Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

G7 Health Ministers Warn Omicron Variant is Now Biggest Current Threat to Global Public Health; Soon, Ex-Officer Who Fatally Shot Daunte Wright Expected to Testify; FDA Now Says Abortion Pills Can Be Sent by Mail. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 17, 2021 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: A good Friday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

We are watching two potential live events this hour. Any moment now President Biden will deliver the commencement address at South Carolina State University. He is expected to make an impassioned plea about voting rights at the historically black college.

Plus, in Minnesota, all eyes on the manslaughter trial for former Officer Kim Potter. She's expected to take the stand to explain what happened the day she shot and killed Daunte Wright. We're going to take you live to the courtroom when that happens.

But, first, the biggest current threat to global public health, that is how the G7 health ministers are now describing the omicron variant. Here in the U.S., COVID-19 hospitalizations rising ahead of the Christmas holiday. Experts now urging people to take precautions as they gather with family and friends.

At least 37 states have confirmed cases of omicron as well as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Scientists believe the new strain to be significantly more contagious, but, so far, more mild in terms of illness than previous waves.

Still, there are serious concerns about the toll this could take on doctors and nurses already overwhelmed with nearly two years of caring for COVID patients.

Here to discuss all these concerns, the former White House senior adviser for COVID response, Andy Slavitt. Good to have you on this morning. Thanks for taking the time.

ANDY SLAVITT, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER BIDEN ADMINISTRATION COVID RESPONSE TEAM: Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: So, first, if we could begin on what the early data shows and how you're reading that data. Certainly more transmissible but at least early data shows perhaps causes less severe illness for the vaccinated and boosted. Is that how you read the data?

SLAVITT: Well, look, I think the things that are important for us to try and understand are, one, that the doubling time for this variant is two to three days. What that means, just if you want to wrap your heard around that, is that if you have 100,000 cases of omicron at Christmas, by New Year's, you have 400,000 cases. That's extraordinary -- that's extraordinarily fast.

The good news we know is that the booster works well against omicron and that, therefore people, ought to get boosted, if they haven't been. In terms of severity, it's really difficult to uncouple. I think what we think is that because of both prior boosts, prior vaccinations and prior infection, that the T-cell response is doing its best to keep this at bay. So, it may be that it's equivalent severity, but that our bodies are fighting it off better than we did earlier strains. That just still remains to be seen.

SCIUTTO: Understood. I mean, just so folks -- because a doctor was explaining this to me last night in layman's terms, that -- do I have this right that omicron can fool our antibodies, but the T-cells, which then attack infected cells, which are also boosted by vaccination, they can kind of make up for it? I mean, is that the way folks should understand this?

SLAVITT: 100 percent correct, yes. Now, the only difference, of course, is that the T-cells take a couple of days longer to respond. And that's why people are actually feeling the infection because for those first couple days before the T-cells respond, people can get, you know, mildly sick.

SCIUTTO: Understood. Okay. Now, you say that there are three groups of people in effect right now of Americans, those who can, those who can't, and those who can but haven't. And they'll face omicron in three different ways. Explain what you're talking about.

SLAVITT: Well, right now, we have about 15 percent of the country that is boosted. We have about 60 percent of the country that is eligible for boosters and is not -- just chosen not to either get vaccinated or boosted. And the remaining group are people that we really, I think, should be most concerned about. These are people that because of their age, because of when they got vaccinated, aren't eligible for a booster shot. And they're the people that society and laws and regulations are supposed to protect. And so if you have a chance to get boosted, you are really not just protecting yourself but you're protecting this other group.

I think our policy response needs to reflect the fact that we have to protect the people that aren't able to protect themselves.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you, because notable there, you put in the same bucket folks who are vaccinated but haven't gotten boosted and people who have not been vaccinated at all. I mean, are you saying that they face almost equal danger from omicron?

[10:05:00] SLAVITT: Well, it's not quite equal. I think the way to think about it is that omicron -- and this is a very imperfect but very handy way to think about it -- as omicron almost eliminates one shot. So, if you've had two shots but not a third, it's the equivalent of just having had your first. If you've had one shot only, it's very ineffective. And if you've had three, now the booster you're probably back to being where we thought we were with two shots.

So, none of them are perfect. But what it suggests is omicron is tricky enough that, roughly speaking, it sets us back a little bit. That's why we all need to get boosted.

SCIUTTO: Okay. Now, I want to ask you about response, because we're already starting to see some groups, organizations, universities, schools, professional sports leagues, businesses respond by shutting down, right. And given that we know at least for vaccinated boosted folks that it doesn't cause severe illness, is that the right response, in your view? In other words, should folks be responding with the same kinds of potential shutdowns to this as we had in the past, or is it different?

SLAVITT: Right. Jim, it's an excellent question because we have many more tools than we've had in past. So, why would you shut down? Why would you shut something down when you can boost people and you can give people rapid tests, et cetera? And the reason would be that if you're afraid your hospitals and your ICUs were filling up and you just couldn't overburden your workforce anymore.

And that's what governors and mayors and policymakers and employers need to be watching. As long as you can keep people out of the hospital and as long as you can keep the ICUs from filling, then you don't really have the same level of problem. But if this all happens at once, then I think that's where there's reason to say, well, maybe we ought to do things to slow it down as best we can. Because it maybe -- it may feel like too little too late, but every little bit will help a nurse or a doctor with statewide for what's going to be a big crush at the end of the year in January is important.

SCIUTTO: Yes. It gets me thinking about flattening the curve. Andy, so good to have you on this morning.

SLAVITT: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Any moment now, former Police Officer Kim Potter, who shot and killed Daunte Wright during a traffic stop near Minneapolis in April, could take the stand in her own defense.

CNN Correspondent Adrienne Broaddus, she has been following this. She is outside the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis.

Adrienne, the judge asked Potter yesterday if she still intended to testify. She said, yes. So, what do we expect to hear from her?

ADRIENNE BROADDUS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jim, she did say yes. And when she takes the stand to testify in her own defense, it's likely she will talk about the aftermath of the shooting. She's already said the aftermath of the shooting destroyed her. On the body camera video, we see the shock, the remorse and quite frankly the agony. Multiple times, we hear Potter on that body camera video saying, oh, my God, oh, my God. At one point, she says to Sergeant Johnson as he's trying to remove her firearm, she says, no, let me kill myself. It's likely she may talk about how she tried to end her own life if that was, in fact, the case, after she shot and killed Daunte Wright.

There's no dispute she shot Wright in the chest. But when she takes the stand, she has the opportunity to look members of this jury in the eye and explain how she made this mistake. That is the main question everyone wants to know, how did she confuse the two weapons? Throughout the course of this trial, we've learned that Potter has extensive experience. She became certified to use the taser back in 2002, and in order to carry the taser, it's policy, officers have to be recertified and trained every year. Part of that certification, when you look at the documents which were introduced in court, there are warnings from the manufacturer of the taser which talk about getting to know the touch and the feel of the taser because weapons confusion can happen. We also learned Potter had perfect scores when she was recertified on one test, 100 out of 100, another 50 out of 50.

Today, she has the chance to explain to this jury what happened and talk about how her life changed in seconds. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Adrienne Broaddus outside the courthouse, thanks so much.

Joining me now to discuss the law behind all this, Criminal Defense Attorney Sara Azari. Sara, good to have you on. So, we're going to see testimony soon. It sounds like there are going to be a lot of remorse expressed there from Officer Potter. How does the law see this? She's sad about, clearly, distraught about what happened. Does that take away from any legal responsibility?

SARA AZARI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, Jim. In fact, when defendants testify -- well, first of all, they have a right not to testify and the jury would be instructed that they're presumed innocent, and that fact cannot be used against them.

[10:10:03]

And so when they elect to testify, it's really for two reasons, to humanize themselves and to explain certain facts, and neither of which are necessary for Potter. Because we have heard from a slew of officers, her colleagues, her superiors, who have humanized her, who have talked about her being a good person, a good cop, a fine law enforcement officer and a good friend. And then we have the footage that your reporter just talked about that shows how incredibly agonized and traumatized she was after the fact. So, what could she add to that? Nothing.

And then there's danger in explaining, the idea that I made this mistake because -- it really doesn't matter. First-degree and second- degree manslaughter is about an accidental killing of somebody else. And so she is going to get grilled, Jim, and she is going to be stuck with really bad facts that she's going to admit, the fact that the color was different, the trigger was different, the shape was different. So, it's just a really bad idea for her to testify.

SCIUTTO: And I believe held on a different side of the body than the firearm would be.

So, if the law is clear on this, is this testimony, in effect, a jury play? Is it going to tug at the heart strings, right, or an attempt to tug at the heart strings of the jury members to see a sympathetic figure there?

AZARI: Right. I mean, look, jurors are human beings. They come in with a set of emotions and emotional makeup. And so, of course, it could sway the jury. But, ultimately, they have to follow the law. They have to apply the law, the instructions, to the facts. And so did she act with criminal negligence, second-degree manslaughter? Did she mishandle her weapon, first-degree manslaughter? That's ultimately the question.

SCIUTTO: So, tell me that on first-degree -- I mean, clearly, she mishandled her weapon. She used the wrong weapon and she killed someone as a result. But what is the legal standard there? Can someone say in their defense, I made a mistake, right, or is the mishandling a fact, right? Is that material?

AZARI: The mishandling is material, Jim. And, look, the case has never been about a dispute that she made a mistake in pulling out the taser versus the Glock. The idea is the prosecution is saying, look, you weren't even entitled to use the taser. And the defense is saying, oh, good on you for making the mistake because you actually saved another officer's life, so deadly force was justified. So, that's really the dispute.

And so if the jury finds the deadly force was justified and her mistake is okay, then she's not guilty. Otherwise, she's guilty.

SCIUTTO: We've seen a lot of cases where police officers use deadly force, and, by the way, different circumstances among all of them. But you do see where the law and juries give officers greater leeway with the application of deadly force with their judgment of a threat. Now, this case is different because it was a mistake. It doesn't come down to was this person a threat to my life. It comes down to really mistaking one weapon for another. Do juries -- does the law give greater leeway to uniformed officers to make mistakes like this?

AZARI: Well, it's about the reasonableness of that mistake and, you know, making a split-second decision. And when you go back and look at the footage here, Jim, and also the testimony of Major Johnson, who was the officer who was halfway in Wright's car, who was supposedly Kim Potter was protecting, right, when Potter started screaming, taser, taser, I'm going to taser you, that officer actually moved out of the way, so that threat was no longer there.

And, additionally, the use of force expert for the prosecution testified yesterday that even if deadly force was justified to save that officer's life, the fact that there was a passenger in the car and other officers standing by makes it unreasonable. SCIUTTO: Understood. Well, lots to follow in this trial. As we said, we will bring you that testimony live when it happens. Sara Azari, thanks so much.

AZARI: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Now, the story we're following, any minute now, President Biden is expected to make a passionate plea for voting rights this morning as part of a commencement address in South Carolina. We're going to listen in on that live when that happens.

And in a major policy change, the FDA will now allow abortion pills to be sent by mail. The politics behind that move, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:15:00]

SCIUTTO: Schools across the country have beefed up security and sent out alerts to parents all to a series of vague and viral TikTok posts threatening that violence will take place today. The threats are not specific to any single school, but this has prompted some districts around the country to cancel classes or ban backpacks for a day.

Shimon Prokupecz is in New York following the story. Tell us what law enforcement knows about this and also how parents should receive this.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right. And likely -- it is likely that if you have a child in school today, you've received a letter or an email from the school warning you of this threat. But they're saying that it's vague, that there's no -- it's not credible. The Baltimore school district tweeting, saying that the police there have investigated the threat and that it originated out of Arizona.

But nonetheless, of course, there is a lot of concern. This was a threat, a viral threat that started on TikTok. And what the New York City Board of Education is saying is that basically was call-in bomb threats and also school shooting threats. Others say people have actually threatened school shootings. So, that is what's causing a lot of the concern across the country.

[10:20:00]

As you said, some schools have closed from California to Texas, obviously Baltimore, and all schools all across the country now on alert. They've stepped up security, as you said, they've banned backpacks in some schools. But keep in mind, this is all coming on the heels of what happened in Michigan. And as we know, those four students were killed and several more were shot.

So, law enforcement and schools are on edge, certainly, since those moments and concern over what can start on social media can then turn out to be real. So, there is a lot of concern certainly, but important to know there's nothing credible about this threat, but law enforcement not taking any chances, stepping up security, making sure students and children are safe, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yes. They don't want to be in a position of missing warnings if they would turn out to be true. Shimon Prokupecz, thanks so much.

Another major story we're following this morning, the FDA has announced that the abortion pill can now be sent by mail ending the requirement that the medication must be picked up in person. This comes as Texas has essentially outlawed abortion and the Supreme Court does seem poised to undo or amend its abortion rights precedent as it weighs another abortion law case out of Mississippi.

Joining me now is Senior Medical Correspondent for CNN, Elizabeth Cohen, also CNN's John Harwood from the White House joining us.

Elizabeth, explain exactly what this medication is, who's eligible for it and what a difference this will make.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. So, this is a pill. It's actually two pills, and it's called Mifeprex. And let's go over some of the basics about it. So, it needs to be taken early in pregnancy, 70 days or less after a woman's missed period. That is really quite early. And it must be prescribed by a certified health care provider. So, not just any doctor can prescribe this, they have to go through a process to get certified beforehand. And according to Planned Parenthood, it works approximately 95 percent to 99 percent of the time. So, Jim, this is very effective. This has been used for many years now and it has a great safety profile. Jim?

SCIUTTO: John Harwood, I wonder, is this a direct response to the law in Texas which now, yet again, has been allowed to stand by the Supreme Court and other courts? Is it a way, in other words, to give women in a state like Texas access to an abortion?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, hard to say, Jim, that it's a direct response. This has been percolating since April when the FDA suspended the rule that said it had to include an in- person visit by the patient. But I think you can't ignore the context here. You have a Supreme Court that seems poised to either sharply restrict or eliminate the right to abortion codified in Roe v. Wade at some point within the next coming months. And as you mentioned, the Texas law has effectively outlawed abortion there.

And so you have an executive branch that has limited options to respond. They can't legislatively protect the right to abortion because they don't have the votes in Congress. But what they can do administratively is make it easier for people and take some sort of step to show supporters of abortion rights, which, of course, include the president of the United States and the Democratic Congress, show that they're taking some action to vindicate that right.

Of course, if the Roe v. Wade is eliminated, states will be able to interfere with what the FDA is doing and block it within their states. But it's something that the administration can do now at a time when the tide is moving against them on this issue and moving against supporters across the country of abortion rights. SCIUTTO: Yes. John, I mean, on that point, you have court here, again, the court could surprise, but many folks follow this court closely who see Roe v. Wade perhaps being overturned or a step short of that restricted in some way. Does the administration have a plan? Because some abortion rights group speak of a scenario where half the states outlaw or severely restrict abortion. What is the administration doing to plan for that outcome?

HARWOOD: Well, I think the principal plan the administration can have is to try to mobilize voters in reaction to a potential decision by the Supreme Court. The presidential administration cannot counter a Supreme Court ruling that eliminates that right. One of the questions, though, will be what will be the political ramifications for the Republican Party and the fight between the two parties nationally? So, that's a large part of it. Obviously, blue states are going to take their own actions to protect the right to abortion, but limited number of steps that the administration can take. They've taken one today.

SCIUTTO: John Harwood at the White House, Elizabeth Cohen, thanks so much to both of you.

As we mentioned, President Biden is in South Carolina highlighting his push for voting rights during a commencement speech address at a historical black university.

[10:25:04]

We're going to preview his comments, coming up.

And here is a look at some of the other events we're watching today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]