hundred and I think our lowest was like 130. Our biggest was 370. Do you see that happening in the fall? Non-worship, like Sunday worship gatherings, maybe inside a church at a hundred to 200 people, or would you say, yeah, I would probably say that's not going to be happening, at least until we get a vaccine? No, it depends on the state, obviously. I don't think, I would be shocked if Illinois and Chicago left churches of 100, maybe wrong. I know there's been, you know, some lawsuits and stuff like that to say, hey, if Home Depot can social distance and mask, why can't we, you know, a church? But Indiana, I think after July 5th, you can meet over

250 people with masks and social distancing. So yeah, I think if you can do it with a dimmer switch mentality, I think if you open up with some of the guidelines, it can be done safely. But, boy, I could see that turning into chaos, too. Yeah. I could see outbreaks happening. And then I even heard just some, like, Ford plants or different manufacturers said, oh, we're opening up, we're opening up. And then they had to close because they had 10 cases. Because what infectious diseases do, they infect.

So when you have groups of people, that's what's going to happen. And in the fall, I mean, you're saying there's at least a chance, perhaps a likely chance that some kind of second wave is probably going to flare up again, September, October maybe. Would that be a – Much more likely than not. Much more likely than not. Much more likely than that. Okay.

Okay. That's discouraging. What about, again, personal kind of question is international travel. My family and I, we saved up for a long time, planned this vacation, the South Pacific. I mean, it took a ton of work, ton of saving, canceled everything. It was the saddest thing. We love to travel. When are we going to be able to get on a plane and travel internationally?

Would you say that that's – I guess it depends on the country. Like, you know, if everything's still shut down in France, who wants to go visit France, you know? But do you have any thoughts on when? Yeah, I think that's not the question of when you can travel. It's when can you travel and not have to spend 14 days in a hotel room quarantining. So that's going to be the, I had a colleague, his dad passed away. He's from Taiwan. So he traveled to Taiwan and he's in a hotel room for 14 days and then they're going to do the,

you know, the funeral. So I think right now, I, wow, Preston, I don't know when that's not going to be – that's not going to happen if you travel internationally and you have to spend the first – so if you have a four-week vacation, go for it. But if you only have 10 days, again, it's going to be dependent on the country. And then depending on where you go, you might have to come back and quarantine for 14 days. Again, it's going to be dependent on the country. And then depending on where you go, you might have to come back and quarantine for four days. So is that a common, that's a common policy now in right now,

traveling internationally is a 14 day quarantine. I know like Hawaii and other places have that. Is that. Depending on the country. Yeah. But I think every country is going to have something consistent where if you want to come here. So I think it's, it's the idea is people that are going to stay for long periods of time. But for vacations, I don't know the exact answer. But I think if those regulations stay in place, I know the State Department has it for the United States, that you're going to have a time where you're going to have to quarantine. Okay. One more question, I'm going to, one more question. I'm going to have you finish this out with any final thoughts you have. So the final question is outbreaks don't equate

to death, right? Isn't the shift toward that becoming synonymous part of the issue that we're facing currently, or is that incorrect? Do I need to read that again? Or did you get the gist of that? Yeah, read it one more time. Well, let me reframeame it do outbreaks equate to death um isn't the shift toward uh dude can you restate your question i'm not gonna say your name he's a buddy of mine i don't know if you want me to well your name's on there right everybody can see it um do outbreaks equate to death like could there be a second wave, an outbreak, and the death rate to not just kind of explode? Sure, yeah, it could be both.

Because this is a virus, it could mutate. So you could have another – so we could have a fall peak and the mortality, the death rate be higher. But that's not likely. But it's just a numbers thing, right? The more people, the more deaths, we but it's just a numbers thing right you the more people the more the more deaths even though if it's what's a low mortality rate okay but yeah i guess it's yeah i think you're oh anytime you have an outbreak you're going to have

deaths but the number might be really small or the comorbidities that we talked about where if you had other issues they would add on you know so if you had other issues, they would add on. So if you had whatever the issue would be, the health issue could be a factor. From my vantage point, again, correct me if I'm wrong, obviously older people, people with underlying health conditions are much more at risk. Not that young, healthy people can't get it and even die from it, but the percentages are vastly different. It seems like now, you know, I know there was like a whole controversy

in the nursing homes in New York. I mean, I think I heard somewhere that if you add up all the deaths that happen in nursing homes, it's something like, correct me if I'm wrong, like 30%, 40% of all the deaths in happen in nursing homes it's something like correct me if i'm wrong like 30 40 percent of all the deaths in america something like that so i mean i think we now know like man we have to be vigilant not protecting nursing homes those with underlying health conditions old age whatever like if there was a second wave are we more prepared to make sure that the the percentage of deaths just don't really increase significantly?

Yeah. I think we have controls in place now for, you know, the elderly and long-term care facilities. There's controls. But I think people are, you know, there's workers that, that's really, it's the workers that bring it in and they don't have the right procedures or policies or they make a mistake. And then, you know, that's how it goes in. So I think that that mortality rate with the elderly once they get it will be pretty consistent. But I do think that we'll have better controls in the place when, you know, if there's another peak. Okay. Okay. John, any final words for us and our audience before we go?

No, I just appreciate it. I stress all the time when I talk to any people that are Christians to make sure that our loyalties and 30s we've always heard of epoch you know apocalyptic stories of not necessarily the end times but just bad times happening and and and those have happened from time to time in history right so if this is our season where we have to go through it let's be the light of the world let's let's bring the gospel you know to uh to a dying world that needs uh you know they, they need a superhero, they need a savior. So let's be the church and let's do that. Let's not get involved in all the crap, the political crap and science versus, you know, business and business versus this and Republicans versus Democrats. Let's be the church and let's use this time to really go forth.

So that's my final message. It's not really a, So that's my final message. It's not a science message. No, no. As passionate as I am about my job, I'm more passionate about the kingdom of God and leaving a legacy. That's an absolutely perfect word to end on. So you've been watching my YouTube channel. Thanks for tuning in, John.

Thanks for all of you who tuned in and asked some really good questions. Sorry we didn't get to all of them. If you're watching the recording, please subscribe to my channel, drop a comment in below if you have any further thoughts or questions about this interview. So until then, we'll see you next time on my YouTube channel, whatever it's called, Press and Sprinkle, YouTube, whatever.