Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

FDA Issues Emergency Use Authorization For Pfizer And BioNTech Coronavirus Vaccine; CDC Advisory Committee To Vote On Vaccine Recommendations; Pfizer Facilities To Begin Shipping Vaccine To States Across U.S.; Supreme Court Rejects Texas Lawsuit Challenging Ballot Counting Process In Swing States; Protesters Demonstrate In L.A. Over Businesses Closing Due To Shutdown; Army-Navy To Hold Annual Football Game. Aired 2-3p ET

Aired December 12, 2020 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

JOHN AVLON, CNN HOST: This comes just one day after the FDA agreement in emergency use authorization for that same vaccine. Doses are rolling out, with one Operation Warp Speed official saying that they will be delivered to 145 sites on Monday alone. This morning, the FDA commissioner reassured Americans that this vaccine is safe and not being hurried through the process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. STEPHEN HAHN, FDA COMMISSIONER: This vaccine met the FDA's rigorous standards for quality, safety, and efficacy. Science and data guided the FDA's decision. We worked quickly based on the urgency of this pandemic, not because of any other external pressure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: Obviously, this rollout could not come at a more dire time. On Friday, the United States hit more record highs for deaths, hospitalizations, and new cases, and is now approaching another horrific milestone, closing in on 300,000 Americans killed by this disease. And as we wait for the vaccine's arrival, hospitals are struggling. The Department of Health and Human Services saying that 85 percent of hospitals across the country have more COVID-19 patients last week than they did a month ago.

And the sad reality of all of this is more and more people will die waiting for a vaccine. Joining me now, Dr. Chris Pernell, a trial participant for Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine.

Dr. Pernell, we are expected to get that CDC advisory committee's recommendation on the Pfizer vaccine at any moment. What would that mean for you on the ground, and what would happen next?

DR. CHRIS PERNELL, PUBLIC HEALTH PHYSICIAN: Hi, John. So the CDC's recommendation is just going to be another level of confidence from the public health infrastructure and confidence from our scientific community that this vaccine is very much safe, is very much effective, and that we needed to get it out to the population, in particular, those priority populations that truly need it. I'm looking for the CDC's decision to come so that we can say definitively that science has won and science is winning.

AVLON: So one important point in all of this is that the Pfizer vaccine actually requires two doses administered over several weeks. And FDA officials addressed that this morning. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. PETER MARKS, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICS EVALUATION AND RESEARCH: The way the regimen was studied was that everyone ultimately, or almost everyone received two doses of the vaccine. So we only know how people were protected with two doses of vaccine. We spent so much time carefully reviewing the data and basing our decisions on science, right, that it seemed pretty foolhardy to just conjecture that one dose might be OK without knowing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: Are you needing to push back some people, saying why not one? Isn't that good enough? Are you concerned that that could slow the process of inoculating the country?

PERNELL: We cannot afford to have such conjecture at this time, John, especially when we haven't won the hearts and the minds of the public. We are still convincing people that this vaccine is safe and effective. So it's not profitable and it's not beneficial for us to speculate whether or not one dose would offer some level of protection or immunity.

The trial specifically looked at two doses. And even in the trial that participated in -- I didn't participate in Pfizer's, but I received two injections. Don't know if I got placebo or the active vaccine candidate. So we have to respect the science.

And I can't say that enough, especially when we have communities, black and brown communities who have been disproportionately impacted by this pandemic. We need to be able to point to the science and say that we're going to follow the science vigorously.

AVLON: And this is deeply personal for you, not only as a doctor, but you lost your father to COVID earlier this year. Your sister, a breast cancer survivor, is still suffering with symptoms weeks after she contracted the coronavirus. So what's your message to people who still might not be taking this seriously, or might be resistant to taking the vaccine itself?

PERNELL: I had this conversation last night with a friend. I lost another family member. You spoke about my dad. You spoke about my sister, who is a long hauler. I recently lost a cousin to complications of coronavirus. And I think people still have the understanding it can happen to someone else, but not happen to me.

And I really, really cannot say this without any more emphasis than what I have been saying it. We have to protect ourselves. We have to do those baseline public health measures, those baseline infection prevention guidelines that will keep us safe. And I have been sounding that alarm in my community.

I have been founding that alarm to whomever I can speak with, and even more broadly to the American public, because, unfortunately, John, we have to get through a very dark winter. Yes, vaccines are starting to roll out, likely at the top of the week, but that is not going to prevent or have us bypass what we'll face across the rest of this month and even what we'll face into early January.

[14:05:01]

Vaccines aren't projected to get to the general public until the spring. So we have to do whatever we can, and the scientific, the public health, and the health care community to speak with a singular message of vigilance, hope, and science.

AVLON: And I want to give you a chance to emphasize that one more time, because the CDC just said today that just because you have been vaccinated does not mean you can give up wearing a mask or social distancing. So this is just further proof that we are not returning to normal for some time. How are you telling folks to buckle down and see this through and not pretend it's over?

PERNELL: Definitely. There is no silver bullet, right. This pandemic has been destructive and devastating, and we need all tools on deck. The fact that we will have the vaccine in our tool kit definitely makes us more powerful in our efforts to beat back the pandemic, but we still must continue to wear our masks, wearing the mask is the most fundamental thing that you can do to keep yourself safe.

In addition to wearing a mask, please, as we get ready to go into another holiday season, I can't implore upon people enough, don't mix households, keep your gatherings just to your immediate household. Do not be inside of cramped, crowded indoor dwellings. Wash your hands frequently, and hold the line.

I've said that before, and I'm going to keep saying it. I know we're tired. Hold the line. We are in as much a moral battle, a scientific battle, a battle for the soul and health of our nation. And if we band together, we can get through this.

AVLON: Hold the line, respect the science. Dr. Chris Pernell, good advice. Thank you very much.

And we're tracking all the preparations for this vaccine rollout at each stage along the way. So we've got Pete Muntean like at the Pfizer facility in Kalamazoo, Dianne Gallagher at the FedEx shipping center in Grand Rapids, and Adrienne Broaddus at Rush Hospital in Chicago.

So let's start with you, Pete. Where many people were hoping shipments were start today, now we find they're beginning tomorrow. What, if anything, changed?

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, John. We know that the shipments will start tomorrow. All of the parts and pieces are in place. What is so interesting here is that this spot in Kalamazoo, Pfizer's largest facility, is so integral to the vaccine distribution network.

Operation Warp Speed tells us the vaccine will leave here, bound for 636 individual locations across the country. Those are places like hospitals, pharmacies, CVS, and Walgreens. Operation warp speed says in many cases the vaccine will arrive in those spots starting on Monday, but the bulk of the shipments on Tuesday.

FedEx and UPS that will handle those shipments, FedEx in the west, UPS in the east. Months and months of planning went into this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. GUSTAVE PERNA, OPERATION WARP SPEED: At the end of the day, we have an excellent plan that has been well-coordinated, well- synchronized, well-rehearsed, and well-collaborated with everybody from the total government through commercial industry down through the governors at the states. I am very confident in it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MUNTEAN: Now this is not just a ground game, John. This is also a major air operation. The FAA is telling airport directors to be ready for vaccine flights whether or not they were planning on it already. The FAA says delivery trucks need priority access to air fields. Also, security needs to be stepped up. We could be at the beginning of the end of this pandemic, but this is the start of the massive movement here in Michigan. John?

AVLON: Thank you, Pete.

Dianne, as Pete was just saying, we know this is a technically complex operation. FedEx is pulling off something extraordinary if they can do this. How are they approaching this logistical once in a lifetime operation?

DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So John, I'm going to break down this very difficult and intricate process into three things Temperature -- keeping those vaccines shipping packages to negative 94 degrees Fahrenheit, that is an intricate process that is being done not just with these GPS and Bluetooth monitors, but also with onsite teams from FedEx and other carriers.

Then there is the timing, making sure that they get these packages of vaccines as quickly as possible to the various locations, hospitals, government agencies, things of that nature. And the last one is transit. We are hearing Grand Rapids at Ford Airport.

I want to bring in Stephen Clark. You talk about why this airport, besides its proximity to Kalamazoo where Pfizer is, why is this somewhere that you guys are planning to bring those vaccines out?

STEPHEN CLARK, DIRECTOR OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, FORD AIRPORT: It's about infrastructure, right. So having the airfield to support the aircraft, get a nice, long runway, 10,000 foot long, can support wide body international aircraft. We support wide body air cargo every single day. It's just another day of business for the Ford Airport. GALLAGHER: And you guys have been planning for this for about a month,

though. And it's not just the technical aspect. This is kind of emotional for you guys.

CLARK: Yes, I think it's hard not to think of a moment, our industry has been so impacted by this. Many of our friends and colleagues have been impacted by this. And for the opportunity for us to make a difference and help out with the vaccine and distribute it, it's amazing.

[14:10:12]

GALLAGHER: Thank you, Stephen. And again, they have been talking to four different international carriers, John, about the possibility of transporting up to billions of doses of this Pfizer vaccine in the future.

AVLON: I'll tell you, the logistical challenges are extraordinary. Thank you, Dianne.

And Adrienne, once the vaccine reaches the hospitals like Rush, where you're at now, it's up to them to get them out to the public. So how are they preparing to do that?

ADRIENNE BROADDUS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, before the vaccine reaches the general public, health care workers here at Rush who are most at risk for contracting the virus, will receive that shot in the arm. Earlier this morning, staff here at Rush learned that vaccine is sensitive to light.

So a moment ago, engineers devised a plan to darken this vaccine prep area. You see sunlight enters now, but they will put up something to block that sunlight and darken the area where vials of vaccine will be stored. Behind me, you will see 10 vaccine stations.

This is where employees here at Rush will receive the vaccine. I spoke with the clinical pharmacist who is going to administer the first shot here at Rush. He said it looks simple on the outside, but it's a complicated process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUKE HVASS, CLINICAL PHARMACIST, RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER: How big this process is going to. It's finally very real. It is turning into a very nice, full-sized clinic. And so it will be, it's one of those things I'm excited to be able to have the opportunity to vaccinate so many people.

It is also a little mind boggling how this whole process is going to work, but we have so many different plans in place and different people working on different aspects of that that really I think this will run smoothly. It is just a matter of getting it going.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROADDUS: And initially 200 people here at Rush, employees will receive the vaccine. John?

AVLON: Pete, Dianne, Adrienne at every step of the logistics chain. Thank you all very much.

All eyes on a CDC advisory committee which is expected to vote soon on the Pfizer vaccine, paving the way for the first shots to begin any day now.

Plus, the Supreme Court rejecting a Trump backed lawsuit looking to overturn the election in several battleground states. I'll discuss the ruling with a former federal prosecutor.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:16:23]

AVLON: The Supreme Court has rejected a Trump backed lawsuit filed by the Texas attorney general which tried to block millions of votes in four key battleground states. And the justices decisively shut down the long sought lawsuit to overturn the election not late Friday night. It's a court challenge that gained support from more than 100 Republicans in Congress and nearly two dozen Republican attorneys general.

I want to talk about this more with former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Shan Wu. Shan, hope you're well. The president tweeting this morning, we've just begun to fight. So break it down for us. Does he have more options, or is this SCOTUS ruling the end of the road?

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: He has more options. SCOTUS is dealing with one case at a time, as they should. So they have slammed not one, but two doors on Trump. He could try to get something else up there. But this latest was relatively -- for the bad lawyering that they have done - that didn't work. On the merits they just lost --

AVLON: We are having some trouble with Shan's feed, but let's try it again. This happened so quickly without any dissents from the justices. Is there anything else that stood out about the court's order? Because they were clearly hoping the conservatives would come through. They weren't subtle about telegraphing that.

WU: Yes. What stood out about the order was the court focused on this attempted innovation of using original jurisdiction. And they said, look, Texas does not have standing to bring this dispute against other states. Typically, what you see with the original jurisdiction is border disputes, water disputes. And the justices said that's here, that's not working here.

And really, the Supreme Court, although they do have original jurisdictions between state disputes, this isn't typically that kind. They wouldn't know what to do with beginning a case like this because you have to do fact finding. And those types of border disputes, water rights disputes, they usually have to farm it out to a special master. So the idea that Trump could just start bringing a bunch of cases to the Supreme Court challenging the election is just a non-starter. AVLON: Especially after we've seen the record to date. What do you

think of the lawyering his team has put forward to the Supreme Court and to all these district courts? Because a lot of folks said this didn't have a prayer, but it still had 17 attorneys general sign on to it.

WU: The fact that you have a lot of bad lawyering doesn't convert it into good lawyering. So that is really very week arguments that they've made here. Judge after judge, whether Republican appointed or Democratic appointed, has found no merits to their case, and this was no different than that.

I would note that Alito and Thomas did weigh in with, frankly, with all due respect, a little bit of hot air as far as I'm concerned. They said that he would have found jurisdiction under the original jurisdiction theory, but they still would have ruled against it. It is unnecessary to say. Either you think there's jurisdiction or there's not. There is no case for you to speculate on. So that was gratuitous on their part, too.

AVLON: You pointed out some ideological ironies in these cases. But these are some folks that you've worked with. Again, what does it say that so many state attorneys generals would give up or overlook not just ideology or standing, but to sign on to something like this, an attempt to overturn the election? Let's not sugarcoat it.

WU: Right. It's really hypocritical on their part because, if you think about the typical conservative leaning towards states' rights, here you have one state trying to knock out the states' rights of the other 49. So it's very hypocritical. And of course, Texas, itself, would have been involved in that. You'd have to look at whether they had violated their theories about the election should have run. So it's very hard to understand what their real thinking is. And there is really no legal merit to it whatsoever.

[14:20:07]

AVLON: Let's move up to Bill Barr, because President Trump has been teeing off on his attorney general. CNN just reporting that on Friday he discussed dismissing him. He has been retweeting things with similar suggestions. He went after Attorney General Sessions. Barr has served him faithfully, but there are some lines he apparently will not cross.

So with Trump today calling Barr a big disappointment, and with their relationship being described by a source to CNN as in a cold war. And Trump raising the prospect of firing Barr during a meeting yesterday. What do you think is the state of this relationship, and what do you think will play out before Inauguration Day?

WU: I think the standard relationship is very poor. Having worked at the Justice Department for an attorney general, normally you don't have a whole lot of direct communication between the A.G. and the president anyway. In this instance, I don't know that they are even talking to each other. Barr just seems like he is laying low. The idea that he is going to

try and do something in his waning days it just silly. I think he is just going to slink his way out of the Robert F. Kennedy Building when the term is up. Trump could try to fire him and put in someone else. The clock is just ticking.

There is not much time to do anything. Even if Trump did install some lackey to be the next acting A.G., I think he would have a problem. We have already seen career prosecutors resigning, ex-prosecutors, 2,000 of them saying Barr should resign. He's not going to make much headway in this Department of Justice in this tiny window left to them.

AVLON: As we look at the radius of damage downstream from these kinds of actions, this almost near normalization of challenging and trying to overturn the election, what do you think an incoming Biden administration can do to help heal this breach, to help restore some of the trust in these institutions that has been so damaged?

WU: I think Biden has begun to do that by announcing, even in the obviously controversial issue of his own son's case, that he is going to be hands-off. And that's the way it should be done. They need to let the world know that the attorney general and the Justice Department are going to return to normalcy.

They are going to be independent. The FBI is going to do its investigation on cases. The president is not going to have a direct line saying do this, do that, making public announcements as to who they should prosecute. That is the first thing is return to that normal state and tell the American people that we're returning to that normal state.

AVLON: Shan Wu, thank you very much.

WU: Good to see you.

AVLON: Hope is on the horizon in the fight against coronavirus. The CDC advisory committee expected to vote soon on the Pfizer vaccine. We have got Dr. Gupta joining us to talk about these breaking developments. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:27:05]

AVLON: Breaking news, the CDC advisory committee is moments away from voting on its recommendation for the Pfizer, BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. That recommendation, prepared with the FDA's emergency use authorization earlier this week, could be a game changer in the way we battle the coronavirus pandemic.

So let's bring in CNN's chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Thank you for joining us, sir. So walk us through this process. What happens once this decision is made, and how quickly will those next steps be implemented?

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's a big day, no question about it. So we have the authorization, we heard about that last night, authorization, and now recommendation. They are very similar, but the difference is important. We know that this is now an authorized vaccine. The FDA has signaled for whom it should be used.

Now, the CDC is the who, where, what of this whole thing, John, who they're recommend it for. Are they going to have certain warning labels for other people, certain ages, certain conditions, things like that? They've made recommendations of who should get it first in these places.

They've already telegraphed some of that, John. You've heard health care workers and people who are in long-term care facilities. What about next? Essential workers or elderly people with pre-existing conditions? These are all parts of the recommendations that we're expecting to see.

But it's happening, John. After the emergency use authorization was granted, it's amazing to see the other reporters we have all over the place basically showing now that this very complicated, big distribution plan getting under way. This is one of the largest distribution and logistical challenges we've ever have, and you're seeing this real time unfold. And that's going to happen throughout the weekend and early next week, John.

AVLON: It is a scientific miracle being followed by a logistical miracle is extraordinary. But just to follow on that point, is the vaccine safe for everyone to take? And specifically, do folks who have the antibodies have to get it as well? Because you see some confusion about that.

GUPTA: These are great questions. First of all, let me just preface all that by saying John, the old adage, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm sure you've heard this. So it's really based on what the evidence is here. So we can show you what they say in terms of the groups that maybe don't have enough evidence, let me put it that way, as opposed to saying it's not safe for them, Children under the age of 16.

This wasn't studied in children under the age 16. Point of debate about 16 or 17-year-olds, John, in that you had 44,000 people in the trial. Only 103 of them were 16 or 17. Is that enough evidence? It depends a little bit who you ask. They're saying it is, 16 and 17- year-olds can get it.

Pregnant women, they are not coming out and saying absolutely contraindicated for pregnant women, but they're sort saying the same thing. There wasn't a lot of evidence. Pregnant women were not part of the trial. Twenty-three women became pregnant during the trial, so there is some data there. Not enough.

[14:30:00]

But if you're a high-risk person, let's say you are working in a hospital and you're working as a respiratory therapist, high risk, and you're pregnant, maybe you opt for getting the vaccine in that sort of situation. One group that they did focus on, John, in part, I think, because of what we say in the U.K., people who have had a significant allergic reaction in the past. And by significant allergic reaction, significant enough that you carry an EpiPen with you, for example.

They are recommending, at least the FDA is, we'll see what the CDC says, recommending these people not get it, at least not yet. That is the precautionary guidance.

This will evolve. John, we hardly ever get to see it this early, right. Usually we're talking about these medicines, I'm giving you five years worth of data. We don't even have five months on some of this stuff. So we're going to see this unfold, and they're going to continue to collect a lot of data over the next couple of years.

AVLON: It is part of the impact of this emergency authorization, not approval. But will the decision being made today affect the ongoing study of these vaccines?

GUPTA: Well, that's a good question. And so I think there's two components. One is a practical one and one is an ethical one. So the practical one is that people who were in these groups, half got a placebo, right, and half got the real thing. You put your hand up and you volunteered for the trial, you did the right thing.

Now should you be penalized by not being able to get the real thing for two years, because that is a length of the study. That is the question. Many people say they should still be able to go ahead and get the vaccine.

And one thing they could do is they bring all 44,000 people back and give them all a shot. But they still don't know what they got now this time around. Placebo group gets the vaccine, vaccine group gets placebo. It is wild to sort of think about how they have to blind these types of studies.

Second question is, are you going to volunteer for a trial now that there is an authorized vaccine? How is this going to affect those other vaccine trials? There are several other vaccines that are still being trialed. Are you still going to sign up for that if there is a vaccine? I don't know. Some people still will. It may be harder, though, John, to recruit folks for those trials. Just think about yourself, would you rather get the authorized thing, or would you sign up for a trial where you a 50 percent chance of getting a placebo? Don't know.

AVLON: As much as I want to contribute to the cause of science, I think my family would encourage me to go for the real thing. I'm probably not alone in that.

GUPTA: That's your reality check, John.

(LAUGHTER)

AVLON: I appreciate that shoutout.

So look, but lots of folks really are unsure about this vaccine because of how quickly it was developed and some politicization around it by people in politics, not the medical professionals. So what's your advice to people who are resisting the vaccine, whether they are vaccine skeptics or whether they're just concerned about the politics, or they're simply afraid?

GUPTA: I think the idea that the FDA bowed to political pressure at various times over the last year is true. That's just the reality. Hydroxychloroquine got an emergency use authorization, didn't have the evidence behind it. It could have actually harmed people who were quite sick with that disease. So I understand that.

What I would say is two things. One is that even though this has been a really remarkable story this year, the science behind these MRNA vaccines actually started back during the days of SARS, so 15 years ago, 16 years ago. So it has been developing some time, or at least some of the beginning of the scientific process started a long time ago.

Also, at the point where the trials were actually being done and the data being evaluated, that part was the same. You had this period of time that you are looking at all of the data, and then you waited two months to analyze safety data because the vast majority of adverse effects, if they are going to occur, occur within those first two months.

And that part of was all done. Even though there was pressure to shorten the timeframe, why wait two months for the safety data? Those questions came up. And the FDA did not bow to political pressure.

So I've looked at this data, many FDA scientists have looked at this data. It is a very effective vaccine that doesn't seem to have any real safety problems during the time when most safety problems occur.

AVLON: That certainly is good news. And I want to recommend an op-ed you wrote for CNN.com called "Science cannot rescue us from ourselves." And that goes to a lot of the challenges I think we're going to be having as a country and the conversations we're going to be having. And we're going to need medical advice and science-based advice, not fear based advice. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thank you very much.

GUPTA: Absolutely. You got it, John. Thank you.

AVLON: Still to come, this year's election has been anything but normal. So what can we expect when the Electoral College votes on Monday?

And a programming note. It's a club you never want to join. Lisa Ling meets people from different walks of life brought together by gun violence. "This is Live" tomorrow night at 10:00 on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:38:50]

AVLON: On Monday, electors from the 50 states and District of Columbia will convene, virtually this time, to affirm President-elect Joe Biden's win. In most presidential election years, the vote is just a formality. But with President Trump's refusal to concede that he lost and the fact that Trump and some of his Republican allies continue to file lawsuits in a failed bid to overturn the will of the people, this year's Electoral College meeting carries a bit more drama than normal.

So with me to discuss this now is Jesse Wegman, he's a member of the "New York Times" editorial board and author of the book "Let the People Pick the President, the Case for Abolishing the Electoral College." Also joining us is Wilfred Codrington, he's an assistant professor of law at Brooklyn Law School and a fellow at the Brennan Center of Justice. Great to see both of you.

Wilfred, let me start with you. So Monday, once the electors vote to affirm President-elect Biden's win, will that end any chance for President Trump and his legal efforts to overturn the election?

WILFRED U. CODRINGTON III, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW, BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL: Usually those chances would have been done some time ago, shortly after Election Day. Obviously, we're in an unprecedented pandemic right now, so it is slow to get results. But the president has been pressing forward with a number of baseless lawsuits, based on claims that are really unsubstantiated and, frankly, outrageous, that there's been widespread voter fraud, or taking issue with a number states' ways and procedures for administering their elections.

[14:40:16]

So it is even sort of unprecedented that it has gotten this far. I say that on what is the 20th anniversary of the Bush v Gore decision, mind you. But once the electors actually make their votes, it should be smooth sailing, but everything should have been smooth sailing. So I'm not going to make any predictions about what he is going to do after this. But we will have an official electors vote then.

AVLON: But Jesse, we are in Constitution land here. And this is fixed. I know you want to get rid of the Electoral College in your perfect world, but let's talk about -- we have seen Mo Brooks, another Congressman, and even a senator open the door to a challenge. After this vote, what does that look like, and does it remotely resemble what the founders contemplated?

JESSE WEGMAN, EDITORIAL BOARD, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": The challenge would be based on a situation most likely where a state submitted two competing slates of electors. That has happened in American history. It happened most famously in the election of 1876 when four different states had essentially competing slates of electors, and Congress was left to hash it all out.

That is not happening this year. We talk about Monday, this coming Monday, the 14th, as being an important date because that's the date of the electors' vote. But in fact, I think an even more important date happened just a few, December 8th. And that's known as the safe harbor date. That is the date set in federal law by which every state must certify its vote. Every state did, in fact, certify its vote, which essentially immunizes them all from any legal challenges going forward. So I agree with Wilfred that there's -- essentially this is an unusual

year, and so I'm never going to say never about anything. But essentially all legal and constitutional avenues to challenge this outcome have been cut off.

AVLON: So just to be clear, if a senator or a congressman tries to challenge this in early January, that would be pro forma. That would be debate. It would not derail the process.

WEGMAN: Sure. The states have all certified their votes. The votes are official. We might see a few faithless electors, as we often do, so the final total may not be 306 to 232. Bu those will be protest votes. Those will be purely performative. They won't have any effect on the outcome.

AVLON: Wilfred, you've written about how the Electoral College was designed and implemented at the time to suppress the political power of black voters, by giving white southerners more power. Does that legacy continue to impact African-American votes to this day, particularly at a time when we have seen 17 attorneys general and over 100 Republican members of Congress sign on to that Texas suit that was smacked down by the Supreme Court last night?

CODRINGTON: Sure, yes. So I've written that the Electoral College was not just based, designed for the separation of powers, and it was not just designed to ensure that the people voting for the president actually had information, but is also designed to subjugate politically black people who were slaves at the time, right.

And the idea here was that the way it was designed was in tandem with this three-fifths compromise, which meant that 60 percent of enslaved people, most of whom were in the south, would actually count toward the population of the south in determining their electors. And frankly it did. We know it was determinative, outcome determinative in the election of 1800.

Has this continued? Yes. Frankly, what it continues to do is make irrelevant the votes of people all across the country, including a lot of black people in the south, right, because of this winner take all phenomenon, where if you win a plurality of the vote in any state, you win all of their electors. It doesn't matter if you have a sizeable majority, or a minority of people in the state.

Their votes don't count. So what we have now is the votes towards the presidency will not matter if you are less than 50 percent. And we know that that is unlike any other election, because for all other elections, we count all votes. We don't sort of create this subset or mechanism to have intermediaries determine who is going to be the winner.

We determine based on the popular vote. And frankly, the popular vote says more than 7 million people wanted Joe Biden to be president. But that is not the vote that counts. It's the Electoral vote.

AVLON: We're going to have to leave it there. I see Jesse with head- nodding agreement. But Jesse Wegman, Wilfred Codrington, thank you very much for joining us.

[14:45:00]

Now we've got breaking news. A CDC advisory panel now voting on Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. We're going to have the latest just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AVLON: Breaking news. A CDC advisory panel has voted to recommend the Pfizer and BioNTech coronavirus vaccine for people aged 16 and older, moving the United States one step closer to vaccination of millions of people. We are now waiting for the final approval from CDC Director Robert Redfield, which could happen at any time. Vaccines can't be administered until that final sign off.

In the meantime, all throughout the country, new shutdowns are following a surge in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

[14:50:03]

Miami will start enforcing a midnight curfew tonight. Virginia's new stay-at-home order will take effect Monday, the same day New York City will ban indoor dining. Paul Vercammen joins us in L.A. now where protesters are out supporting some of the industries being hit hardest by the new restrictions. Paul, what's their message?

PAUL VERCAMMEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, they want to see these businesses reopened with some compromise, but first, we need to get to the new numbers from California, and they are astounding -- 35,729 new cases and 225 deaths just reported in this last period.

What these small business owners have been saying, especially in the hospitality businesses, there is a way for them to safely reopen with this tsunami of cases. I'm going to bring in, this is Nick Remedio. He is from the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, the chair as well as the GM of a Hotel. And super quick here, you are on the streets. Can you give us a sense for how devastated those stretches are of west Hollywood with so many small businesses?

NICK REMEDIO, GENERAL MANAGER, LA PEER HOTEL: It's absolutely scary, Paul, I have to tell you. The businesses, the employees, they don't know what to do. They don't know how to explain to their families how they're going to put food on the table -- $400 a week in unemployment just doesn't support these families. And these business owners, one who is a friend of mine right over here, Brett Latteri from The Den On Sunset, he spent over $80,000 on his business to make sure that it was compliant with all the county regulations. And now it's just vacant.

VERCAMMEN: So what do you say to the governor? What could you do to make your businesses safe in the middle of the tremendous surge of the pandemic?

REMEDIO: I would say Governor Newsom, please answer our call. We've been trying to call you for months to have a direct dialogue with the small business community. Same day rapid testing, certification programs, we've been compliant all the way through. We had unprecedented numbers in July, August, September, and October.

The numbers were going down while we had outdoor dining. The statistics don't support the closures that we have here today. Over 700,000 people just in L.A. County are unemployed with these shutdowns, millions across the state of California. There's no small business economic aid that is meaningful or unemployment assistance.

VERCAMMEN: We appreciate your taking time out and speaking with us, Nick. And they're going to go ahead and march four miles to the Beverly Hills border. Reporting from Hollywood, I'm Paul Vercammen. Now back to you, John.

AVLON: Paul, thank you, but before we go. Just how much of this is anger solely about local regulations, and how much of the focus is on Congress getting COVID relief or Congress pushing the Restaurant Act, for example?

VERCAMMEN: It is multipronged. We covered this issue with restaurants for months. You're right, these restaurant owners want Congress to jump out ahead and get that legislation passed so they can get relief for all of these unemployed workers. But the rest of it is, in a way, a protest with California's rules, and it's a patchwork of rules, many different rules throughout California.

So first it was L.A. County that recently shut down the outdoor dining again in the county. So they want to smooth everything out as best they can. They would love to get a paycheck and they would love to see the state and county officials hammer out a way for them to get back into business, John.

AVLON: Paul, thank you very much.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AVLON: In just a few minutes, the long-time college rivals, Army and Navy, will kickoff their 121st game at West Point. CNN's Coy Wire is with us right now. Coy, this game means so much to so many. Isn't that right?

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right, John. Since 1890, it has been one of the most epic rivalries and sporting spectacles in our country. But it's more than that. This game represents some of the best and brightest young leaders our country has to offer.

Joining us now is the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General James McConville. So good to have your joining us again, sir. What does it mean to you to have this game being played here at West Point for the first time since 1943?

GEN. JAMES MCCONVILLE, U.S. ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF: Coy, this is extremely special. This is America's game. And to have it here at West Point, last time we did was 1943. And this has been a rough year for the entire nation. And this is America's game. This is when we come together around these extraordinary young men and women and see the best the country has to offer. And these are the future leaders of our country. This is a great day to be an American.

WIRE: You see these teams wearing different colors, fighting against each other. But then they walk across the field and embrace each other as brothers and sisters. What makes a football player here at Army in particular special?

MCCONVILLE: In the Army, winning matters. And the way you win is you get knocked down, you get back up. You overcome adversity. We've seen these cadets and midshipmen do this all year long. The fact they're here playing football with the COVID situation, that they're going to school, is just a tremendous effort, and it shows what we want in our young leaders.

AVLON: Coy, thank you.

And thank you for joining me today. I'm John Avlon. CNN NEWSROOM continues with Ana.