 Good afternoon, everyone. I just got off the phone with fellow governors, the CDC director, White House officials, and others. And here's what we heard. First, Dr. Walensky discussed the upcoming ACIP meetings happening Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of this week, which were postponed last Friday due to June 10th. She also discussed the Delta variant, which they now believe makes up about 20% of the cases nationally. But again, and most importantly, the vaccines work against this variant. Supply will remain the same in the state allocation for the next several weeks. Nothing has changed there. In July, they said that the Moderna and Pfizer contracts are up and will be fulfilled, having produced 300 million doses, and they won't be renewed at that point. But we still have plenty of inventory for Americans who want it while also sending some overseas. So that was about it for the White House briefing. No other new information. So next, as you know, last week, we were the first state in the nation to hit our goal of vaccinating 80% of the eligible population. As we said at the time, that doesn't mean we're letting off the gas either. As of today, we're now at 81.3%, which is about 7,000 more people vaccinated over the last week. And this is even after all restrictions have been lifted, which is really encouraging to see. As Secretary Smith will show, there's still many opportunities to be vaccinated over the next week. No appointments needed. And again, as I've said, every shot we administer this week is just as important as the ones we did last week. Every single vaccination counts and is a step in the right direction. Next, we'll get our weekly modeling and data report from Commissioner Pichek. As you'll see, Vermont and our region have made incredible progress. And we're now seeing numbers we haven't seen since the pandemic began last March. In Vermont, we're seeing cases in the low single digits, averaging just under five every day, which is great news for us. We're also seeing low single digit hospitalization numbers. And while every single death is tragic, we've had just one death due to COVID in the last five weeks, which is remarkable. This has all happened as things get back to normal because the vaccines are incredibly safe and effective. So if you haven't gotten your shot yet, it's never too late. Today is always a good day to get it done. With that, I'll now turn it over to Commissioner Pichek. Thank you very much, Governor, and good afternoon, everyone. Today I wanted to provide an update on the improving trends and outlooks here in Vermont and in our region, then provide a brief update on the COVID-19 situation in Canada, and then also highlight some data out of the UK regarding the Delta variant and its implications for the United States and for Vermont. First here at home, Vermont continues to lead the country in the four most important metrics, the highest vaccination rates, the lowest cases, the fewest hospitalizations, and for the second week in a row, zero COVID-19 fatalities. On vaccinations, Vermont continues to lead the country across the board. We have the highest percentage of our residents who have started and who have completed vaccination, and we continue to lead the country in vaccinating our most vulnerable. In fact, we are the only state where over 90% of the 65-plus population is fully vaccinated. And as the governor mentioned, even though we hit our 80% goal last week, Vermonters continue to get vaccinated with over 5,000 having started vaccination over this past week, which increases the percentage of eligible Vermonters who have started vaccination to 81.3%. And we can see how critical it is for Vermonters to continue to encourage their friends, family, and neighbors to get vaccinated. Because even though COVID-19 rates have come down generally across the country, we still see a stark difference between states with high and low vaccination rates. The data tells us that states with at least 60% vaccination have about half as many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths when compared to states that have under 50% of their population vaccinated. And we're seeing that impact here at home and the life-saving power of the vaccine, whereas the governor mentioned we have only had one COVID-19 death in the past five weeks. And we are now estimating that over 300 lives have been saved here in Vermont due to the vaccine. And most importantly, we anticipate that fatalities will remain low for the foreseeable future. Vermont hospitalization rates have also continued to stay low this week, with Vermont continuing to have the lowest vaccination rate in the country. And just a reminder about our data generally and about hospitalization data specifically this week, our rates are very low. So even a slight increase in the rate can cause a large percentage increase, as happened this week with our seven-day average on the hospitalization slide. We moved from just under two people to just over two people on average in the hospital. But the more stable 14-day average continues to show that hospitalizations are down about 47% over the last 14 days. And we anticipate that hospitalizations will remain low in the foreseeable future. This week, Vermont only reported 38 new cases. This is eight fewer than last week. And again, the lowest total we've seen in nine months. And we continue to see the cases fall among all age groups and fall broadly across all of Vermont counties, with five counties not reporting a single case this week. And finally, our case trends continue to closely follow our forecasts. And as we have said for the last few weeks, we anticipate cases will remain very low for the foreseeable future. Taking a quick look at our region, we also continue to see broad improvement in cases, hospitalizations and deaths in the Northeast. Cases totaled under 5,000 in the region this week. The lowest case totals we have seen since the start of the pandemic. In addition, the six New England states that continue to be at the top of the most vaccinated list per the CDC. And these improving trends have been experienced, even though all six New England states are now fully reopened without any indication that reopening has negatively impacted their trends. And to our north, the situation in Canada is continuing to steadily improve. Vaccination rates across the country, there stand at 66.7% with at least one dose and 19.6% who are fully vaccinated. And cases, hospitalizations and deaths continue to drop as well. Further on Friday, the U.S. and Canada did extend its border crossing for another month. But just yesterday, Canada did announce a policy change regarding fully vaccinated Canadian citizens and residents. If you're a Canadian citizen or resident entering the U.S., you can now enter the country without quarantining. There was no indication, however, when this policy may be extended to non-Canadian citizens who are fully vaccinated. And also in making that announcement yesterday, the Canadian government was unclear as to what metrics they are currently following to make a decision on the border. But with conditions continuing to improve, this is something we'll watch closely in the weeks ahead. And finally, with cases rising in the United Kingdom, we thought it would be useful to review some of their data and, again, the implications that that might have for us here in the United States and in Vermont. So as you can see from the chart, cases in the UK have risen somewhat dramatically over the last six or seven weeks, really increasing about three-fold from where they were in April. But when you look at the cause of that, you can see it's really tied to the rapid increase of the Delta variant in the UK. So that variant has shown to be more transmissible. You're seeing it in the data from the United Kingdom. But again, if you drill down a little bit more closely on that data, you see that it is impacting those who are unvaccinated, that those who are vaccinated continue to have the protection from the vaccine. Those who are fully vaccinated, having to receive both doses, are receiving the highest protection from this variant as well. So when you look at the vaccination rates across the UK, you see that they are very high in those populations that are older. But only recently did they open up vaccination to those younger populations. So the younger populations have less people vaccinated. They're seeing cases rise in that unvaccinated population. But their hospitalizations and deaths remain very low because the increase is impacting mostly younger, healthier people. But the implications here for the United States and for Vermont are that the vaccine is effective against this variant. It's important to get vaccinated if you haven't done so already. And it's important to get your full dosage as well to become fully vaccinated if you have a two dose regime because that will provide you the greatest protection. And finally, we are seeing that the Delta variant is growing here in the United States, up from just a few percentage points to close to 10 percentage points in the most recent CDC data. So again, it's here. We can protect ourselves very easily by getting vaccinated and ensuring that we are fully vaccinated as well. So with that, I will turn it over to Secretary Smith. Thank you, Commissioner Pichek. And good morning, everyone, or good afternoon now. I'm so used to 11 o'clock start. As the governor mentioned, as of this morning, we're at 81.3% of eligible Vermonters, 12 years old and above, have received at least one dose of the vaccine. Here's some other statistics to give you an update on our progress. All Vermonters with at least one dose, that's 71.8%. That is a reconciled number. And the number that the White House uses, the CDC number that the White House uses in tracking Vermonters 18 plus with at least one dose is 84.4%. I'll announce this week, pop-ups as usual, but as I mentioned before, most pharmacies around the state are also offering walk-in vaccinations. So ask your local pharmacists or simply walk into a CVS, a Hannaford Food and Drug, a Walmart, a Walgreens, Price Shopper, Market 32, Rite Aid, Shaw's, Supermarket or Costco to get a vaccine. Now, here's what you'll find this week in pop-up clinics and you can see we haven't slowed down. We really want to keep up the effort in having available sites for people to get vaccinated. Today, June 22nd, we're at Birchwood Manor in Milton, Brattleboro Food Co-op, Community Health Centers of Burlington and we'll be there each from Monday to Friday at the Community Health Centers of Burlington. So I won't repeat it every time you see it. Copeland Furniture in Bradford, Milton Mobile Home Co-operative in Milton, Northfield Farmers Market, Northwestern Medical Center Urgent Care Clinic, People's Health and Wellness in Berry, Renna Center in Brattleboro, Simmons Mobile Home Park in St. Albans, Southwestern Vermont Medical Center, they're Express Care, Town and Country Estates in St. Albans. The University of Vermont Medical Center at their pharmacy locations on South Prospect Street in their main hospital campus and on the Fannie Allen campus as well and we'll repeat that throughout the days that we're talking about. Tomorrow, June 23rd, Epsilon Spires in Brattleboro. Again, the Community Health Center in Burlington, as I mentioned, Geld-Wenn Doors in Springfield, King Arthur Flower in Norwich, North Country Hospital in Newport, Southwestern Vermont Medical Center Express Care, and the University of Sites, the Pharmacy Sites on Prospect Street, the main hospital and Fannie Allen and on Thursday, Brattleboro Memorial Hospital. Again, Community Health Centers of Burlington, Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, that's Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, Waterbury Farmers Market, St. Albans District Health Office, Rutland Regional Medical Center, all the pharmacies that I had mentioned at the University of Vermont. On Friday, again, the Community Health Center of Burlington EMS Clinic on the Newport Waterfront Plaza, free and accepted masons of Vermont in Rutland, Mount Escutney Hospital in Windsor, Northwestern Medical Center Urgent Care Clinic, Southwestern Medical Center Express Care, and the University of Vermont Pharmacy Locations on Saturday, 1311 Berry, Montpelier Road in Berlin, the Barton Glover Townwide Yard Sale. Like I said, we're going any place that we can possibly go to get people vaccinated. So the Barton Glover on Saturday, the Barton Glover Townwide Yard Sale, the Watesfield United Church of Christ, the Waterbury Ambulance, their location, Williamstown Public Safety Building, Watesfield Farmers Market, and the University of Vermont on the weekend, the University of Vermont Pharmacy at their main campus location. And on Sunday, 1311 Berry, Montpelier Road in Berlin, again, the Waterbury Ambulance location, Southwestern Vermont Medical Center Express Care, and the University of Vermont Medical Center Pharmacy on their main campus. Now, as you know, I'm changing subjects a little bit here, now as you know, Vermont's response to serving the homeless during the pandemic has been recognized nationally. As the pandemic began to impact Vermont, AHS quickly moved to protect homeless Vermonters by waiving the eligibility rules for emergency, for our emergency housing program to ensure all Vermonters had a place to isolate from the virus. For the past 15 months, we have provided motel rooms to the homeless, some nights approaching 2,000 households at its peak. This was possible because the public health and travel restrictions essentially closed the Vermont tourism and hotels and motels stepped up. Currently, the Federal Emergency Management FEMA is reimbursing the state for almost $79 million in costs to provide this program for the state in this fiscal year. Projections for state fiscal year 2022 pegged the cost rising to 108 million if the program did not undergo changes. In addition, continued federal reimbursement is uncertain. Hotels and motels have been a valuable resource for Vermonters experiencing homelessness, but they were never intended to be a permanent solution. Those living in hotels for extended periods of time experience isolation and difficulty accessing services such as meals or mental health or substance use treatment. In fact, local emergency services have been strained responding to the needs of a greatly expanded hotel motel program transitioning to a more sustainable scale and model of emergency housing allows for the opportunity to make sure Vermonters in need are connected to necessary supports. Additionally, recognizing that Vermont will not have the motel or hotel capacity or the financial resources to sustain this effort at the end of the public health emergency. The Vermont legislature asked this agency, the Agency of Human Services, to convene a work group to develop a transition plan for the program. The work group included staff from AHS, homeless service providers from across the state, community action agencies, a domestic and sexual violence prevention organization and Vermont Legal Aid. The work group meant for many hours over several weeks and reached an agreement on a plan which was accepted without change by the Vermont legislature and incorporated into the budget that will take effect this coming July 1st. The plan will provide a program that is much more expansive than existed prior to the pandemic with an estimated cost of $41 million. For reference, prior to the pandemic, the program cost approximately $6 million. The plan focuses on the vulnerable homeless households with new eligibility criteria that provides up to 84 days of emergency housing to families with minor children of any age, households with an individual that is disabled or over age 60, women in any trimester or pregnancy, and households fleeing domestic or sexual violence. Families with children and some disabled households will be able to house beyond the 84 days. The new eligibility rules went into effect for new applicants on June 1st. The households participating in the program prior to that date are subject to the new rules beginning July 1st. Homeless service providers across the state are working with households that will not be eligible for continued housing beyond July 1st to develop transition plans. To support these plans, an essential payment of $2,500 will be provided to each of the households and service providers also have access to what are called rapid resolution funds of up to 8,000 per household to help meet their needs. HS is funding ongoing case management services for these households that will be available and ongoing beyond July 1st. The goal is to transition households to other housing options, whether to permanent housing or shared living arrangements. In addition, these households will have access to the wide array of other benefits provided by AHS, other areas of state government and our community service providers, including three square emergency full allotment benefits and emergency rental assistance funding. The plan was developed with the recognition that during the pandemic, motel capacity would shrink considerably when the end of the public health emergency emerged and we're at that point. As projected, we have lost several hundred motel rooms across the state as the economy reopens and tourism is back stronger than we anticipated. We've lost at least 305 rooms so far and we had estimated that at this time we would lose approximately 250 because so you can see that we're losing rooms faster than we anticipated. We anticipate losing considerable more motel rooms on July 1st as several motels have indicated they are now turning away travelers and tourism and will transition to serve that population after that date. The emergency housing program has never been and will never be the solution to solving homelessness. The solution is assisting Vermonters as much as possible to avoid becoming homeless as well as the creation of affordable, permanent and supportive services. Under the leadership of Governor Scott and with the support of the Vermont legislature, our state is now investing over $120 million to build this housing. While these new units are being built, AHS will continue to meet the needs of Vermont's most vulnerable homeless households by operating an expanded hotel motel program in fiscal 2022, bringing on new permanent housing opportunities, encouraging the reopening and expansion of shelter capacity and helping them access the multimillion dollars in housing subsidies to find housing for those that may be experiencing homelessness. And post-pandemic, even with the changes that we've made, Vermont will still be a leader in caring for the homeless. I'll now turn it over to Dr. Levine for a health update. Good afternoon. It's now been more than a week since we celebrated our important milestone of 80% of eligible Vermonters vaccinated, giving our state a strong wall of protection against the virus so we can return to our lives without restrictions. That's because of the safe and effective vaccines that have been proven to work. And the fact that they work shows up in our data. I told you a number of weeks ago, I would not focus on case counts at these briefings. Current numbers tell us why. Average of three cases per day. One to four hospitalizations per day. Only one death since May 16th. A seven day average percent positivity of 0.4%. So I do trust the vaccine, but what I don't trust is the virus. Even with low levels of COVID in our communities, the virus has the potential to change and threaten the health of those who are not yet vaccinated. There are parts of the world where COVID is still spreading, allowing the virus to mutate into variants, some of which may be more dangerous. As I've mentioned, the Delta variant has been identified in Vermont. The CDC is now calling it a variant of concern, which recognizes that the variant is spreading in the U.S. with the potential to become the predominant strain. Public health experts now believe the strain will likely become predominant in the U.S. within a number of weeks to month. The parts of the country where vaccination rates are much lower are expected to have significant outbreaks and we are already seeing early signs of that. Fortunately, the Northeast is not one of those locations. Again, the variant is showing strains of being far more contagious and may potentially result in more serious illness. But luckily, there is good news for us here in Vermont. The vaccine is effective and our best defense against this and other variants. Because of our state's high vaccination rate, we will be largely protected. But we still need as many Vermonters as possible to protect themselves and those around them who can't yet get the vaccine. All you need to do is get vaccinated. It's free and easy. This is why we're still working hard, as you've just seen, to make vaccines accessible to anyone who's not yet vaccinated. And why I ask you again, if you know someone who isn't vaccinated, to encourage them to talk to a healthcare provider or help them find their own personal reason to get vaccinated. These conversations aren't always easy, but listening and being empathetic and non-judgmental can go a long way. And then helping provide information to address their concerns or questions. And going so far as helping to make vaccination happen for them, like helping with transportation, finding a site or childcare. Remember, vaccination is actually a routine part of our healthcare. It's how we avoid the flu and the measles and make sure terrible diseases like polio don't make a comeback. It's how we take control back from a virus that we once felt powerless to stop. As you may already be noticing as you enjoy your summer activities, your decision to get vaccinated gives you control back over your health and your life. But if you choose not to get vaccinated, you're effectively giving up control to the virus. You may think the odds are in your favor, but again, the evidence is showing the variants are taking a significant toll among the unvaccinated. About 450,000 Vermonters have already gotten at least one dose. This is across all counties, age groups, race, and ethnicity. Each person comes from their own unique experience with their own reasons, but they all ultimately made the decision that matters most right now to get vaccinated. This can be you too. Turn it back to the governor. Thank you, Dr. Levine. And we'll now open it up to questions. Ask for your patience. We're using a new system today with teams, but we have some reporters in the room as well. I guess starting off, so we've got the veto session that kicks off tomorrow. How confident are you that lawmakers will sustain your veto? I think it's gonna be very close, to be honest with you. As I reflected on this, I might have felt different, maybe pre-pandemic about these vetoes in terms of whether you win or lose. I'm competitive like anyone else, but after what we've been through over the last 15 or 16 months, regardless of what happens, whether they're overridden or sustained, life will go on. This isn't the end of the world. It's not a life and death situation, but I think we can do better. I think with all three bills that I vetoed, that we can do better work. And that's what I'm asking for, is to take and reflect on that and improve them. What have conversations with your office looked like with lawmakers who might be on the fence? Well, we're just giving them our perspective and why you don't wanna communicate that. I think that's one of the, I think the low point in some respects of the pandemic from a legislative perspective was that everything was remote. I don't think everyone was fully engaged in what the legislature was doing. It's not the fault of the legislature. It's just the situation we found ourselves in. So after past, I think there was many people who were surprised that it had gone this far, that they hadn't been paying attention. They didn't know what it meant in all different perspectives. So I, you know, there are some in particular, the charter changes in Winooski and Montpelier. And I thought I'd just read you a letter from George Cross. George Cross was a state rep, a lifetime educator and actually represented Winooski and a Democrat. And someone I served in the Senate while he was in the house. We didn't see eye-to-eye on a lot, but I never considered him an adversary. But he wrote this and I'll just read it from our legislator. I wish to urge you to support Governor Scott's veto of the Winooski and Montpelier charter changes. I do so for many reasons, but first, allow me to introduce myself to those of you who don't know me. I was born and raised in Brattleboro, went to college in Vermont and started my career as an educator here in the Green Mountains. After 25 years sabbatical, away from Vermont, I returned as a superintendent of the Winooski schools until I retired in 1999. My career in public education was followed by 10 years in the Vermont house as one of the representatives from Winooski. I have lived in Winooski for over 30 years. My wife, Dottie, and I have been very involved with new Americans here in Winooski for years. Both of our adopted daughters are naturalized citizens and have voted regularly since turning 18 in several different states where they have lived. Now, let me explain why I support Governor Scott's veto. One, Scott recently, I was stated recently, allowing a highly variable town-by-town approach to municipal voting creates inconsistency in election policy as well as separate and unequal classes of residents potentially eligible to vote on local issues. He is correct. Simply allowing local voters to determine who can vote on local issues, which issues, and more will establish a patchwork of who can vote and on what in Vermont. Such a plan would be unfair to those not allowed to vote in various communities, but would be allowed to vote in others if they lived there. Two, if the legislature believes that non-citizens should be eligible to vote on local issues, it should vote to change the current state law so as to permit a same. It should clearly define the term non-citizen, what local issues can be voted on and what offices non-citizens can hold. All Vermont non-citizens should be equally treated regardless of community of residents. To do less establishes one more inequity. Three, to accomplish an equitable system of voting for all eligible non-citizens, regardless of where they live in Vermont, the legislature could at this time create a study committee to fully examine the question and propose the need of legislation to implement such a plan. I would support such a change in Vermont law. This would ensure equal treatment of all Vermont's non-citizens. Four, the Winooski and Montpelier charter changes are not the same. Winooski would allow non-citizens to vote on all local issues, both the municipal and school. By the way, Winooski has two separate charters, one for the Incorporated School District and one for the city. The proposal only changes the city charter. Montpelier's proposed change is for the municipality only. Non-citizens in Montpelier would not be able to vote on school issues. So even the two changes on the table are not equitable. You have heard several different reasons as to why you should overturn the governor's veto. Some say that local people should control local issues. However, I recall when I was in the legislature, at least twice when localities voted via charter changes on gun issues, which went nowhere in the state house. Others claim they non-citizens pay taxes and thus should be able to vote. While this is correct, so do second homeowners. Some pay very high property taxes. Should second homeowners be able to vote in local elections? And the arguments go on, but do any of them address equity across the state? Simply overriding a veto because you have the numbers to do so is not good government. What happens when another party is in the same position? Your task is not easy, but it is important. I urge you to support the governor's veto. Sincerely, George Cross. So again, I couldn't say it better myself. Those are the issues that I have and we'll just have to see what happens by the end of the week. Do you think that I'm too sensitive about it? I don't, I'm not opposed to it philosophically, but I really believe that there should be, we should take the time to create a template so that it's all the same across the state. So there isn't this patchwork approach that we're taking right now. So I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I just think it just creates confusion and it creates inequity from one community to another. Columbia's also gonna be taking up housing bill in addition to the overrides which includes the rental registry that some of your Republican colleagues in the housings have some concerns with. Can you support the rental registry? Yeah, I'm concerned about it. I voice those concerns from the very beginning. It creates more bureaucracy, it creates more expense on the state level, millions of dollars and I don't think that we've fully contemplated how much that will in effect cost us. So I think it's the wrong time to do this, but again, we'll see what happens if they push forward on it. I ask maybe Secretary Smith about the winding down of the hotel-motel culture program. How many, what's the latest time? How many people are gonna be moving out by the end of the month? And how's this $2,500 stipend gonna work when it's so hard to find a vacant apartment? Yeah, it's a multitude of various things that we will be doing. Obviously, there are avenues for some people. For example, when the pandemic hit, they were living with family or friends. That avenue sort of closed down. That avenue, if everyone's vaccinated, we have almost 82% vaccinated. If that avenue reappears now. Secondly, there are rental subsidies and trying to find it and you're right. There is a housing crisis. That's why the governor is recommending $120 million. Shelter capacity is increasing as we move forward into the summer and we have encouraged more shelter capacity as we're moving forward. So there are opportunities out there. I think the estimate that I have heard from DCF is around 700 would not be eligible for the program. That's individuals that would not be eligible for the program. And so we're working hard with our local partners to make sure that those individuals we do find a place. Now remember, the program that we have established post-pandemic is not the same program that was in existence pre-pandemic. In fact, we've expanded criteria so that we can house more people to the tune of $41 million. So there is, we have tried to make sure that there's a compassionate way that we move forward in a program that's both sustainable, affordable, is a transition period to affordable housing that the governor has recommended. Matter of fact, in my lifetime, I can't remember a program that has put $120 million. And actually is a $250 million program if you look over multiple years into permanent housing. So we did this in steps. We're working with our local partners to find opportunities and we're making sure that there are payment options as well for the Hotel Motel program. And what's the number who are eligible to continue? Yeah, I'll have to get that to your steward. It's gonna be over 1,000. Yeah, I think it's around 1,200, but I'm not sure about that right now. Do you see that as a precursor to a greater problem, perhaps with the rise in housing costs here in Vermont and people who are moving in, really kind of sucking up all of the higher priced homes? Do you see that as possibly something that's gonna move up the food chain to say middle class for monitors? I think the governor recognized that there was a need. And again, I have never in my lifetime seen the investment that we're making in affordable housing, not only for the homeless, but for those middle income, to lower income individuals. You know, this is a program that is hundreds of millions of dollars that the governor has committed to solving this problem in terms of housing and housing availability. It's gonna take us a little bit of time to get it up and running. I wish the legislature would sort of help us do that with some revisions of Act 250 so that we can move this a little bit faster. But certainly, again, Steve, in my lifetime, I've never seen the investment that the governor is making here. And granted, with that investment, what's the reception been like with the public sector, the construction industry, the developers themselves? Well, I think the reception's been good. If you're gonna build more housing, the reception's gonna be good. I think the concern is how fast can we do it? And we would be, from a secretary of AHS, I would be in support of anything that can move that along as fast as it can. Do you understand anything about our newest Olympian? Oh yeah, very exciting. Watched the race last night on TV, like many people did. I thought she was going to be not off the track in the beginning, but she recovered. And then I gave her the incentive to lead the rest of the race. So very exciting for her, for Vermont. I can't think of a better person to represent us. And it does make us all wanna watch at this point. So my congratulations to her and her family, and I'm very proud to see her in action. All right, we will go to the phones now, starting with Lisa Raffke, the Associate Press. I'm wondering why I have to watch Mike Donahue on TV. It's like he's in my living room at this point. You there, Lisa? Otherwise, we'll go to Mike. All right, Mike? Governor, thank you very much. I was wondering, you mentioned three to four reasons that the legislature's in session, for the veto session, you did not address, so S107, wondering if you, what's your sense of that is, and I know you said they're all gonna be closed, but. That's, yeah, again, I think it'll come down to one or two votes either way. And I'm hopeful they will see the merits in our argument. We can take this up again in January and get it right. I think I have a lot of concerns with the bill overall, from a transparency standpoint, as well as raising the age and whether we have all the provisions in place to do that. I think Vermonters do in general. So I hope we have the votes over to make sure that we sustain that veto. Okay, thank you very much. Lisa Loomis, the value reporter. Lisa Loomis, all right, and we'll move to Guy Page from Mount Daily Chronicle. Once the FDA approves a COVID-19 vaccine, we'll, if you know, I'm gonna go back to the homeless question. Regarding the plan to build new housing for Vermont's homeless, which I gotta add, that's really the centerpiece of it. Build new housing and provide new housing. I'm gonna find Devil's Advocate for a minute. Are you concerned that adding supply might actually stimulate demand along the idea if you build it, they will come, either because Vermonters, some might actually choose unemployment or underemployment to meet income guidelines, or people might move to Vermont in anticipation of better housing than where they are. First of all, Guy, I'm surprised you're playing Devil's Advocate. You're always the half, glass half full kind of person. But don't forget the other piece of this. It's not all about homeless housing. We've, you know, I don't think Secretary Smith has said this. I don't think it's been an administration over the last decade, two decades, maybe ever that has emphasized the need for housing more than we have. As you remember, the $37 million housing bond which leveraged another $65 million of private assets making it the single largest investment in housing we've ever seen at $100 million. That was three years ago. And that pales in comparison to what we would like to see happen with about a quarter billion dollars, $250 million going towards housing. So a piece of that is for homeless because we have a situation that we need to rectify. In terms of build it and they will come, I hope so because we have workforce challenges as well. We need more people in this state. As you might recall, for those of you who've been here for a while, the 631, and I remember every time I said 631 early on during my first years it was a bit of an eye roll from the media but it's as true today as it was then. 631, six fewer workers in our workforce every single day. That was happening years ago. And three fewer kids in our school every single day. So that's still there and it's actually gotten worse, I believe, so we need more people. We need to bring people in. We need to make sure that we have the capability of training as well as bringing the skills in. That's why we've focused so heavily on that. So I don't believe this will have the effect of just bringing everyone into the state because of free housing, because nothing's free but I do think that it will go a long ways towards solving some of the homeless problems we see in the state. And while I'm at it as well, I agree with Secretary Smith we could use some help legislatively on some permit reform. We need some help with Act 250 if we want to build all of this housing. If this is an emergency situation, as we all perceive it, we need to pave a way for that to happen. And we're going to have to take some steps in order to help developers put some of the housing that we need into place. Also, are you at all worried that, no maybe worried it's quite the word, but is it possible that Vermont's health insurers might actually, once the vaccine is approved, might incentivize vaccination of employees by offering lower workplace group insurance rates? And if so, will that be putting pressure, maybe termination pressure on employees who don't want to be vaccinated? I'll let Mike Pichek answer that, but anytime we can reduce rates of any sort, I'm in favor of, so I'll let Mike Pichek answer the rest. Yeah, thank you, Governor, thank you guys. So just to recap, early on in the pandemic, Vermont required commercial insurers to cover the cost of testing before the federal government acted and before that was enacted in federal legislation. We also required that commercial insurers cover the cost of treatment without any out-of-pocket expense to Vermonters as well, and those still stay in place today. So can it ensure incentivize vaccination? Most likely yes, I mean, whenever there's a connection between an incentive and a reduction in cost, and that can be borne out, you can show that a certain behavior results in less medical care and therefore more savings. Generally, those are types of programs that can be established. Lisa Lewis just joined back the team, so we'll go to you, Lisa. Lisa, if you move your cursor, you'll see the microphone button to unmute yourself. Right, we'll go ahead. Oh, there you go. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Sorry. My question is for Commissioner Pichek as well. It has to do with the stats that I heard reported yesterday and I could not find on the website. Where on the website now can we find the total percentage of Vermonters eligible who have received the vaccination? In other words, where would I find the 81.3% stat for today? Yes, Alisa, that will soon be on the Vermont vaccine dashboard. I'm not sure if it's there today or not, but in the meantime, it is always included in our modeling reports, which is up on the website now on the DFR modeling page for today. So that would be certainly a place for today that you can find it. And I think in the near term, it'll be available on that Vermont vaccine dashboard. Great, that's it for me. Thank you very much. Tim McQuiston for my business magazine. Hi, Governor, I assume you've seen the one care report from the state auditor has wondered about your reaction is to that. I haven't read the report. It's fairly lengthy. I did see some of the uptakes from it. I appreciate the auditor giving his perspective. I think he comes from a different place than I do. I think he was more of a single payer advocate and maybe sees the merits of that versus this. But having said that, will you use any information he gleaned or gave us and will glean whatever we can do with the report to be better? But I just want to say with the all payer model, just think of the all payer as a prevention tool. And I try and simplify this. I mean, you think about prevention in our lives and what we do, it's not instantaneous reductions in costs. In fact, it might be more costly in the beginning to provide for prevention. And I am going to use a car analogy here, so bear with me. So if you have a car, you buy a new vehicle and you decide you're going to keep that vehicle for a number of years, 10, 12 years possibly, you might take some steps to save money down the road. You might make sure that you undercoat it, which costs money. You might decide you're going to change your oil every two to 3,000 miles. You're going to make sure you do an alignment to save your tires. You're going to take care of that. You're going to wash it. You're going to wax it. You're going to do all you can to make sure it goes the distance. And that will save you money in the long run. If, for instance, you're going to turn that over in every two years, you probably won't put money into prevention. You'll just keep buying new vehicles. So to take a snapshot in time like the auditor has done and say that it hasn't been effective because we haven't seen any savings, I think fails to look at the long-term because prevention always gives the greatest benefit in the outlying years. So we won't see, I don't believe, any substantial savings for probably a decade or two. Think about our demographics here in Vermont. We have an older population. So prevention at this point isn't necessarily going to save us money with the older population. There's still going to be healthcare usage. But for the 30-year-olds, 40-year-olds at this point in time, we can see the benefits 10, 20 years from now. And so we have to look at this longer term. But I'll ask Secretary Smith to add to that. The governor gave a very good overview of what it means to change the direction of the ship in healthcare. I just want to get into a little bit of the specifics briefly about the auditor's report. In November, we released a report and we pointed out some of the issues in the all-payer model. That included issues that dealt with the ACO needing more payers participating in the prospective payment model. The auditor is pointing out some of these same issues and we agree with the two recommendations that he had. In fact, we've already started to implement similar procedures to increase accountability and transparency as he proposed. But as I said when we conducted our evaluation, and I'll repeat it now, we have to do, we have an obligation to do the hard work. And that is to fix any imperfections that there may be in the model. And we perfect those imperfections to make sure that ultimately there are lower costs of Vermont, we improve quality and we improve access. And I've said this multiple times here and I'll continue to say it. I am a believer that we have to eliminate the fee-for-service reimbursement system in our healthcare services. I think it's a perverse model that you get paid for how many procedures or visits that you have. That it does not bring any sort of restrictions into how you deliver healthcare services. I am all in on the value-based payment, on prospective payments, on a fixed fee payment that concentrates on the health of Vermonters. I think that is the way to go. That's the focus that we're going to be doing with the all-payer model. And I think it is the right way to go. We saw in the pandemic that when we shut down the healthcare system, guess what was available to prop up the healthcare system. It was the value-based payments, the prospective payments, the fixed fee payments that gave prospective payments to the healthcare system to make sure that we did not have a collapse of the healthcare system. So A, I think it's the future to go for healthcare and payments, and B, I think it has some real-life benefits as we move forward. The auditor had pointed out in his audit, and I think we welcome audits, by the way. And there's one being done for the first year of, by the federal government, of the first year of the all-payer model. The auditor pointed out that we are spending some admin costs into one care. We are providing admin costs to help us distribute $305 million, that's in 2020. That has grown from, by the way, in participation in the Medicaid program from $82 million to $305 million from 2017 to 2020. But we do pay about 1% in admin costs to distribute and to coordinate that $305 million. If you want to put one times in for the investments that the governor talked about, preventive population healthcare, IT systems, those one times that Medicaid allows us to do, and in some cases on the HIT, the health information technology, it's a 90-10 split with the federal government spending 90%. Then you can see that we're spending about 2% with those one times and with the admin costs. So when we take a snapshot of this, we gotta be very careful of what we're looking at. We're looking at a small percentage of the healthcare costs, is it important? Absolutely, we need to look at everything. But is it in total of the $6 billion that we spend in healthcare? I think the way that we do it is value-based payment, that gets at the bulk of where we're going. And both Vermonters understand that if you change from going fee for service, getting paid for each service that you provide to a population health-based system where healthcare is based on keeping an individual healthy instead of the number of procedures and visits that you have, I think most Vermonters think that is the right way to go. And certainly from what we've seen during the pandemic has proven to be the case. My drill quick, using the governor's analogy of the youth care, usually you see the payoff in that in about five years. Where do you see where we're gonna see a break even? Or where do you get to a point where we're seeing that benefit? Well, I think we're starting to see benefits if you look at the broader scope in terms of the escalation costs of healthcare. We are under sort of the national average as we move forward in terms of the escalator that's happening in healthcare. But at the same time, these are bodies that take a little bit longer to change in terms of diabetes, heart disease, those various things in terms of changing the habits and procedures. We've started with the blueprint for health. This is just an addition to that. And I think, as the governor mentioned, these aren't under a loan of a car payment. These are going to be a little bit longer than five years. I do think that as we move forward, the auditor pointed out that why sign up for five years? We don't have to sign up for five years. We can do an extension and we may look at that as an option as we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Andrew McGregor, Caledonian Record. Yeah, thanks. Good afternoon. I'll defer my time to someone deeper in the list. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. Tom Davis, Compass Vermont. Thanks, Jason. Just one question. A lot of the news is reporting the fact that the new Delta variant is faster, better and much more easy to catch from one another. Are you planning any specific tactics to try and get the remainder of Vermonters who have not gotten vaccinated to look at the fact that they're much more vulnerable as they get the Delta variant and therefore maybe they could change their mind? Yeah, I mean, we're using these press conferences and doing everything we can to make sure that we get to those who haven't been vaccinated. So it's a good point. I heard the use of the word opportunist when describing the Delta variant this morning by Dr. Walensky. And when it hits a brick wall, it transforms itself, mutates and becomes faster and more powerful in some respects. So it's a concern, but we're in good shape here in Vermont. You know, no other state is as high as we are with 81.3%. So we just have to continue to work on the remaining 17, 18%, Dr. Levine. So the Delta variant is supposed to be potentially 50% more transmissible. So that's a big leap considering the one that's replacing the B117 was already much more transmissible than what was previous. So we could hold out the Delta variant as the reason to get vaccinated, but I would hold out also there'll be the next variant and the next variant. And the only reason they become important is because they become more transmissible when they establish themselves in the population. So it's hard to really, what we have to really realize now is we're dealing with a much smaller part of our total Vermont population from age 12 and above that have not yet taken the opportunity to get vaccinated. Only very few of them are true resistant people. They will absolutely never get vaccinated no matter what you say, no matter how you try to convince them. That's a very small percentage of our Vermont population. So we're really trying to reach the people who perhaps have been sitting on the fence waiting to see what will happen to the rest of us who have been vaccinated. And as more time goes by, they're gonna continue to see that only good things have happened to us and nothing bad. They're also people who are really, they get described by some as lazy. Others is just not really paying attention to this. It's not on the priority list. And we need to sort of have them stumble over the vaccine because it's put in front of them. And indeed, you've seen a list of places where the vaccine's going to be available and that's what's going to happen with many. And that's why we continue to get more thousands that the data shows have signed up since we reached the 80%. Those people had plenty of opportunity to get vaccinated all along. And now they're just being vaccinated for whatever reason. Most likely because we made it convenient, we allowed them to sort of find the vaccine without a big cost to them in terms of taking time off from work or anything like that. So that's gonna be the ongoing strategy. There's really no super magic at this point in time. It's really just seeing the benefits, looking at the climate around you and knowing that the virus hasn't gone away and that these variants are out there. And they'll continue to be out there until the world at large is truly vaccinated in total. Dr. Lavin, one quick follow up on that. Do you anticipate the Delta variant to continue to grow in Vermont as well as the United States in terms of percentage? Yeah, I do anticipate that, but it's gonna be so challenging to measure because we're going to have, we only do whole genome sequencing on people who are positive tests. And when you have so few positive tests, it may look like we're having an outbreak of Delta because we're gonna be able to sequence a high percentage of all of our positive tests because there are so few of them. And inevitably, some of them are gonna show up as Delta. I'm quite convinced. Okay, thank you very much. Aaron Tanko, BT Digger. Aaron Tanko, we'll move to Ed Barber, Newport Daily Express. All right, good afternoon. I just have a follow-up question involving people moving out of shelters, or actually out of hotels. In places like Northeast Kingdom when there wasn't much capacity for shelters in the first place would be taking such as bringing in FEMA trailers or tents or what have you to be able to manage the other people who would no longer be eligible for shelter? Secretary Smith. Yeah, Ed, at this time we have no plans to bring in FEMA trailers or anything along that line. I think the better way is how we've usually done is use our local partners in order to find some resolution to where an appropriate place can be and that can be with friends, family. As I mentioned earlier, friends, family, other housing opportunities, we have multi-millions of dollars of housing rental subsidies that can be used as well. So I think at this point trailers are not anticipated to be used. Times Argus. Yes, Governor, what are your thoughts on making inmate friend calls free, something that can indicate is just done? Miss part of that, making what free? Inmate phone calls? Inmate phone calls. I don't know if we've contemplated that. So I don't know. I don't have any answer for you, but I'd be happy to talk with our commissioner of corrections and see where that is on the priority list. Okay, thank you. Derek, seven days, but we had you for a second, Derek. It looks like you re-muted yourself. Derek, seven days. Hello, can you hear me now? We can. Okay, thanks. Sorry about that. So my question, Governor, is the legislature this week is meeting remotely for the veto session after virtually every other public body and state government has been told to resume meeting in person. What do you think about the legislature holding a remote session? Yeah, I don't know if it's totally remote. I've heard that there may be some legislators actually coming in. So I guess time will tell. That's up to them to decide what to do, but I myself am going to have a swearing-in ceremony in the state house for a new judge tomorrow. So I'll be there for an hour or so. I think it's safe to do so. I mean, we've been advocating for that. We have a number of reporters here today, a number of people here in the room. I would hope that they would, as many people would come in as possible. Great, thank you. Addison Independent? Yeah, can you hear me? We can. Great, Governor, this is for you and also for Dr. Levine, if he's still in the room. Since listing your restrictions last week but continuing to recommend that kids under 12 who are obviously unvaccinated wear masks indoors, sort of with tons of summer camps opening and lots of larger groups of kids inside and outside together unmasked. And this felt the variant creeping up on us. Any additional thoughts? You know, interesting. That was one of the questions by two governors this morning on the White House call to Dr. Walensky and asking for clarification. This is a CDC recommendations for those in summer camps being mass while indoors, not outdoors but indoors. And I think it was Governor Baker and Governor Bell Edwards who had, or no, it was Governor Lamont who had asked for more clarification and in particular, Governor Baker was curious as to whether this was going to preclude a lot of kids from coming in. So they promised that they were going to take a look at that and reflect on that and maybe give us further guidance in the future. Dr. Levine. And indeed, just to be clear, we have been referring people to CDC guidance in those very limited instances like summer camps where we had previously under Vermont Forward specialized guidance for those sectors. So like everything with COVID, this is a moving target. And we have sort of two forces against each other right now. One is the more rapid progression of the Delta variant, meaning it will be more transmissible and it will be transmissible among unvaccinated populations which of course by definition is people under 12 for a big part of that. But the other force which I want people in Vermont to be very aware of is percent positivity of tests, prevalence of virus in the state, amount of community transmission occurring within the state. And these are all right now in Vermont moving in a very, very good direction for us all. And as I've said before, with enough of us vaccinated even with a surge of Delta virus coming across the country, we're not gonna see that to a huge extent in the state of Vermont because it will really dead end in people who are vaccinated and protected from it. And we know the vaccines are working effectively against it. So I would assume and I would hope that future CDC guidance sort of aligns with those two concepts that yes, we do have the right and the need to protect vulnerable populations but also we need to put it into context of where we are at the time. And if we're in a place where very little is going on with regard to transmission of virus, a lot of these mitigation measures like masks, we may be able to relax significantly because of the fact that the risk of wearing them is the risk of the wearer getting the virus is still so low where they are that maybe the mask is just putting too much trouble to the experience and it's not needed at all. So I didn't say that that's effective today in anybody's guidance, but I think that's where we should be moving, always knowing where we are in context. Thank you. Just a follow up on the whole situation of the legislature being remote. Do you see that as possibly a way for them to avoid contact with the public or journalists or even lobbyists? I mean, it's an easy way to sort of stay away from everything. Yeah, I don't know. Probably a better question for them. They're a separate branch of government and they'll do what they want to do, but I would advocate that they come in. They did, I think during the end of the session there were some senators that did attend and I would expect that there would be some attending this week as well. So probably a better question for the leadership in the legislature. All right, that's it. Apologize to Erin. Maybe Jason Malucci can get in touch with you to work you through some of the technological issues with the teams meeting, but it seemed to work out pretty well for most. So thank you very much for being, for those who came in today, as well as for those who were on the phone. And we'll see you again next Tuesday.