Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Key Model Predicts 400,000+ Americans Will Die by January 1st; Medical Journal Publishes First Results of Russian Vaccine Trial; DHS Bulletin Warns Russia Amplifying False Claims About Mail-In Voting. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired September 04, 2020 - 07:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[07:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEW DAY: Well, President Trump does not want to talk about this worsening pandemic. Instead, last night, the president mocked Joe Biden for wearing a mask. He said it in a rally in Pennsylvania. Though the science shows very clearly masks help prevent the spread, help save lives.

Overnight, multiple sources tell CNN that the president has been ramping up the pressure on health officials to deliver, manufacture good news about a coronavirus vaccine. When? Before Election Day. The president is prioritizing his political fortunes over the nearly 187,000 Americans killed so far by this virus.

Joining us now is CNN's Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Sanjay, if we can, let's begin on this projection here, more than doubling the death toll by the end of this year. How reliable has this model been and what is driving this figure?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, these models are -- there's lots of models out there. This is one that's certainly the White House and lots of people have paid attention to. I can tell you, Jim, that I follow this model very closely and, in some ways, it is underprojected, which I know no one wants to hear.

But you may remember, Jim, even you and I were talking back in March, and at that point, they projected 60,000 people would die of this by August 4th, at that point. And we basically close to doubled that at that point.

So it is one of these models that takes into all sorts of different considerations. It's trying to rely on mobility data. It's projecting how much more mobile people will become, how likely people are to adhere to these basic public health guidelines, taking in the context that schools are reopening, colleges are reopening, all the things that we've been talking about and basically arrives at this number. So, it's pretty dire.

And as you point out, you know, there is a range here. Even if we start doing the masking, which we should absolutely do, I think that's become 100 percent clear. There are countries around the world that have adopted these public health measures who are measuring their deaths in the hundreds or even dozens, while we're measuring our deaths in the hundreds of thousands. At this point, even if we have near universal mask wearing, still, 100,000 more people would die, they say, by the end of the year, close to 288,000, total.

So it's a tough model to digest this morning, but it's been, if anything, a little underprojecting in the past.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN NEW DAY: Oh, my gosh, Sanjay, it's just incredible to try to wrap your head around the idea of 3,000 Americans a day, which is a 9/11-level of loss. I mean, as Jim and I were just saying last hour, at this point, we all know people who have gotten sick. I think we all know people who have died. And so the idea that we have to, in our head, double that for what's coming, I mean, we feel like we've just gotten through this crucible through the spring and summer, and now we have to ramp up for this level of death.

And, by the way, there's a worst case projection, as you know, Sanjay. I mean, as you say, the model looks at where we are now, and follows, if everything stays the same, the course that we're on. But they also look at if we become less vigilant than we are now and what's that look like?

GUPTA: Yes. I mean, you know, you hate to even say these things out loud, but there's the number. They say if we sort of go into more of a herd immunity sort of mode, where we really sort of back off and we say, you know what, we're just going to wait on the vaccine, we're good, they're saying 620,000 people by January 1st, which, again, I can't even believe I'm saying that number out loud, because there are countries around the world that do measure their deaths in the dozens or the hundreds, not the hundreds of thousands.

And it's really tough to digest as much as we've been talking about this, the fact that now, when we take all these various factors into place. And I've spent time talking with Chris Murray, who is with the IHME model team, about all the various factors they look at, and there's also. And, again, as they say, models are always wrong, but some are useful, and this is a useful one.

So we should pay attention and we should also take into account that, look, we're in a tough spot, right now, even if we start to say, hey, you know what, we need to get our act together at this point. Things are still tough, because, as Alisyn, as we've talked about, if you think of the United States as a human body, at the beginning, when there was very localized disease, it may have required less aggressive treatment.

It may have required three weeks of mask wearing and sort of shutting things down. But now, we're basically saying, hey, it's much more widespread. We didn't do the treatment we were told to do, but now we want to do a little bit of treatment and be as good as the other guys who are healthier now. Well, we don't have that option at this point. This is a more widespread infection now in the body of the United States.

SCIUTTO: I've always liked your use of that analogy, Sanjay. I think it helps people kind of get a sense of it. I want to ask about another issue, story today.

[07:05:01]

and that is CNN's reporting that the president internally is applying pressure on health officials to deliver possibly good vaccine news or even a vaccine by Election Day, and this, of course, consistent with some of the president's public comments. I asked Dr. Fauci yesterday whether he's confident science or politics will drive the process on the vaccine. I want to play his answer and get your response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Are you confident that data will make this decision?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Data has always been the thing that has driven me and my colleagues here at the NIH, as well as the FDA. The FDA and the CDC, their data-driven organizations. So I think the people can feel confident that when these data come in, they'll be examined appropriately and a decision made.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Sanjay, are you confident data will win the day?

GUPTA: You know, as you know, Jim, I have a ton of respect for Dr. Fauci and I think he has the toughest job in America right now, frankly. Look, the track record hasn't been good so far, and Dr. Fauci's job is to get us through this and our job is to look at these things with a degree of warranted suspicion.

There was not data that drove the hydroxychloroquine decision when the FDA authorized that under an emergency use, okay? There was faulty data that was sort of exaggerated when they authorized convalescent plasma. So, yes, Dr. Fauci is a data-driven guy. When it comes to the FDA, we can only go on with what we're seeing right now, not trying to beat up on them unfairly. But I'm just saying that if they're a data- driven organization, so far, in two big decisions regarding therapeutics, things that could treat this disease, they didn't look at data.

So I hope they do and there are outside agencies which are involved with looking at this vaccine data, independent data, safety monitoring board. I hope they will look at this and I hope they will share this data, frankly, with everybody. Me, I would like to look at this data. I think people should all be able to look at this data.

This is the biggest public health decision our world has ever faced. Everybody has got to be a part of this. This can't be done behind closed doors, this can't be done in any kind of cloak and dagger way, and it's imperative on every one of us not to sit this out.

CAMEROTA: Can you hold that thought right now, because we're getting some breaking news right now? The prestigious medical journal, Lancet, has just published the first peer reviewed phase one and phase two of Russia's vaccine trials. We haven't known much about what's happening in Russia other than they were working on one.

CNN's Matthew Chance is live in Moscow with the breaking details. What have you learned, Matthew?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, thanks very much. Well, you're right. I mean, Russia has, of course, become the first country, some time ago, to approve a vaccine, which it says is effective against COVID-19. Although, of course, the crucial third phase human trials of testing of that vaccine have not even really started yet, yet alone been completed. It's led to all sorts of criticism about whether the vaccine is safe or effective.

Well, I mean, this is a big step forward because what The Lancet, which is that very prestigious medical journal, has now done is published the results of the clinical trials for phase one and phase two clinical trials, and there's some positivity in those results. What the Russians are pointing out, we've only just had in the past couple of minutes, remember, the quite sort of in-depth report been published in The Lancet.

But, basically, it says that the Russian vaccine showed no significant serious adverse effects, which is good. So, as far as the tests are concerned so far, it seems to be pretty safe, according to the results for those phase one and two clinical trials.

The Lancet is also saying that the Russian vaccine generates an antibody response, a strong antibody response in the participants that took part in the trials, as well. And so those are all very big positives in terms of the concerns that have been expressed about the safety and the effectiveness of the Russian virus.

But The Lancet does go on. Remember, this is all about being peer reviewed. This is the first time the Russians have made public the results of their clinical trials. And what The Lancet says is that the studies, while they're encouraging, they're still very small, and the immune response, it says, bodes well, but is not demonstrated in older age groups. And, basically, the safety outcomes are reassuring, but the studies are far too small at this point to address the potential for rare serious events.

In other words, you know, in terms of whether this vaccine should have been approved or not, and The Lancet article addresses this, saying that the vaccine, licensing of the vaccine should depend on long-term and short-term efficacy and more complete safety data. And so, yes, at the same time, they're saying the results so far are quite encouraging.

The conclusion, I think, from the article in the journal was that it's still way, way too soon before third phase human trials have really even gone underway for this vaccine that Russia has already approved to be made available to the public.

[07:10:04]

But, of course, in Russia, that vaccine is already being given to frontline doctors and teachers. And today, within the past few minutes, the mayor of Moscow has gone on national television, saying he has been vaccinated, as well.

Alisyn, Jim, back you.

CAMEROTA: Okay, Matthew, thank you very much for all of that breaking medical news and fitting with everything we're talking about, Sanjay. And correct if I'm wrong. Does it sound like the U.S. is actually further along than Moscow? They haven't done phase three trials.

GUPTA: No. I mean, so there's a few trials that are further along. You know, the Moderna is one that people have been following for some time. Pfizer, as well, is another one. But look, this is the first time we're seeing data out of Russia, as Matthew mentioned.

I spoke to the spokesperson for this institute, the Gamaleya Institute, about a month ago. And at that point, as Matthew said, they basically suggested they had an approved vaccine. They did not. But they are, I think, pretty far along. These phase one, phase two trials are completed, they're going to start phase three now, which is what these other companies, such as Moderna and Pfizer, started over the last few weeks or a month ago. So it's coming along.

It's a different platform of vaccine, for example, than Moderna. Moderna is using what's called a messenger mRNA vaccine. This is using what's called an adenovirus vaccine, and that's a more sort of known vaccine platform. There are other platforms -- others vaccine out there that have used this adenovirus.

So we cannot know more about the way Russia is making this particular vaccine. And, look, this early data is encouraging, no side effects, it wasn't generating as much of the what are called neutralizing antibodies, as some of these other vaccines.

But this is -- what I would say, this is one definitely to pay attention to. It's not approved. People shouldn't take that away, even though that was sort of the headline several weeks ago, but they are going into phase three trials. And what I'm guessing they're going to do, sounds like, is, as part of their phase three trials, they're going to give the vaccine to high-risk people, health care workers, people like that. So they're going to sort of say, hey, we're giving it out, but it's actually still part of a trial.

SCIUTTO: What struck me is that, at this point, they're citing data on 38 adults, right? I mean, typically, phase three trials involve thousands of people, but you also have folks in this country talking about bypassing the completion of phase three trials. Why is that dangerous to skip that step when you test it on a large body of people?

GUPTA: Yes. And just to be clear, even in the phase two trials with some of these other companies, whether it'd be Pfizer, Moderna, typically, the phase two data is in the dozens of people, typically. So with the Russian trials, it was 76 total people between their two trials.

The reason it's important is that, right now, what we just have are sort of what we call correlative measures. You're doing these trials and you're measuring the neutralizing antibody effect in the blood. Are they making neutralizing antibodies or not? And if they are, move on to phase three. So that's good data.

But what you really want to know is does it prevent infection in lots of people in the community? Not just young, healthy volunteers, but older people, younger people, people with pre-existing conditions. And are there any unusual side effects that start to emerge? That's why you've got to do the phase three trials and you really got to analyze that data. And none of that anywhere in the world has been completed yet. So we've just got to keep that in mind.

SCIUTTO: That's why Fauci and others say, let the science drive the timeline, not the politics. Sanjay Gupta, so good to have you, thanks very much.

CAMEROTA: Thanks, Sanjay.

SCIUTTO: A warning from U.S. intelligence, Russia is amplifying claims that mail-in voting will lead to widespread fraud. Why does that sound familiar to you? Well, because, the president himself is sharing the same disinformation. We're going to discuss it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:15:00]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

Developing this morning, the Homeland Security Department is warning that Russia is amplifying false claims that mail-in voting will lead to widespread fraud. Why does that sound familiar? Well, President Trump has repeatedly said the same, without citing evidence, all of this with 60 days to go before the November election.

Joining me now is Jeh Johnson, he's the former Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama. Secretary Johnson, good to have you back.

JEH JOHNSON, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Jim, good to see you.

SCIUTTO: Let's talk for a moment, I would like your reaction, as someone who led this department. You have the DHS warning about Russia amplifying false information about fraud and mail-in voting. You have the president repeating that same disinformation, and, by the way, the attorney general doing the same as well. What does that mean for this election? Have you ever seen a sitting president repeat the propaganda that you're hearing from a foreign power, trying to sow distrust?

JOHNSON: Simple answer is no, Jim. Let's be clear, let's be fact- based. I have seen no credible evidence that mail-in voting leads to fraud. Frankly, I am much, much more concerned about the effect on our democracy by the Russian government as opposed to the United States Postal Service.

As recently as late July, our intelligence community has warned us about the disinformation campaign promulgated by the Russian government. They've warned again about the threat to our election infrastructure and the attempts to hack into the presidential campaigns.

And, frankly, that's where our attorney general and our president and our intelligence community and the rest of our government ought to be focused right now, on the direct threat presented to our democracy by foreign actors right now.

SCIUTTO: How does Russia take the absence of a clear public warning from the president, don't interfere in our elections, particularly two months out.

[07:15:05]

How do they take it?

JONSON: They take that as a green light, I'm sure. Look, the reality is that there is no complete line of defense when it comes to the threat of cyber attacks on our democracy. The only way you can stop it is to make the behavior cost prohibitive by the bad actor, to put in place sufficient deterrence on the bad actor.

The Trump administration has had now almost four years to be working on this, our intelligence community, my old department, DHS, has been screaming about this. And the president has yet to make a direct statement to the Russian government, to Vladimir Putin, to cut it out. And that's what's necessary. Our democracy is at stake here. This is an ongoing information opt directed at the American people.

SCIUTTO: I want to move on to another topic, and that is the question of racism, racism in law enforcement, racism in this country, because you had the attorney general to my colleague, Wolf Blitzer, just a day and a half ago deny, as the president has, that there's any evidence of such racism.

And I wonder, given that there's a lot of data, in fact, that contradicts that. But given your own experience at law enforcement and DHS, what's your response to that?

JOHNSON: Regrettably, there is ample evidence of racism in America's police departments. The video of George Floyd's life being snuffed out is exhibit A. And we see this over and over and over again. There are far too many people recruited to our nation's police departments who are not there to protect and serve but are there to act as the neighborhood bully, who do not appreciate the Black Lives Matter. This is an endless, far-reaching problem.

And at the national level, we need to begin to address this. It's up to mayors, police chiefs, city councils, to address it at the local level, but there does need to be a tone set at the national level, about this national problem. SCIUTTO: Yes. You've, of course, led DHS, and you've seen the deployment of DHS forces, for lack of a better term, in U.S. cities, particularly in Portland. The president is threatening to do such yet again. And he had support of many Republican voters. Under what circumstances is it acceptable and helpful, frankly, in your view, to see DHS officers deployed to cities in a law enforcement role?

JOHNSON: Good question. First and foremost, I would look to the mayor and the governor who have the principle responsibility for public safety in their communities, to deal with the situation. If they believe they cannot, then they call upon the National Guard under the control of a governor.

If that is not sufficient, then they should and they may request federal assistance either through a federalized National Guard or perhaps federal civilian law enforcement. But, first and foremost, I would look to the mayor and the governor to assess whether they believe they have what is sufficient to deal with the problem.

SCIUTTO: You know, as I'm speaking to you hear, I see those flags behind you, Johnson, you know, honoring service members. I would look to know more about that. But before I do, I just want a quote from this article in The Atlantic, quoting the president, in numerous encounters, dismissing the service of fallen heroes, whether they lost their lives or were injured.

I'm just going to quote one. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of a scheduled visit, this to Belleau Wood outside of Paris, sacred ground for U.S. Marines, Trump said, why should enjoy to that cemetery? It's filled with losers. In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 Marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as suckers for getting killed.

Given that the president in public comments has also dismissed those who have given the ultimate sacrifice or sacrificed their health and time, John McCain among them, but a gold star family during the 2016 election, what's your reaction to that? And what's the message that sends to U.S. service members?

JOHNSON: Jim, I don't know what happened in that room. I do know some of the players involved, Zach Fuentes, the Coast Guard officer, who reportedly advised the president not to take the helicopter used to be my junior military aide at the Department of Homeland Security. He then became John Kelly's military aide, when he was secretary of DHS. And I know John Kelly.

And when I read that report, I was horrified. I don't know whether the president, in fact, said it, but I was horrified.

[07:30:01]

And I thought of John and I thought of his son, Robert, who was a Marine, who was buried at Arlington, who was killed in Afghanistan. And I could not think of anything that would offend John Kelly more if the president had said such a thing. SCIUTTO: And to John McCain, when we hear the president is now saying this morning, he never called John McCain a loser, we played in this broadcast when the president explicitly called John McCain a loser and said he was not a war hero because he was captured.

What's that mean from a commander in chief? You in your job spent a lot of time with U.S. service members. I mean, the DHS was created post-9/11 to protect this homeland, right? A lot of folks went to war to protect this homeland. What's your reaction when you hear that?

JOHNSON: I will react as the former of secretary the Department of Homeland Security. I will react as the former General Counsel of the Department of Defense, which meant that I was the lawyer for the entire United States military, and I will tell you that my son wears the uniform of this nation.

And one of the things that makes America great, one of the reasons why our nation reveres our military and our military community is because they're willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for all of the rest of us. And the commander -- it's up to the commander in chief to support the military at all costs, in every respect, at every opportunity.

I remember when the president, during the campaign, made those remarks about John McCain and I was -- I was horrified. There's no doubt that he said it because we all saw that he said it. And it just -- it just seems to me to be one insult after another for the U.S. military, whether it's dishonoring the service of those who have given sacrifice or whether it is using the military or threatening to use the military for a photo op, I think that the American people really do need to take a hard look at what kind of commander in chief we want and we need.

SCIUTTO: Jeh Johnson, I appreciate your service to this country and thanks very much for taking the time this morning.

JONSON: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, the mayor of Rochester, New York, is taking action after the death of a man in their custody who was suffering from a mental health episode. That man's family is going to join us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:00]