Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Hospitals Overflowing with Unvaccinated, Hurting Normal People; Biden Administration Divided Over Plan To Vaccinate Migrants; Blinken Speaking After Meeting With Russian FM. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired January 21, 2022 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:22]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: New this morning about half the country just under now reporting steady or declining Coronavirus case counts. That's wonderful news. We're seeing hospitalizations drop in certain states around the country as well.

The country though overall is still seeing near record high hospitalizations. That's because the numbers are rising in different parts of the nation.

Joining us now was former CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden. Director, I want to start with an op-ed that you wrote, which talks about the risks of the Omicron variant to different people, and you write among the vaccinated basically Omicron is the same as the flu. Finally, you know, Coronavirus is about the same risk as the flu if you're vaccinated, but if you're unvaccinated, much, much worse. Explain.

DR. TOM FRIEDEN, FORMER CDC DIRECTOR: Well, what we're seeing is that the country is essentially building a stronger and stronger wall of immunity. And that wall comes from mostly vaccination, but also prior infection. We see fewer and fewer people who have never dealt with one form or another of the virus that causes COVID before and because of that, we're seeing a lot less severe illness, a lot fewer deaths per infection.

But the stunning thing about Omicron is how remarkably infectious it is. I've been doing infectious disease control for 30 years. And with the possible exception of measles, it is the most infectious virus I've seen. So on the one hand, we see it spreading a lot more. On the other hand, we see it especially among the vaccinated, much less severe.

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: Doctor, you also say in your op-ed though, that we have to figure out a way to not let COVID dominate our lives. What do you mean by that?

FRIEDEN: We can actually move on, but it's going to require doing certain things differently. And unfortunately, it's going to require some things that have become unnecessarily controversial. The first is vaccination. We still have tens of millions of people in this country who haven't been vaccinated. Getting up to date with your vaccinations is important.

The vaccines weren't rushed in terms of safety or efficacy. But we're still figuring out how many doses you need and with what schedule the dosing schedule. So, think of that concept of not fully vaccinated. But up to date with your vaccinations. If it's more than six months since you've had a vaccine, you need a booster.

The second thing is masking. When there's a lot of COVID spreading indoors, it's important to mask and if you're older or immunosuppressed, and the people around you aren't masking, then up your mask game to an N95 or equivalent.

And finally, make some judgments when there's a lot of COVID spreading in your community, judge whether it's important to you to do a certain activity, if it is do that activity, but do it as safely as possible. And fundamentally, the virus is adapting. As long as we adapt, we can move forward. If we don't adapt to the virus, it's going to continue to get ahead of us because no one and I want to emphasize this. No one can predict with accuracy, what's coming after Omicron. There might be another variant next month, next year, in five years, there might not, it might be more lethal, it might not be more lethal. So, we're just going to have to be ready and being ready means being ready to adapt.

BERMAN: What's the current biggest risk facing the country from Omicron? Is it these hospitals that are running out of beds in the Midwest and places like Oklahoma?

FRIEDEN: Omicron is so infectious that in a given week, you might have as many as 10 times more cases than you have in an average flu season week. Even though it's much less severe than delta, the former variant, you can see a lot of hospitalizations, but they run through quickly. It's more like a flash flood than a wave.

The biggest risk though, is what comes next. The biggest risk is that the fact that we are all so very tired of COVID will lead to us letting down our guard. And if another variant comes, we won't respond effectively. There's nothing to guarantee that if there is another widespread variant, it's going to be as low virulence, as the Omicron variant is.

HUNT: You use the phrase low variance, and that makes a lot of sense to me in terms of vaccinated individuals. Are you seeing that that's also true in the unvaccinated or are they at higher? What's the difference in the risk there?

FRIEDEN: There's about a tenfold this difference in the severity of disease from vaccinated unvaccinated, but it gets complicated because there aren't a lot of people around who have neither been vaccinated nor had COVID before. And then you have to factor in people who were vaccinated a long time ago people who are older who his immunity wanes faster.

[07:35:05]

So fundamentally, it does look like even among the unvaccinated Omicron maybe less severe than delta, but far more severe than it is among the vaccinated.

BERMAN: So, the NIH has released a study showing there's just no correlation between getting the vaccine and fertility. Other studies have said the same thing. There's wide agreement on this yet Florida's governor Ron DeSantis said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): Think about how ridiculous it is what they're doing, by trying to force the nurses with these vaccines, you know, a lot of these nurses have had COVID. A lot of them are younger, some of them have, you know, have -- they're trying to have family, there's a whole bunch of things that they have going on. And so, they don't want to be forced to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: He just threw that in there, doctor, some of them want to have families. What's your take on that statement?

FRIEDEN: The evidence is very clear. There has been no evidence that there's any adverse effect on childbearing from having a vaccine. In fact, there's now increasingly strong evidence that getting COVID in pregnancy is bad for the child and bad for the mother.

So vaccination is extremely important. And I just wish we would focus on the basics here. If a health care worker doesn't get vaccinated, gets COVID and spreads it because they may feel perfectly fine, which still be infectious, spreads it to your grandmother or mother, who's in the hospital, she could die from that.

BERMAN: Doctor, always a pleasure. Thank you so much for joining us.

FRIEDEN: Thank you.

BERMAN: So a proposal to vaccinate migrants causing political infighting in the Biden administration.

HUNT: And Dr. Dre is back and he's bringing some friends with him. We're going to show you this pretty awesome new trailer for the Super Bowl halftime show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:41:10]

HUNT: Welcome back. New tensions inside the White House this morning over a proposal to vaccinate migrants as a condition for crossing into the country. Priscilla Alvarez with new reporting from Washington. Priscilla, good morning.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN REPORTER: Kasie, this is a proposal that is on the table now. And that dates back to last year where it was the source of tension within the White House. Sources tell me that at the time when the proposal had come up, it had caused tension and ultimately, top White House officials including Ron Klain and Susan Rice, shut it down seeing it as possibly encouraging migrants to come to the U.S.-Mexico border, whereas other officials saw it as a way to address public health concerns.

Now, the White House has disputed that account and told me in a statement quote, a decision on vaccination for migrants had not been made at the time, just as a decision hasn't been made right now. But the episode is telling of the political undercurrents and concerns that sometimes influence immigration policy making it has created divisions between the administration and its allies like immigrant advocates and Democratic lawmakers.

These divisions also played out internally among some officials who were trying to execute on progressive objectives, while others leaned more on --

HUNT: (INAUDIBLE) up here, but we do have some live breaking news. The Secretary of State Anthony Blinken speaking in Geneva, let's listen.

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: and I first want to begin by thanking Switzerland for hosting us, for its traditional hospitality, which is very much appreciated.

I came to Geneva following up on last week's discussions at the U.S.- Russia Strategic Stability Dialogue, the NATO-Russia Council, and the OSCE on the crisis in Ukraine and broader European security issues. Our objective was to determine whether Russia is prepared to take the diplomatic path and other necessary steps to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine and, ultimately, to resolve our differences through diplomacy and through dialogue.

The discussion today with Minister Lavrov was frank and substantive. I conveyed the position of the United States and our European allies and partners that we stand firmly with Ukraine in support of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We've been clear, if any Russian military forces move across Ukraine's border, that's a renewed invasion. It will be met with swift, severe, and a united response from the United States and our partners and allies.

We also know from experience that Russia has an extensive playbook of aggression short of military action, including cyberattacks, paramilitary tactics, and other means of advancing their interests aggressively without overtly using military action. Those types of Russian aggression will also be met with a decisive, calibrated, and again, united response.

That's the clear message coming out of my meetings on Wednesday in Ukraine with President Zelenskyy, Foreign Minister Kuleba; yesterday in Germany with my counterparts from Germany, the UK, France, and the European Union, and with German Chancellor Scholz. We're united in our commitment to finding a way forward through diplomacy and dialogue, but equally in our resolve to impose massive consequences should Russia choose the path of confrontation and conflict.

I expressed again to Minister Lavrov that on the security concerns that Russia has raised in recent weeks, the United States and our European allies and partners are prepared to pursue possible means of addressing them in a spirit of reciprocity, which means, simply put, that Russia must also address our concerns. There are several steps that we can take, all of us, Russia included to increase transparency, to reduce risks, to advance arms control, to build trust.

[07:45:05]

I conveyed directly to Minister Lavrov our specific concerns for Russia's actions that challenge or undermine peace and security not only in Ukraine but throughout Europe and, indeed, in the world. I also laid out several ideas to reduce tensions and increase security which we've developed in consultation with our partners and allies and where we believe we can find common ground, again, based on the principle of reciprocity.

This was not a negotiation but a candid exchange of concerns and ideas. I made clear to Minister Lavrov that there are certain issues and fundamental principles that the United States and our partners and allies are committed to defend. That includes those that would impede the sovereign right of the Ukrainian people to write their own future. There is no trade space there, none.

Foreign Minister Lavrov and I also talked about the way forward. Let me say as well that he heard from us and from me that what is for us an inviolable rule, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, nothing about NATO without NATO, nothing about Europe without Europe.

Based on our discussion, I believe we can carry forward this work of developing understanding agreements together that ensure our mutual security, but that's contingent on Russia stopping its aggression toward Ukraine.

So that's the choice that Russia faces now. It can choose the path of diplomacy that can lead to peace and security or the path that will lead only to conflict, severe consequences, and international condemnation. The United States and our allies and partners in Europe stand ready to meet Russia on either path, and we will continue to stand with Ukraine.

I believe that Foreign Minister Lavrov now has a better understanding of our position and vice versa. Today's discussion was useful in that sense, and that's precisely why we met.

So I'll return to Washington this afternoon to consult with President Biden and our entire national security team, as well as members of Congress, and critically, allies and partners in the days ahead.

Based on the discussions today, Foreign Minister Lavrov and I agreed that it's important for the diplomatic process to continue. I told him that following the consultations that we'll have in the coming days with allies and partners, we anticipate that we will be able to share with Russia our concerns and ideas in more detail and in writing next week. And we agreed to further discussions after that. We agreed as well that further diplomatic discussions would be the preferable way forward, but again, it is really up to Russia to decide which path it will pursue. I should mention as well that the foreign minister and I had an opportunity to discuss Iran, an example of how the United States and Russia can work together on security issues of shared concern. The talks with Iran about a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA have reached a decisive moment. If a deal is not reached in the next few weeks, Iran's ongoing nuclear advances will make it impossible to return to the JCPOA.

But right now, there's still a window, a brief one, to bring those talks to a successful conclusion and address the remaining concerns of all sides. We didn't expect any major breakthroughs to happen today, but I believe we are now on a clearer path in terms of understanding each other's concerns, each other's positions. Let's see what the next days bring.

And with that, I'm happy to take your questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Andrea Mitchell.

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Lavrov has spoken today about hysterical rhetoric, what he calls hysterical rhetoric from the West about an invasion, he claims, to provoke Ukraine. And President Biden said that with what has happened so far, that he believes that Putin will move in because he's got to do something.

So do you think, as of today, that you have a better understanding from Mr. Lavrov, first of all, of what Putin's intentions are? Do you have any commitment at all that they will stop the aggression that you say is standing in the way of any positive agreement?

He says that you are going to present written responses, which you've just confirmed, but he wants them to be to his original proposals, which you and everyone in the administration has said from the beginning are non-starters, proposals to limit NATO expansion. So will your written answers have any different response to him about NATO expansion, which you just said is nothing, is not negotiable?

[07:50:09]

So where do you see a space for any kind of engagement to defuse this crisis?

And as you -- since you brought up Iran, do you think there is the possibility, after talking to Mr. Lavrov, that you and Russia -- the U.S. and Russia -- and the other allies can get Iran agree to come into compliance? And will the U.S. then agree to lift sanctions perhaps simultaneously? Thank you very much.

BLINKEN: Thanks very much, Andrea. First, we're not proceeding on the basis of emotion. We're proceeding on the basis of fact and history. The facts are that Russia has amassed very significant forces on Ukraine's border and continues to do so -- 100,000 troops most recently, including forces deployed to Belarus that would give Russia the capacity, if President Putin so chooses, to attack Ukraine from the south, from the east, from the north. And we've seen plans to undertake a variety of destabilizing actions, some of them short of the overuse of force, to destabilize Ukraine, to topple the government, a variety of things.

So, as I said, this is not on the basis of emotion. It's on the basis of fact and also history. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, seizing Crimea, provoking an ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, the Donbas, changing Ukraine's borders by force. That's what we're looking at.

We've heard Russian officials say that they have no intention of invading Ukraine. In fact, Minister Lavrov repeated that to me today. But again, we're looking at what is visible to all, and it is deeds and actions, not words that make the difference. I suggested to Minister Lavrov, as we have repeatedly, that if Russia wants to begin to convince the world that it has no aggressive intent toward Ukraine, a very good place to start would be by de-escalating, by bringing back, removing its forces from Ukraine's borders, as well as engaging in diplomacy and dialogue, which is what we did today and what we plan to continue doing in the days and weeks ahead.

We've said all along that we intended not only to respond to the concerns that Russia has raised, but to share our own concerns, which are many, about the actions that Russia takes that we see as a threat to security in Europe, and indeed, beyond.

And so it was important in the course of the conversations that we've had today, Andrea, both last week at the Strategic Stability Dialogue between the United States and Russia, at the NATO-Russia Council, at the OSCE, to make sure that we fully understood each other's positions, each other's concerns.

After that and after consulting very intensely with allies and partners, President Biden wanted me to have this opportunity, having digested what we've heard over the last week and maybe -- and presumably the Russians having had an opportunity to discuss what they had heard initially from us with President Putin to really see where we are directly with Foreign Minister Lavrov, to determine whether there is a path forward for dialogue and for diplomacy, and then to look at how we would pursue that.

And again, what was agreed today, which was that we will share with Russia a response to the concerns it's raised, our own concerns, and put some ideas on the table for consideration. And then we plan to meet again after Russia's had an opportunity to look at that paper and we'll see where we go from there.

But let me also be clear about this, to the extent that Russia's engaged for now in diplomacy, but at the same time continues to take escalatory actions, continues to build its forces on Ukraine's borders, continues to plan for aggressive action against Ukraine.

[07:55:00]

We and all of our allies and partners are equally committed to make sure we are doing everything possible to make clear to Russia that there will be, as I said, a swift, severe, and united response to any form of aggression by Russia directed toward Ukraine. Finally, let me say this: Based on the conversation today, Andrea, look, I believe that there are areas where, on a reciprocal basis, we can address some of each other's concerns. And they go to things like greater transparency in our military activities, various risk- reduction measures, pursuing arms control, and other ways to build trust that I think would address some of the concerns that Russia has expressed as well as the many concerns that we have.

But it's very important to be equally clear about things that we will not do, and one of those is we will not go back on the fundamental principles that we have and that we are committed to defend. And one of those is NATO's open door and others include, as I've talked about in recent days and recent weeks, our commitment to the principle that one nation can't simply violate and change the border of another country by force, that it can't propose to dictate to another country its choices, its policies, with whom it will associate, and that it can't exert a sphere of influence that would subjugate its neighbors to its will. We're not going to put any of those principles in question, and I think Russia understands that very well.

So again, based on the conversations we've had over -- the extensive conversations over the past week and today here in Geneva, I think there are grounds for and a means to address some of the mutual concerns that we have about security. We'll see if that bears out. And meanwhile, we will continue to prepare resolutely to both paths that we've laid out for Russia: the path of diplomacy and dialogue or the path of renewed aggression, confrontation, and consequences.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael Crowley.

MITCHELL: And your --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry, Andrea. We have very limited time. Michael Crowley.

MITCHELL: And your -- the question about Iran, Mr. --

BLINKEN: Oh, I'm sorry, (INAUDIBLE) to address that. So on Iran, I have to say that Russia shares our sense of urgency, the need to see if we can come back into mutual compliance in the weeks ahead. And we hope that Russia will use the influence that it has and relationship that it has with Iran to impress upon Iran that sense of urgency, and equally, that if we're unable to do that because Iran refuses to undertake the obligations that are necessary, that we will pursue a different path in dealing with the danger posed by Iran's renewed nuclear program, a program that had been put in a box by the agreement that we had reached in the past, the JCPOA, and that unfortunately has now escaped from that box as a result of us pulling out of the agreement and Iran restarting its dangerous program.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael.

MICHAEL CROWLEY, THE NEW YORK TIMES WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Secretary Blinken. After four fairly inconclusive meetings between U.S. diplomats and Russian ones, does this process need to move to the presidential level for a breakthrough? Does President Biden need to be speaking to President Putin for progress really to be made here?

And a second question if I may, in Berlin, you outlined the stakes of this crisis, including the security -- the sanctity of borders and the governing principles of international peace and security. Yet President Biden several weeks ago said that the use of American military force is off the table in this situation.

While I'm sure that makes intuitive sense to many Americans for all kinds of reasons, I wonder if you could just explicitly lay out the reasoning why that has been taken off the table. And do you believe the President's statement would still apply even if Russia were to invade Ukraine? Thank you.

BLINKEN: Great. First, on the second part of the question, we have made clear and done a number of things in support and defense of Ukraine that will continue. First and foremost, we have worked in very close coordination with allies and partners to develop and make clear to Russia the consequences.