WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday asked Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Dr. David Kessler, Chief Science Officer of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, at a U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing on efforts to combat COVID-19 about CDC guidance on outdoor transmission of COVID-19 and ensuring the transparency of the contracting process for potential booster shots.

“Our witnesses today could sit here and claim that we have definitive information on risks or means of transmission or asymptomatic transmission, but they wouldn't be telling the truth,” Murphy said. “We still have a lot to learn, and so I frankly appreciate the fact that we have leaders today who recognize that we still have gaps in information, who occasionally may err on the side of caution in order to save lives. And I share the frustration. But the frustration is rooted in the fact that we are still less than a year and a half into a virus that we're still beginning to understand.”

On developing and providing CDC guidance for outdoor COVID-19 transmission, Murphy asked Walensky: “How do we, on this question, close the gap in information that we have, given that there are so many competing analyses out there of outdoor transmission? What do we do to try to make sure, especially heading into this summer, that we have the best information possible? How do we solve for this problem?”

In a question to Kessler on transparency of contracts with companies who supply vaccines, Murphy asked: “I still think that we could do better in terms of letting the American public know and policymakers know about the financial terms of these contracts. But what do we expect when it comes to contracting for booster shots? Are we going to go back to the same companies that provided the vaccine? Are we going to open that tender up to a broader set of companies? How do we expect the process of procuring booster shots to work and how do we make sure that it adequately protects taxpayer dollars?”

You can read Murphy’s full exchange with Walensky and Kessler below:

MURPHY: “Thank you, Chairwoman Murray. Thank you all for the fantastic work you do to protect the country. Just a quick word on this frustration you're hearing regarding guidance from the CDC, and listen, our witnesses today could sit here and claim that we have definitive information on risks or means of transmission or asymptomatic transmission, but they wouldn't be telling the truth. 

“And we suffered through four years with a president who literally made things up about this virus, who simplified the story over and over and over again because he thought simplifying things and being definitive would make him look good. Including giving free medical advice to Americans on what therapies they should take, making claims that the virus would disappear after a matter of weeks. That wasn't good for the country. It didn't help us fight this disease.

“We still have a lot to learn, and so I frankly appreciate the fact that we have leaders today who recognize that we still have gaps in information, who occasionally may err on the side of caution in order to save lives. And I share the frustration. But the frustration is rooted in the fact that we are still less than a year and a half into a virus that we're still beginning to understand.

“And so to that end, Dr. Walensky, on this question of outdoor transmission--so Senator Collins was asking you about a paper you put out suggesting that it could be 10% of cases. There's other folks that say it could be 1% of cases. There are some epidemiologists who say that it could be 0.1% of cases. That's a really important difference, and I assume the difference between 5% and 0.1% would likely educate decisions you would make about what recommendations you make to summer camps.

“How do we, on this question, close the gap in information that we have, given that there are so many competing analyses out there of outdoor transmission? What do we do to try to make sure, especially heading into this summer, that we have the best information possible? How do we solve for this problem?”

WALENSKY: “Thank you, Senator, for that question. I think it's important to realize that we at CDC are responsible for putting out guidance for individuals, as well as for populations, for public health. We're responsible for putting out guidance for counties that have less than five cases per 100,000, and for counties that have greater than 100 cases per 100,000, as well as for counties that have less than 10% of people vaccinated and counties that have more than 50% of people vaccinated. 

“Our guidance has to be science based for all of these situations. In our last iteration of what vaccinated people can safely do, we did update our guidance, not only for not wearing masks outdoors, but also for not wearing masks outdoors in certain settings for people who are unvaccinated. In those situations, we also said if people are gathered with other unvaccinated people dining with their masks off and close by, there may be a risk to that if they're dining close by. 

“Certainly this meta analysis that was put forward that demonstrated the top line result of less than 10% transmission occurring outdoors was helpful scientific evidence, and we are following the science as it continues to emerge. I think it's also really important to recognize that now with vaccination of 12 to 15 year olds, our summer camp guidance is probably going to have to change in those settings and we plan to do so.”

MURPHY: “Great. Dr. Kessler, question for you on booster shots. You've included in your testimony an expectation that we may be in the business of purchasing and distributing booster shots, maybe as soon as later this year. I asked a question at the last hearing about the transparency of contracts with the companies that are supplying vaccines, I still think that we could do better in terms of letting the American public know and policymakers know about the financial terms of these contracts. But what do we expect when it comes to contracting for booster shots? Are we going to go back to the same companies that provided the vaccine? Are we going to open that tender up to a broader set of companies? How do we expect the process of procuring booster shots to work and how do we make sure that it adequately protects taxpayer dollars?”

KESSLER: “Senator, thanks for the question. Very important. We're in that process now. In order to plan, because that's really what we're doing, if we want a vaccine, let's say, both the duration of immunity and increasing age so there's less antibodies and variants, we have to take all those things into consideration. And if we want a vaccine end of the year, we have to do that now. And we are in fact in those negotiations. 

“The best science to date, and the data we have--and I don't want to get too technical--but the question is, are we dealing with homologous boosts or heterologous boosts? Basically, are you going to boost with the same vaccine or can you switch that out and do mix and match? And that requires data, we're collecting that data, and it's going to be the data that drives what we boost with.

“But for planning purposes, I think the simplest and safest assumption, and I underline the word assumption, is that it may be, for at least the short term, that homologous boosts with the same type of vaccine makes the most scientific sense. But I need a couple of more months in order to give you a definitive answer, but I have to plan now.

“So specifically to answer your question, we're dealing with the same companies because we want to continue with the safety and efficacy that we've seen in those vaccines. Down the road that may change as we get other, for example, protein-based vaccines available.”

MURPHY: “I'll just say this: I hope that this committee is actively involved with the administration on the construction of those contracts to make sure that we're adequately protecting our taxpayers' investment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.”

###