Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Simone Biles Withdraws from Final to Focus on Mental Health; GOP's Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) Confronted for Comparing Rioters to Tourists; CDC Director on Why Variant Surge is Changing Mask Guidance. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired July 28, 2021 - 07:00   ET

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

TOM SATER, CNN METEOROLOGIST: CNN New Day continues right now.

[07:00:01]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN NEW DAY: Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. It is Wednesday, July 28th.

And no one on the planet, no one, can beat her. But mental health is proving to be a formidable opponent for Simone Biles. The breaking news this morning is Biles announcing she is pulling out of tomorrow's all around final, the individual competition. USA gymnastics saying that she has their support.

Of course, Biles withdrew from the team competition one day earlier after she stumbled during a landing from a vault. Here is what she said about it yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SIMONE BILERS, U.S. OLYMPIC GYMANST: I was just like shaking, could barely nap. I've just never felt like this going into a competition before.

Once I came out here, I was like, no, mental is not there. So, I just need to let the girls do it and focus on myself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEW DAY: All right. Joining us now is Sports Psychologist Jarrod Spencer. I'm so glad you're here because we're in this mental health moment right now where I think the world is beginning to focus on something which is so important.

And one of the questions I think people have this morning when they look at Simone Biles, who is the greatest gymnast ever, and for my money, the greatest athlete on Earth right now, and they say, well, how did she get through qualifying? How did she win all those titles? How did she get to this point to be at the Olympics in Tokyo only to have the weight of the mental health issue being so immense that she couldn't compete? How could that be?

JARROD SPENCER, SPORTS PSYCHOLOGIST: Even she has a limit. And the truth is, John, like we all have that point where we begin to break down emotionally. And even though she's obviously got the skills and ability to manage in a pressure cooker at a very high level, even Simone has a threshold. And once that threshold is crossed for you, me and anybody else out there, it's a very different version of our self, Simone obviously realizes that about herself.

BERMAN: What risk would she have posed to herself had she competed? And the reason I ask is because when you watch her do what she does with the twists and the turns and the flips, her head is circling six inches off the ground at a velocity I can't begin to imagine.

SPENCER: Yes, that's a great question. And I actually talked to two top gymnastic coaches about this very question. And what they told me was this, Simone's level of skill is like nothing else the world has ever seen. And so if the mental side of her performance isn't there, she literally is potentially risking catastrophic, life-long injury.

So it's not surprising that she might say, I don't want to have that happen if my mental focus and ability isn't there, it's not worth the risk.

BERMAN: So one of the phrases that I think people who don't frankly understand what's going on like to toss around is toughness, why toughing it out. Well, talk to me about what mental toughness really is because doesn't it take a certain amount of mental toughness to tell the world that you are not feeling well enough to compete?

SPENCER: Well, we're redefining that word, right? So when we think about mental toughness, for a long time, it's been suck it up, don't whine, don't complain and pretend like nothing is bothering you. But that paradigm has shifted and now it's a matter of mental toughness is really being able to say it's okay not be okay, I'm struggling right now and I need a little bit of help. That for today's athletes is really what mental toughness is all about.

BERMAN: So she's taken herself out of the all around competition. A few days after that, some of the individual competitions, which she's qualified for, she's more than qualified for, she's really the best on Earth at so many of these events any way. Do you think it's possible that she could get herself in a space where she felt comfortable, safe enough to compete there?

SPENCER: Well, of course I don't know Simone, I never worked with her. But I think that you, me and everybody else would love to see her be able rally and find somehow the mental capacity to get back out there and compete.

And so I think we're all rooting for that and I think we're optimistic that, yes, that might still occur. But even if it doesn't, I think it's a time and place in history where the world is going to say to her, we've got you and we've understand it. Because at this time in the pandemic, like who among us isn't really struggling at some point along this journey? And for this pressure cooker to be so big and the whole world be looking at her, I think most people would give her a pass today and say we understand, we get it, we're cheering for you, but we do understand that this is just not wise for you to move forward. BERMAN: That's such a great point and you said it so well. She's given so much over the years. This might be a great time for the rest of us to stand up and say, you know what, we got you, we're here for you now, Simone Biles.

[07:05:00]

Thank you for everything you've done.

Jarrod Spencer, I really appreciate you being with us this morning. Thank you.

SPENCER: My pleasure.

KEILAR: As Republicans dodge questions and refuse to watch the emotional testimony from four Capitol Police officers, four officers, some of them Capitol police officers, some of them D.C. Metro, testifying about the January 6th attack, this sparked a fiery exchange at a House committee meeting last night with Democrat Jamie Raskin confronting Republican Andrew Clyde over Clyde's comments comparing the Capitol rioters to tourists. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Did you watch the testimony of the Capitol officers who defended our lives on January 6th or did you not? It's a yes or no question.

REP. ANDREW CLYDE (R-GA): It's irrelevant. It's absolutely irrelevant to this amendment right here. And I would like to stick to it.

RASKIN: Okay. I'm reclaiming my time, sir, reclaiming my time.

CLYDE: Is that what you want to do, Mr. Chairman?

RASKIN: Excuse me, Mr. Clyde. I have the floor, not you.

Our colleagues have taken us down the road of quotations and we have somebody who's got a quote right in the room. So, I thought I would check it with him. He refuses to say whether or not he heard the Capitol officers who risked their lives and have experienced traumatic, medical injuries. He refused to say whether or not he watched them today. That's fine. That's his prerogative. And under the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment, whatever it is, he doesn't have to testify about it.

But I want to ask you this, they were asked the question by several of our colleagues, including Ms. Cheney, about statements that you made, saying that the January 6th violent insurrection against Congress was akin to a normal tourist visit. And those officers said, they weren't tourists, they were terrorists. Do you stand by your statement that they were tourists?

CLYDE: I would like you to quote my exact statement, not your interpretation of my statement. RASKIN: Okay. Watching the T.V. footage of those who entered the Capitol and watched through Statutory Hall showed people in an orderly fashioned, staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures you know, if you didn't know the T.V. footage was a video from January 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit. Those are your words.

CLYDE: And I stand by that exact statement as I said it.

RASKIN: Okay. Do you agree or disagree with the officers who spent four or five hours battling that medieval mob that had baseball bats and lead pipes and so on? Do you stand by the statement that the people that they were fighting were tourists or would you agree with them that they were terrorists?

CLYDE: That statement did not say that those people were tourists, okay? Read the statement.

RASKIN: Well, I'm asking you now.

You got the opportunity to clarify for the whole country right now, for these officers, I urge you to watch it on T.V. I urge you to watch it in your office. Officer Hodges, Officer Fanone, who experienced traumatic brain injury, who had a heart attack after he was tased by some of the tourists or terrorists, Officer Dunn, Officer Hodges.

Do you think that what they experienced was an attack by tourists or terrorists or violent insurrections? You have the opportunity to clarify for the whole country right now.

CLYDE: If you will read the first part of my statement.

RASKIN: I'm not interested in that. I'm asking you.

CLYDE: You're not interested in my statement, are you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Chair, (INAUDIBLE), can you yield to me for one second?

RASKIN: Wait. I have read your statement once. The whole country and lots of people online believed your statement that it was a normal tourist visit.

CLYDE: That is not my statement. As you said -- as you quoted and then just misquoted --

RASKIN: Clarify right now for America.

CLYDE: I just clarified for you.

RASKIN: Okay. I spent several hours today with millions of Americans watching sworn police officers testify about their battle to defend our lives, the members of the House and the senators. And they took issue, not with -- let's put your statement aside because you think that you've been misinterpreted by people, but they're taking issue with an internet meme that the people here were just tourists. It was a normal day. And they were saying they weren't tourists, they were terrorists. How do you react to that?

CLYDE: Well, I'm not responsible for an internet meme, okay? We are here to discuss this amendment, Mr. Raskin.

RASKIN: Okay. So you don't want to answer the question? I appreciate that. I wouldn't want to answer it if I said what you said.

CLYDE: We are here to discuss this amendment and you're obviously not interested in that. You want to make this another January 6th hearing. This is not. This is the Rules Committee.

RASKIN: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Clyde.

[07:10:00]

You voted no on giving congressional gold medals to the officers who defended our lives on that day, 140 of whom were wounded, injured, dozens of them in the hospital, people lost fingers, people had their eyes gouged, people experienced traumatic brain injuries, people were experiencing traumatic -- post-traumatic stress syndrome to this day and you voted no on extending congressional gold medals to them. Why did you do that?

CLYDE: Again, that has nothing to do with this amendment. But you know what I will tell you --

RASKIN: Oh, I'll bring it back to the amendment, Mr. Clyde.

CLYDE: -- that I co-sponsored an amendment -- excuse me, a bill to give a gold medal -- three gold medals to the Capitol Police, all right, for all of what they've done. It was introduced by Representative Gohmert. So, I'm sorry if you didn't understand that or if you didn't maybe get that information.

RASKIN: I'll reclaim my time.

CLYDE: I'm not going to vote to give Speaker Pelosi a gold medal because she is the one who --

RASKIN: Excuse me.

CLYDE: -- is in charge of the Capitol police and the sergeant at arms.

RASKIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Clyde. I'll reclaim my time. You were one of 21 members out of 435 who voted no. You voted not to award four congressional gold medals to the U.S. Capitol Police and those who protected the United States Capitol on January 6th. I'm just giving you the opportunity to tell us why you were one of the 21 members who voted against it.

CLYDE: I just told you, and you obviously didn't listen.

RASKIN: No. You told me about another bill that you said you sponsored that I never heard of. But why did you vote no on this bill, which was on the floor of the House? CLYDE: The particular bill on the floor of the House, all right, was not appropriate. It was not that the bill that was appropriate is the one that I co-sponsored.

RASKIN: Really? What made this inappropriate?

CLYDE: Because it awarded that those gold medals to those Capitol Police for all of the times that they have defended this Capitol, back in the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s, not just one incident. Because I think they deserve -- because there were Capitol Police officers that died from gunshot wounds back earlier. Did you know that?

RASKIN: So you're saying this didn't go far enough? Is that your point? So you wanted to give the gold medal to these people but you voted against it because you wanted to give it to them?

CLYDE: No.

RASKIN: Okay. Well, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, forgive me, colleagues, but I spent four hours today with the police officers who defended our lives on January 6th. And the level of rhetoric in this room about defunding the police, and standing by the police does not stand up to what we heard this morning. And I don't accept it. And I find the rhetoric dangerous describing anything that took place that day as analogous to tourism.

And I would urge my colleagues to please go back and listen to those Capitol officers and how they reacted to the idea that there was anything remotely analogous to a tourist visit in what they suffered on that day.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEILAR: I want to bring in former Republican Congresswoman Barbara Comstock to talk about this. You actually accompanied some of these officers. You know them personally. You accompanied them to their testimony yesterday, which was incredible. What did you think of the testimony and what do you think about this moment where you see a Republican completely denying what happened on January 6th?

FMR. REP. BARBARA COMSTOCK (R-VA): Well, Donald Trump, remember on January 6th, said remember this day always. And thanks to the four officers who testified yesterday, and I know you'll be hearing from Michael Fanone yesterday, these heroes laid out an excruciating and in painful detail what they went through that day.

And I think the American people saw it unfiltered. They didn't have to see it through the eyes of a fool like that man you just saw, Representative Clyde from Georgia. I would beg any Republican in Georgia, anyone in the phonebook, he comes from a very red district, anyone would be better than a fool like this who is doing you no good to be in Congress.

But what's so painful for these officers, I think, is they go to work every day with people that they protect who they protected on January 6th. Think what we realized, many of these members don't realize how close they came to real danger, how close these people were to -- if there had been one wrong turn, gone left or right, what they would have been in for with this very angry, dangerous mob.

And we also learned that there were weapons there, that some of the people there did have some guns. Officer Dunn talked about seeing a gun imprint on somebody and, of course, none of these insurrectionists, and I will point out, that that gold medal that the officers got, they got it for battling, quote, the mob of insurrectionists who violently attacked the Capitol.

[07:15:12]

So, these were insurrectionists. Even Jim Jordan voted for that to say that these were insurrectionists, very dangerous people. But now the American people got to see that unfiltered, through the eyes of people who protected our Capitol and members and staff on the frontlines. And I can't thank them enough.

And I hope more members -- because I know even some of the members who didn't support the commission, they support these officers. And they need to thank them. And they all should be calling out somebody like Officer Clyde and their goofy G-caucus that had a press conference yesterday, Gohmert and Gaetz and Marjorie Greene, to defend the insurrectionists.

KEILAR: The American people got to hear, but people like Andrew Clyde say they didn't watch, right? So you have Republicans who say they didn't even bother to watch.

Lauren Fox, who reports for us on the Hill, said yesterday she was watching police officers engaged. They wanted to see, even as they were working and protecting the Capitol what's going on.

How do these Republicans walk by those men and women who are protecting them and not even give them the courtesy of paying attention to what happened?

COMSTOCK: Well, I don't know and I hope they really think about that. Because I know when I was accompanying those officers and the Sicknick family around the Senate to ask to have this commission, that so many of the officers were high-fiving these guys and thanking them.

And they do represent so many of the rank and file who may not feel that they can come forward because I think last night on CNN, you saw the kind of attacks -- the ugly phone call messages that Michael Fanone got left yesterday while he was testifying. We've all gotten some of those. I know Liz and Adam and others have gotten threats and gotten those ugly phone calls.

But the thing is this is breaking down now. People are seeing the truth. History and facts are on the side of these officers. And now that you're having this investigation, which really is going to be nonpartisan, I'm so glad you heard the chairman and Liz Cheney saying we're going to get every phone call, every text. They're going to get every phone call of Donald Trump from those days and leading up. Mark Meadows, who is going to be a key witness, not just him himself because who knows what he'll say, but his documents, his records, his texts, because he was at the center of dealing with Georgia and with Arizona, with the campaign people, harassing the Justice Department to do things, of course, being involved in the rally on January 6th and then being in touch with members of Congress. Imagine that information trail and all of that that is going to lead to Mark Meadows. The American people are going to hear that.

And I think Donald Trump is going to hear a lot of things that if he's looked at any of these books, he's going to realize a lots of people close to him are leaking out very unflattering things about him and his closest staff and I think it's a lot of his closest staff who are leaking out, hey, we tried to tell the guy there was no case here.

KEILAR: We will see what this investigation uncovers and how quickly it can uncover it. But you were there right the middle of things yesterday and we really appreciate you, former Congresswoman Barbara Comstock joining us this morning.

COMSTOCK: Thank you.

BERMAN: So, this morning, nearly two-thirds of U.S. counties have high or substantial transmission of COVID-19. And even if you are fully vaccinated and live in this sea of red and orange, the CDC is now urging you to resume wearing a mask.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky explained the new science that led to this major change in guidance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CDC DIRECTOR (voice over): In rare occasions, some vaccinated people infected with the delta variant after vaccination may be contagious and spread the virus to others. This new science is worrisome and unfortunately warrants an update to our recommendations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: And joining me now is CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. Dr. Walensky, always a pleasure to see you.

So, exactly what problem does the delta variant create that masks for vaccinated people solves?

WALENSKY (on camera): Good morning, John. Thanks for having me back.

So, this is -- we have new data here. We have always seen -- first of all, I want to reemphasize our vaccines are working just as we thought they would with the delta variant to prevent severe hospitalization and death. We should be getting vaccinated to prevent severe disease in ourselves and to protect ourselves from the delta variant and from getting severe COVID.

Here is the new science that we saw just in the last several days. [07:20:01]

With prior variants, when people had these rare breakthrough infections, we didn't see the capacity of them to spread the virus to others. But with the delta variant, we now see in our outbreak investigations that have been occurring over the last couple of weeks, in those outbreak investigations, we have been seeing that if you happen to have one of those breakthrough infections that you can actually now pass it to somebody else.

We thought that was really important for people to know and understand because when people are out there vaccinated, thinking that even if they get mild illness they can't give it to someone else. If they're then going to a loved one who is immunocompromised who isn't yet vaccinated or couldn't yet be vaccinated, we want them to take the protection to protect others.

So, that was the new science that prompted the guidance. And, you know, it was not -- it weighed heavily. I know that this is not a message America wants to hear.

BERMAN: The reason I was asking is because, just yesterday, you also put out, the CDC did, a new science brief which contained this sentence. These findings along with the early evidence for reduced viral load in vaccinated people who develop COVID-19 suggests that any associated transmission risk is likely to be substantially reduced in vaccinated people.

So, even though that brief came out just yesterday, you're saying that's no longer operative.

WALENSKY: Yes. We are -- this, as I said, the science that prompted this guidance is just days old. And in the coming days, you will actually see the published information on the science that motivated this change.

BERMAN: Okay. So can you quantify how much transmission of this new delta variant is coming from vaccinated people?

WALENSKY: What we know is the vast majority -- what you call the sea of orange and red on the map, the vast majority of that transmission is coming from unvaccinated people. if you look at that map, 80 percent of those counties that are red are from -- are in areas that have less than 40 percent of vaccinated people. So our lowest areas of vaccination are producing 80 percent of those red counties.

So, really important to understand that the vast majority is occurring in unvaccinated people, but we wanted people who are vaccinated to understood that they could potentially pass this virus if they were one of those breakthrough infections.

BERMAN: Well, predominantly, this is something coming from unvaccinated people to unvaccinated people, correct?

WALENSKY: For the most part, absolutely. BERMAN: So then you can understand the frustration in those of us who are vaccinated saying, why the hell do I have to pay the price for this?

WALENSKY: Right. So we're asking everybody in those areas of orange and red to mask up. And here is the reason why. If you're vaccinated person, and you're in one of those areas, as you said, a sea of red, a sea of COVID, you have a reasonable high chance, if nobody is wearing a mask, to interact with people who may be infectious. And so, for every 20 people, one or two of them could get a breakthrough infection, every 20 vaccinated people, one or two of them could get a breakthrough infection.

They may only get mild disease, but we wanted them to know that they could bring that mild disease home. They could bring it to others. They think they're protected in terms of transmission. And we felt it was important that they know and understand parents, families of immunocompromised people, families at risk of severe disease, that they should protect themselves so that they don't bring that disease home to others.

BERMAN: Okay. But, again, this is just a small percentage of the concern. Let's shift to schools, for instance, and ask you the same question I asked overall. What problem does the delta variant pose that masks for vaccinated students, and let's focus predominantly on those, I'm talking about 12 years old and older, because I understand when you're talking about unvaccinated students and classrooms where no one is vaccinated, but for vaccinated students, what problem does the delta variant create that masks solve?

WALENSKY: So, we've seen over the summer that there have been numerous school outbreaks in places that haven't taken the proper prevention strategies. Our goal right now is to make sure that children get back to school, to full in-person learning, full-time and have a relatively normal school year.

As you noted, children under the age of 11 aren't eligible for vaccination as of yet but what we're now seeing with this transmissible delta variant is 12 to 17-year-olds now, we still have about 30 percent of those vaccinated.

So we haven't seen the vaccination rates in those people. We now have a very high transmission. The majority of people in our schools right now will be unvaccinated, just by virtue of the numbers. And we felt that it was really important to lean in and try and have our children back to school in the safest way possible and that would mean masking.

BERMAN: Now, the delta variant isn't making kids any sicker, per se. Is it because the statistics, as the studies have come back from children and COVID from the U.K. -- what did we learn there -- some 99.995 percent of the 470,000 children in England infected survived. I mean, that's incredible survival rate. The delta variant isn't making kids any sicker, is it?

WALENSKY: We don't have any evidence that it's doing so, and that's really great news. But I do want to emphasize and I know all of the data, and it is so true that all of the data say that kids do better than adults, transmission is less in schools than it might be in other places when prevention strategies are in place, but I think it's really important for people to understand that this is not a benign disease in kids compared to other diseases that our kids see.

So if you look at the mortality rate of COVID just this past year for children, it's more than twice the mortality rate that we see in influenza in a given year.

BERMAN: If all kids in a classroom were vaccinated, would there be a need to wear masks?

WALENSKY: We have always said that our guidance has to be taken to the local level. And this is -- I can imagine a situation where a school system might have all of their teachers documented and vaccinated, all of their children in a high school documented as vaccinated and very little disease in the community. Right now, we don't have a lot of situations that are like that, but I could imagine a situation like that and, boy, do I hope we get there as schools start to open and we have more and more people vaccinated and disease comes down.

And that might be a very reasonable approach. Right now, we have very few places in the country where that is true.

BERMAN: Well, you can imagine a situation like that. Can't you do more than imagine it though? Can't you advise it? Look, there are masks -- sorry, there are vaccine mandates in schools districts around the country for measles and other things. Why not mandate vaccines for COVID, especially in kids 12 to 17?

WALENSKY: So, we are -- we can provide this advice but can't mandate it at the federal level. Those are all jurisdictional discussions and jurisdictional mandates. We are hoping that our advice will lead to more and more jurisdictions leaning in towards to get more people vaccinated.

BERMAN: Is your advice right now that local school districts should mandate vaccines for children over 12 years old?

WALENSKY: Again, that's going to be a state level and leads to state level laws. Right now, we have authorized vaccine. We don't have fully approved vaccines. And I'm hoping that might be more viable when we have more fully approved vaccines.

BERMAN: But if they were all vaccinated, it would make things easier, wouldn't it?

WALENSKY: It absolutely would. It certainly would. I'm really all for leaning in to get more and more people vaccinated, whatever it is that that will take.

BERMAN: Well, what's the metric then for dropping the mask mandates -- not mask mandates, the mask guidance in schools? At what point will you say this is not something that we recommend? WALENSKY: I think if we see more and more people who are vaccinated, our children are vaccinated, we have full vaccination in schools, we have full vaccination in teachers, all of those are documented, we have disease rates that are low, I think then we can start thinking about what -- how we can loosen up and, you know, not seeing clusters and outbreaks in these school systems.

The thing that's most important to me through all of this is that our kids get back in school full-time in-person learning. And we're not there yet. We're far from there. And I want our children to be safe.

BERMAN: But could we put a number on it? I mean, goals help, right? And right now, you say in communities with transmission less than 50 cases per 100,000, that's the level where people in the community need to wear masks. What about schools and communities with case rates less than, what, 10 per 100,000? Maybe that's something where kids won't have to wear masks in schools?

WALENSKY: I think if we had overwhelming rates of vaccination, mandated vaccination may be one way to get there. And we saw a lot more blue on that map. As you can see on that map, it's more red and orange than anywhere blue, but if we saw a lot more blue on that map with high vaccination rates. And to be clear, these will go hand in hand. If we have more and more people vaccinated, we will win in this race and the virus will be less transmitting. And we will be able to lift some of these things.

BERMAN: I don't want to play the blame game, but for vaccinated people, why is this happening to them? I mean, this is a situation created by the high numbers of people still unvaccinated in this country. Is that a fair statement?

WALENSKY: This is a situation that is created by more and more transmission of the delta virus among people who are unvaccinated. This is not about who needs to take responsibility. That is not really why we put this guidance out. We put this guidance out because the science demonstrates that if you are vaccinated, you could potentially give disease to someone else. And that was what was the motivation for this.

BERMAN: And just last question, because I know they're doing it in Europe but you're not CDC director of Europe, which I'm sure you're plenty happy about.

[07:30:02]

But they're issuing health passes there.