 Good morning, everyone. I thought it would be good to take some time today to look back at how much has changed over the last three months. On March 13th, I declared a state of emergency in response to the coronavirus, which had only just been named a worldwide pandemic that week, and took several steps to help control the spread of the virus, protect the most vulnerable, and keep our health care system from being overwhelmed. Over the two weeks that followed, we expanded those restrictions, including putting a stay home, stay safe order in place, asking Vermonters to leave their homes only for essential purposes, as well as closing schools and in-person operations for most businesses. After a month, our modeling showed that thanks to the sacrifices of Vermonters, we had flattened the curve, meaning we slowed the spread of the virus and changed our trajectory. This work saved hundreds of lives. Since then, we began slowly reopening the economy and loosening some restrictions, one-quarter turn of this ticket at a time. So we can make sure these moves didn't dramatically increase the spread of the virus to put our health care system back at risk. And we continue to see good signs from our data, which has meant we can forge ahead, getting more Vermonters back to work, and back to social and physical activity that's also important to our well-being. However, it's not all good news because in recent weeks, we've been dealing with an outbreak in the Wienewski area. And while this has caused an uptick in new cases, we've stayed well below the thresholds we've set. For example, our positivity rate, meaning percent of positive cases, our total tests out of total tests has remained between one to 2.5%. Our growth rate is back below 1%. And our case count outside of the outbreak has remained very low. We're managing this by aggressively testing and tracing in the region so we can surround it and box it in. And I want to thank the team at the Department of Health and our local partners for their incredible work, which is still ongoing. This is an example of how things have changed since early March. At that time, we knew very little about the virus. In fact, nobody did. And most of us didn't know what social distancing was or think twice about how long we took to wash our hands. We also didn't have the testing capacity or inventory of life-saving equipment and PPE like masks and shields that we do today. You see, staying home in March and April didn't just flatten the curve and save lives. It also gave us the time to learn, growing our testing and tracing program and supply chains, build our PPE and ventilator stock, and put health and safety procedures in place across all sectors. And it made us more aware of our own behavior, which has been key. And the small things each of us can and must do to help limit the spread of this virus until a vaccine is developed. Each of these things show why we've been able to slowly reopen and lift restrictions and why, when we see outbreaks, it won't require the same drastic action we had to take in March. At the same time, we have to be smart here at home. And we have to remember, Vermont is not an island, and that this isn't over. We still have about 130,000 active cases within a five-hour drive of us. That's about 20% of our population. This is why I've taken a cautious approach, because we have to watch the impacts of each step we take as well as those of our neighbors as well. But the fact is, we've been moving forward. All sectors are open to at least some capacity. We've increased gathering sizes, let family and friends get together, open childcare, and ease quarantine requirements for travel between Vermont and other states. And today, we're opening up outdoor lodging, meaning campgrounds, to 100%. And if our data continues to show we're moving in the right direction, you'll see us open more things further. As a reminder, none of these steps are taken without the approval of the Health Department and the epi-team. They work side by side with ACCD and Public Safety to provide the guidance for reopening. I say all this because I know that with every move we make, some believe it's way too much, too fast, and others believe it's way too little and too slow. I hear and understand the concerns on both sides, but there are no easy answers or simple solutions. And there's certainly no roadmap. So we'll continue to move forward under the guidance of the health experts. And based on the trends we're seeing both in Vermont and around the region. Because we get everything open in the right way and continue to test and trace the fight outbreaks, then we won't have to retreat, which will be better for the economy and our quality of life in the long term. To continue to manage this reality, the fact is the state of emergency must remain in place. So I've extended it again to July 15th. But remember, the state of emergency is just a vehicle, our mechanism to do all the things we need to do to manage our response. It's not the same thing as the stay at home order. And it doesn't mean all restrictions stay in place. In fact, it gives us a way to lift them when the time is right. Now, I know this has felt like a very long journey already and so much uncertainty remains and you're tired of it and just want it to be over. I can relate, but if we continue to stay smart, use common sense and take care of each other, we will get through this. I know we can do this and we can do it together. And with that, I'll turn it over to Dr. Levine for a health update. What I'd like to do this morning is a brief update on our numbers, brief update on Manuski and a discussion regarding serology testing. As you can see, we're at 1,128 cases. It has been way over two weeks since we've had any deaths, thank goodness, so we remain at 55. You can look at our kind of curve of cases and obviously we had a change in the slope of our curve related to the outbreak. You'll notice a sense of leveling off again, getting similar to where we started and that's further supported by looking at the number of new cases, which is continuing to down trend. Now I have to be careful here and tell you that we did not do specific testing in Burlington or Manuski at pop-up sites over the weekend. Having said that though, we're averaging 1,364 tests per day over the last week, so there have been plenty of opportunities for testing related to that outbreak and across the state. The percent positivity is continuing to be very, very low, well below 2% and we continue to have very similar syndromic surveillance data showing few visits to emergency rooms or urgent cares for COVID-like symptoms or flu-like symptoms. Interestingly, if you look at the map of the country, we continue to hear concerns about minimum of 20, often 20 plus states that have had issues with increasing cases in very recent days to week, some attributed to their reopening process. Our curve, when it was going upwards again, clearly was related to a single outbreak in the state. We went actually from the CNN designation of one of the states that had one of the highest rates of increase to overnight having one of the most dramatically different states in the other direction with very little going on in terms of case positivity. So one has to be careful when one looks at data all the time. Regarding Linovsky, we remain at 83 total cases. Again, still 60% adults, 40% children and less than 20% in the range of symptomatic, now down to 17% in that population. Continue to have a low median age of 22. I reported last week that there was a hospitalization associated with this, but on further analysis, we've determined the hospitalizations actually not related to this outbreak. So this outbreak continues to have zero hospitalizations associated with it. And as I've been reporting each time, the number of contacts is still about the same as the number of cases at 78. And I think that's all you need to know from the numbers standpoint at this point in time. I've been promising for some time a little discussion about the results from the deliberations of the serology working group, which has really met a number of times in the last couple of weeks. First, I wanna talk about the tests themselves that are used to test people for antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The FDA has recognized the deficits of many of the current tests and it's really started to tighten its regulatory authority over the manufacturers. It now requires that tests have a sufficient sensitivity, and remember sensitivity is the ability of a test to correctly identify those with a disease and a sufficient specificity, which is the ability of a test to correctly identify those who don't have the disease. And they have to report these within 10 days of getting an emergency use authorization. So keep in mind a test with a really, really good sensitivity and specificity. Those numbers will be in the 99% range. There are now at least four testing platforms that the working group has identified that have sensitivity and specificity in that range. Now you might think that these are incredibly accurate and worth doing, but to explain why that might not be true, I do need to explain a few concepts to everyone. So I'm gonna use this as a teachable moment, but bear with me. If it does nothing else, it'll allow you when you go to your doctor next time and think you want a test for some condition to understand why the doctor may be enthusiastic or reluctant to order that test and why you need to understand the implications of doing that test and what the result means. So the first concept we'll talk about is pre-test probability. Before even doing the test, how likely is it that you have the condition that you're worried about having? What's the likelihood that you might test positive? So if you think you've had exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus, even though you may not have actually been sick, what is your pre-test probability of that being true when we do the antibody test? Well, that really relates to how much of the virus is circulating in the community at the time that you're worried about. And all along, I've been pretty consistent in saying, we don't think there's been a high level of virus circulating in the community, either in the U.S., except in select places, or in Vermont. And you can tell that by looking at our percent positivity rates, looking at our rates of new cases, et cetera. The best guess is that under 5% of Vermonters may have been exposed to the virus thus far. So if a Vermonter wanted to have this antibody test done, they'd have to realize right from the get-go that the probability of having a positive test was low from the start. In addition to pre-test probability, what about post-test probability? In other words, once you get the test result, how likely is that result to reflect reality? So the positive predictive value of a test is the probability that a person who has a positive test result really does have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 virus. To figure that out, you need to know how good the test is, the sensitivity and specificity, as I've been discussing, and then how prevalent is the SARS-CoV-2 in our population. So if you're in a state or a country with a lot of SARS-CoV-2 around, you'll have a really high positive predictive value of the test, and if you get a positive test result, it's pretty likely you've had antibodies to the virus. But the opposite is also true. And as the prevalence of the virus in the population gets lower and lower, the likelihood that a positive test result is a true positive becomes much lower as well. So let me give you a familiar example with a very common symptom. A 55-year-old man gets brought in by ambulance to the emergency department because he has crushing chest pain. This man smokes two packs of cigarettes per day, has high cholesterol, is high blood pressure, is diabetic, and has a strong family history of heart disease with his father and grandfather dying of heart attacks. I think everyone can understand the likelihood of him having heart disease is quite high to explain his symptom. So if we do a reasonably good test to determine if he has heart disease and it comes back positive, I think the case is closed. Take the same scenario of chest pain though and a 25-year-old woman who runs five miles a day has none of the risk factors that this gentleman had and she comes into an office and says, I've been having an uncomfortable chest pain. Well, if we did a test looking for heart disease in her and the test came out positive, because the likelihood of heart disease in her population is so low, that test would probably be a false positive result. And the only thing we would have done is make her anxious and had to do another test to try to refute the finding of the first test. So let's go back to the serology test for coronavirus infection. You might be interested to know that if the test we would choose had a maximal sensitivity and specificity of 99% and the prevalence of the virus in our population was more than double what I've thought about. Let's say it was over 10%. The positive predictive value would be 67%. That means that two out of every three positive test results actually were true that the person had antibodies for coronavirus. One out of three would be a false positive. Now let's get down to a more realistic prevalence level, 5%. At 5%, the positive predictive value was 49%. In other words, it's a 50-50 coin toss. If it's a positive result, does it mean it's really positive or is it a false positive? If you get closer to what I think the truth might be in Vermont, two or 3% coronavirus in the population, the positive predictive value is 27%, which means essentially three out of every four people who get a positive result on the antibody test, that's a false positive result. I'm giving you this long-winded discussion just to show why we're choosing not to embark on testing the whole state of Vermont right now just because we have tests that are available that have improved in their accuracy. And if similarly, if you ask your doctor for any test for any kind of disease, that's the thought process you want your doctor to be going through and that you should start to go through yourself as well. And if you would like to ask your doctor for a serology test for coronavirus, they are available and the doctor can order one, but just keep in mind how to interpret the result that comes back based on what we believe is a very low prevalence of virus in the population. Besides analyzing the test platforms we have available, what else did the serology working group recommend to us? Well first, and in consideration of what I presented thus far, they are not advocating that these tests be used as a proof of immunity nor evidence that an individual can or should return to work, not even to know truly if a person can get infected again. The work group recommended that we discourage the use of these tests in decisions about infection control or clinical care of individual Vermonters. And in this respect they're actually echoing national guidance. Second, the work group left open the question of doing population level screening for antibodies for COVID-19 infection, but stated its role is limited and should be part of an epidemiological study that's conducted or planned by the CDC or the NIH or another academic organization. Many of these such studies are either just being launched or not even yet underway, but we are clearly open to exploring such studies with investigators both nationally and regionally. Thank you. And with that, we'll open it up for questions. All right, thank you. So presenting data on the Woodusky cluster today we see the cases are going down, which is a good thing, but in other parts of the country, I believe Austin, case rates are still rising and state leaders and local officials are having to make hard choices of shutting down businesses. So as we reopen up our economy, as you said, we'll see more cases. What would the data need to look like for us and how many cases would we need to have for us to start shutting down businesses again? Well, I think I'll let Dr. Levine comment on this, but when we see that it's becoming an issue of our healthcare system, first of all, it starts to exceed our capacity, then we'll have to take action. When we see these outbreaks throughout geographically, throughout Vermont with a rate that's concerning to us, then we would have to take action. But we feel as though, until there's a vaccine, we're going to have to deal with some outbreaks. It's just the reality of the future until the vaccine comes about. So that's why we built up our testing and tracing capacity so we could deal with things like this. Winooski has given us an opportunity to test that out and to build upon that so that we can get better in the future. But it may be a reality until, again, the vaccine is put on the market. Very little to add except that I would estimate over 50% of the tests we're doing every day are still outside of Chinman County and they're throughout the state. And we're just not finding lots of disease in other sectors of the state. I'm trying to be very cautious as I talk about Winooski because the numbers are looking so good and the trend is looking so good, but it does take time to play out, but clearly a boxed in strategy is having an impact which is not playing out in some of the places around the country that you've mentioned and that they're concerned about. And clearly, we get asked the question all the time, did this outbreak that's in Chinman County occur because of the reopening process? And really nothing could be farther from the truth. And I think we would see that all through the state if that were true. Many of the states like Texas, Arizona, Florida are very concerned about their rate of increase and their use of hospital resources and wondering about the fact that they may have to slow down things significantly. And then just a quick second question. Long-term care facilities, when can we expect some sort of guidance on that? Well, because I know we've already heard from at least several facilities in Chinman County which are kind of taking into their own hands and letting visitation. I think I'll see you on Wednesday again here. And that's when we have some news about those facilities. Thank you. And Commissioner Petschak, I know you're on the line. Maybe you could just quickly file off for Calvin, remind him of the reopening metrics we're watching as far as his first question on thresholds. Yeah, of course, I'd be happy to. So I think as we have visited on Friday, we have these four metrics that we update every week, syndromic surveillance, the growth rate of the virus, the percent of tests that are positive, and then the ICU capacity. And all of those have certain thresholds that are associated with them. And even during the outbreak, each one of those metrics remained low, which was a good thing to see. And certainly even the growth rate will be, based on this weekend's information, will continue to trend down as well. So those are the four metrics that are statewide and broad that we are attending to look at during the reopening. Right, Stuart. Thank you, Governor. Could you address the weekend vandalism outside? I know you should have written a statement on this. And some of the blowback that you're getting on your social media accounts that some of which take you to task for Black Lives Matter rather than all lives matter. Yeah. You know, this weekend's activities, disappointing, disturbing, concerning, all the above, and it just proves that we have a lot of work to do. And it proves that we have to address this now and take the opportunity to do so. In terms of selecting the Black Lives Matter versus all lives matter, I've heard a lot of analogies, but the one that rings true to me is when after 9-11, for instance, we all rallied to the cause. This was an attack on us as Americans, attack on New York, our way of life. So we rallied behind that in Boston after the bombing. We rallied behind Boston, Boston strong because it was the time to do that. We wanted to give our support because they were after us, coming after us, coming after Boston, but coming after us as well. We should look at this the same way. This has been an attack on Black Lives for far too long and we need to address it now in this moment and take this opportunity to do so, take action, and of course all lives matter, but Black Lives Matter right now and we need to address it. I guess to follow up on Stuart's comment, some of the taking the 9-11, for instance, or even the Boston bombing that they were saying, we didn't see anything about Muslim lives matter when there was attacks on the Muslims when that occurred and there are several other examples of that that they're saying, you know, why did the city allow that, but they didn't allow the fighters to come through and do their usual toy run and all those kinds of things. You know, when we saw the Jewish faith being attacked, not too long ago, a lot of graffiti, anti-Semitic, overtones in some of the graffiti in Burlington, we came to their defense and we put out statements, we all rallied against that. So again, when this occurs, we have to take action and again, if something arises where against a minority group of any sort, we should rally to the cause, but right now it's Black Lives. All right, moving to the phone, Sean at the Chester Telegraph. This is for Secretary French. The K-12 schools at this point are either closed or closing for the year and they're starting their in-service days or are about to, for training and planning for the fall. What's the timeline for the AOE to release more guidance and the district level planning template that was referred to in the June 4th update on reopening? Secretary French. Morning, Scott. Yes, morning, Scott. Thank you, Governor. Yeah, we'll have guidance out this week around the public health parameters for reopening school. We've also signaled the school district specifically to issue a seven-service day that there also could be a lot of attention on those days spent on improving continuity of learning or remote learning, which will be necessary in the fall as well. So, you know, we appreciate the timing isn't the fastest, but it's also important that we, you know, go with the latest public health information and take our time to ensure that foundational health guidance is really helpful. Thank you. Kat, WCAS? Good morning. Dr. Levine, one of the reasons you listed for not doing antibody tests is that we think the virus right here has been under 5% and then we would see a lot of false positives. How does what we're seeing in Winooski with the high amount of asymptomatic people play into that? Because if only 17% of people in Winooski are reporting symptoms but do have this virus, couldn't theoretically the number of volunteers who've been exposed to the virus over the past few months and not known it be a lot higher than we think it is? And in which case wouldn't the rate of correct positives for antibody tests ultimately be higher? It's a great question. And you framed it very well. I think one thing about Winooski that we need to keep in mind is that 40% are kids and that may explain a lot of the asymptomatic nature. Even if those kids acquired the virus from adults, they're much less prone to show symptoms. I think the other part is to look at what we've been doing with our PCR testing, looking for active disease. We're really, I have to say, looking at every nook and cranny that we can for people who might have experienced COVID-19 and might have an asymptomatic infection and done that even in high-risk populations. So we've looked at the residents and staff and nursing home facilities and correctional facilities, looked at healthcare workers. We have allowed asymptomatic Vermonters for quite some time to get tested at a pop-up site of their choice. And we're just not finding a lot of people who may have the virus and even if they don't have symptoms, test positive on that modality. So it kinda reinforces my thought that I don't think we're gonna find that many people with positive serology. And then when I look at the experience of a couple of other states that have done some surveys at this point in time, they're not finding high rates in their populations even in places where they've had far greater disease activity over this time period. Now the higher rates on the serology testing would be in the 10% range in places where they already knew that there was a lot of disease that was active over time, like New York City. So I realize you could interpret this as almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. You think there's low disease, why test? So you'll never find out if there's higher disease. But I think it is part of real testing knowledge and protocol and based on the experiences nationwide and worldwide, I don't have a reason to think that Vermont suddenly would have adults with a larger amount of experience than we've stated previously. A few follow-ups then. You said a lot of these community cases are kids and that might explain the level of not being highly symptomatic. Would serology tests then be useful for populations like children who where they might have gone unnoticed because they didn't really have symptoms? If you were like targeting a population to see if there was sort of a hidden reservoir of people who had seen the virus, that might be a reasonable strategy. It's really hard to know because again, we don't think kids are spreading it that much amongst themselves or amongst adults. So that may still reflect this lower prevalence of disease even in the kid population. We just don't know. We've certainly done a lot more testing of children. Forget about Winooski just in the prior time because we allowed that to happen where it had been more restrictive earlier on in our experience. And we aren't finding high rates in the children that have been tested outside of the outbreak. To Winooski, I heard you mention that the number of contacts or remains about the same as the number of cases. What does that tell us about how that virus spread within the population that was interconnected? It means like almost everybody got it? Well, no, so in this case, if you're identified as a contact, you had sufficient connection to the case to be at higher risk of becoming infected, whether that be because of your living circumstances, the amount of time you spent with the person, the intensity of one-to-one contact with the person. So that doesn't mean you're going to become a case, but it turns out thus far, and it's still early in the game, approximately one in seven of those contacts. And that's a rough estimate have become cases. So there are plenty of people who would still be listed as contacts because of their risk need to be in quarantine but may never actually show a positive test or a symptom. Mike, down to you, the Islander. Good morning, for Suzanne Young. I know we didn't connect on Friday. If you had a question to me, which office building was not lacking people with masks? The 8th of Bloomer State Office Building, a merchant's row in downtown Rutland, they're not asking questions, not taking temperatures, no nothing. And I believe there are signs telling people to wear masks, I'm told. But people walk right by and the building is used to, just cut through to the bus station. So I guess the question, we can follow up later, but some of the visitors and clients are in vulnerable groups and they're wandering through the building. So disabilities and aging department children for children and families, the health department, labor department, these stacks are all among those in the building. So there's quite a bit of foot traffic and some of the people are working at home. I know we didn't connect, but maybe you can follow up with me later on that one. As far as the question for today. And let you have an answer. Thanks. No, but thank you for that information, Mike. Yeah. A couple of questions that popped up over the weekend and today, frustrated reminders are wondering when the legislature is going to go home for the year. Couple of business owners are upset that the legislature has failed to deliver all of the COVID funds for their starving and needy businesses and program owners. And at least one email wanted to know why the legislature is still in overtime considering even non-COVID related emergency items at this point. And one reader has specifically a taxpayer still paying for legislators, hotels, condos, rentals, meals, other expenses. If they haven't been in a motelier for the last three months, are the taxpayers still putting any of all expenses there? And what is the daily or weekly price tax of a mortgage on that? And I realize you may not know that number today. So if you want to get back, I mean, let's say that's fine too. I think those are more appropriate for the legislators as a whole, maybe with the speaker and the pro tem. The fact is when we received the 1.25 billion, I had a choice to make other states that had contemplated just the governor would have control of the resource out of the money. And I just thought it was a better approach to work together with the legislature. So the reality is we need them and we need them to stay until we disperse the money. And these are difficult times. You know, we certainly didn't come at an appropriate time for anyone, but not the legislature in particular, because we were right in the middle of our legislative session in trying to get a budget out, trying to get the budget adjustment from last year out as well as next year's budget. So I know they've been working on the budget, the quarter of a year budget that they're moving forward with. I did receive I think about 12 or 13 bills on Friday that some of them are COVID related. So we appreciate that. And I've signed most of them today and we have a couple more coming, I believe. So, you know, they're trying to finish up their work. I'm not sure when they're going to go into recess. I think they're, whenever they do, I think they're coming back. I know they're coming back in August or September so that we can determine at that point how we budget for the rest of the year doing it for the first three months right now and then come back and determine how we deal with the rest of it. So they're essential partners, separate branch and we need them to work with us to get through this. They could be focused, it appears from the readers that they could be focused on COVID-19. They seem to be doing other issues and they are in fact going to have to come back again. So, apparently people are surprised that especially during an election year when they usually try to get at them until you're early, that they haven't left and knowing that they've got to come back and do the other three quarters questions at some point, too. Yeah, unusual times for sure, but those are probably more appropriate questions for them. But at some point, can you get a dollar amount what the state is paying? I mean, I assume the Treasury or somebody has to pay these funds. Yeah, I can at least point you in the right direction. Okay, thank you, fair enough. Thank you, Governor. We can follow up on that. Thank you, Secretary Young. Chris Roy, Newport Daily Express. Yes, good morning. Can you explain what the extension of state-of-the-emergency means for the average of a monitor and what things need to look like before you're willing to let that be for emergency? Yeah, you know, it is tough to realize and we've done a lot since I declared the state of emergency back in March, March 13th. And it really is just a vehicle if you can relate to that. Something that our mechanism where we get to put all kinds of restrictions in place, which we did, as I said in my opening remarks, we close schools, we close a lot of businesses, put restrictions on everything, stay homes, stay safe order was part of that as well. But that same framework is needed, that mechanism is needed to unwind all that as well so that we do it in a measured way. So we've already opened up some, almost every sector to some degree. Like today, we're opening up campgrounds to 100%, from 50% to 100%. So that's the way we have to do it. We need something to open things up in a measured responsible way. And to make sure that we don't have any outbreaks and spikes and so forth as we do this. So if all of a sudden we saw a number of outbreaks throughout the state that gave us concern, we would slow things down. Or if we didn't see anything and then the region was getting better in Boston and Rhode Island and Connecticut and lower in New Hampshire and Maine and so forth, and we're getting better, we might open things up a little bit faster. So it's just a way to do that and to manage it. Does Black Lives Matter and then impact why those individuals are allowed to do that? Yeah, again, I think the First Amendment right, Trump's some of the other responses and we are just asking them, we don't want to go out and arrest everyone and cause more disruption. But we are asking them to wear masks, try and social distance as much as possible. And for the most part, I'm seeing that and I'm grateful as I watch some of the protests and some of the media photographs and so forth of some of these protests that they are wearing masks and I think that that's a testament to them understanding the gravity of the situation but also wanting to exercise their First Amendment rights and to take, again, for this to happen at the same time, inconvenient at best, but again, I think this is too important of an issue to let go. Lisa, the Valley Reporter. Good morning, this question is for Secretary Curley and it's about fitness and fitness studios reopening. I was able to find on the ACCD website some guidelines for non-cardiovascular classes. I'm wondering if there are guidelines that have been issued for classes that very specifically raise people's heart rates and require them to move around the road, something like high intensity interval training or even a class like sitting where people are at a fixed location but the goal is to breathe very hard. Are there guidelines for that yet? Yes, good morning. That is a great question. We have in your close contact I'm just sorry, I'm trying to find it right now. I might be able to answer part of that while you're looking for it, Secretary Curley. I believe, Lisa, they have been opened up. The gathering size is limited, obviously, and you have to maintain a physical separation. A lot of regulations around cleaning the equipment and hygiene and so forth goes along with that but I would say spinning classes, some of that interval training, CrossFit and so forth is allowed to happen but in a much, much different way than before, limited in size, capacity, as well as making sure that you maintain that distancing and cleaning equipment is so necessary in between intervals and between people. Thank you, I'm not sure, thanks. To be clear, it's section 8.1 in both contact business, stage two. And again, there's clear guidelines about separating people out and it's hard to exercise with a mask on but there may be times where masks are needed in the areas to get the equipment and whatnot but it is outlined in there. 25%, as you can see. Okay, just to follow up though. The six-link distance requirement is for non-cardiovascular fixed-position fitness classes. Is there a bigger distance people should be separated for high-intensity aerobic activity in a studio situation? Are you finding that our website that we're next year about the... I didn't find anything, yeah, I did not find anything specific but what I found on the website is specific references to the types of classes, that fitness classes that can take place. Okay, so my apologies on this. There's a lot of information out there. If you're okay with it, I'd love to take it offline. We'll get you some guidance on what you're asking about specifically. That would be great. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, Joe Barton Chronicle. Who this question would be for? I know looking back at things, it's easy to see areas or things that you didn't know in the past. But I'm curious, I asked this before a while ago. In preparing hospitals, the expected road of COVID patients, a lot of, there's any sense at this point, whether those actions resulted in excess deaths just due to the fact that people didn't get treatment that they ordinarily would have had. Yeah, I think I'll let Dr. Levine answer this but it has been a concern of ours because we know that people weren't going to their appointments, weren't coming in because they were afraid of COVID-19 and not getting checked out when they should. But I don't know whether there was any increase in the death rate as a result. My impression is that there was no increase in the death rate. This is early information though because you have to remember the governor just went over the timeline. Things happened relatively quickly here. So we may not have complete information to analyze yet with regard to that. That question's being asked everywhere around the country, around the world. And there are some clear places where there were surges and it's quite evident that death rates were higher mostly due to COVID probably and not to other conditions. We know that the rate of people presenting with some of these other conditions to hospitals was lower but that doesn't necessarily mean people were dying of them more often. So at the moment I'm gonna answer your question saying we don't think that the death rate increased due to these other conditions but we will be analyzing that data over time and I will certainly try to bring that back to one of these press conferences with more definitive answer for you. To assume that had there been a substantial increase that that would have been spotted much sooner. Well, for sure, especially in a state that thank goodness was spared that many COVID deaths. So with that rate being so low, clearly, I think it would have been quite evident. Hi, it's a county courier. Good morning, governor. So what I can tell there are about 11 states that are pursuing contact tracing applications for phones with the intent that they'd be used voluntarily. Has Vermont considered the use of such apps within our response to COVID? I believe, yes, is the answer. I mean, we're using Sarah Alert but we've also contemplated other methods as well. I don't know, Dr. Levine, you wanna answer further on this? Yeah, Sarah Alert's the main one that we've been dealing with at this point but we are looking at other apps and other forums to do just what you're saying. And Sarah Alert would actually be able to track the public and be able to determine if they've had contact with someone that also has such apps, I understand? Yeah, that would be a different, I don't know if it was Google or one of the other ones but that's a different type of app. I'll let Dr. Levine answer so you can get an idea of what Sarah Alert is. So Sarah Alert is really a communication tool, bi-directional, so a health department can push out information to the person who's been contacted and also inform them of the kinds of symptoms to report, et cetera. And the person can feedback information from their direction. It is not a tracking tool. There are some apps, Google and Apple that will do that and that we've actually talked about here but we've not actually embarked on that journey. So currently, if Avermoner has been contacted by someone in the health department and given instructions regarding isolation or quarantine or their degree of risk based on a person who tested positive, they are getting lots of information and guidance and able to do the same in reverse but they're not being tracked in terms of their movements. You said that you guys have considered the Apple applications, for example. What kind of discussions has been taking place about personal privacy and the pros and cons of having that as part of your response? Right, that is indeed the reason why it's been talked in no action because that's a concern obviously of any Avermoner and across the country for that matter. There are nations that are using these routinely but their societies have bought into that and that's part of their culture that is happening without much discussion. And in Vermont, clearly we have sufficient concerns about privacy and infringing on people's own personal rights that we have not taken that pathway. Doesn't mean though that we don't explore some of these possibilities and discuss them but clearly we have not acted on any of those. Okay, so are you guys still considering that kind of thing even like voluntary usage? I can't say that that's true at this point in time but I mean perhaps in the future we could but at this point in time that's not where we've gone. No. Thank you. Wilson, the AP. Hi, good morning everybody. Yes, always thanks for making yourself so available. I have two questions. One for Dr. Levine and one for my teacher I guess. I can ask them both to begin. Dr. Levine, you talked a lot about the Wajnicki outbreak. Do you now consider that to be in the past tense, something that has passed and finished and now you're take learning the lessons from it as we all go forward? It is definitely not in the past tense. It is something we are still watching day to day. It's way too early knowing the incubation period of virus and the number of people who were involved to just put a check mark and move on. We really do need to keep ongoing surveillance and working with that population. So we are discussing lessons learned all the time and that's I think very important for us to do as a government and as a health department but clearly I don't put it in the past tense yet. That's why I was very cautious in my original presentation today to not just say that the weekend looks so good Friday, Saturday, Sunday test results and that's why we're testing in both Burlington and Wajnicki each day this week. Second question, Mike, are you or whomever is collecting those statistics? Are you looking at what's going on in Canada? I don't know if Quebec or Canada for that matter collects this data in the equivalent of counties or not but at some point the border will open and then would you have the make it possible for people from Canadian counties if again if that's the correct terminology to come here once the border reopens? Yeah, so we have been tracking data from Canada mostly from the Quebec province. We will largely Canada has been reporting their data at the Providence or territory level. So we've been trying to find ways to get good data at a more granular level. So we can have potentially have something set up like we do with the current regional travel program. So it's certainly something that we're looking at and I hope to have the data that we need and the analysis done that we would need when the border is ready to be open. Okay, perfect, thank you both. Guy Page. Governor, could you or Commissioner Sherling please answer this question I asked on Friday. Can you or Sherwin-Modders and your protestors try to establish a police free autonomous zone in Vermont per Capitol Hill in Seattle that you will stop at partly in the city and just so how? Guy, first of all, I did take a look over the weekend at the situation in Seattle and it certainly is bizarre in many ways. I don't have any information about this initiative here in Vermont unless you have knowledge or you heard that there's going to be something of that magnitude here in Vermont. And if you do, I'd ask you to call the public safety and report it to them so we can continue to track. But to my knowledge, there is nothing that is heading our way that we know of. Commissioner Sherling, anything to add to that? Thank you, Governor. I think Vermonters conduct themselves in protests and demonstrations in an often a different but impactful way. And we trust that that track record's going to continue. Thank you. My second question, as the chief executive's warned to uphold the Vermont Constitution, do you think the Astutney School Board is stifling free speech by threatening the Windsor School principle with a loss of a job for expressing skepticism about some of the DLM tactics? Yeah, it sounds like a constitutional question that is appropriate to ask. I would imagine, I haven't, again, I know of the situation, but I don't know what has transpired since, whether the principle herself has obtained a lawyer and is using that for a basis. But I do question a bit when you have someone that is expressing their right to free speech, to be penalized for that in that manner, I think is problematic. But I'll let, I'm assuming that this is going to be some sort of legal battle, but probably left to someone who is a constitutional expert. Thank you very much. Andrew, Caledonia record. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Governor, good afternoon. We heard of a local resident that was riding with his family this weekend on Kingdom Trail when they came across a rider who had fallen and was unconscious while rendering a call in 911, the Good Samaritan learned the injured rider was from Boston up for a day trip with at least one other. I'm wondering if the state learns of situations like this in which an individual has almost assuredly violated the quarantine requirements. Is there any disciplinary action that the space can take? And is there any expectation for hospital workers or first responders to report known violations? Yeah, that is concerning and not surprising in some respects. I think I alluded to this last week that we know some are not taking our guidance seriously and are coming from some of those affected communities which again is concerning for everyone involved. Maybe I'd refer to Commissioner Shirling. I'm not sure that there's anything that we have in place for any type of violation that we can issue. Commissioner Shirling, are you aware of anything? No, you're correct, Governor. I think we would be interested to know so that we can follow up with additional education and if we see trends emerging, we can adjust our messaging in particular to populations that may be inbound to Vermont to ensure that they're aware of our quarantine requirements. As I'm reflecting on this, as much as we love to have our surrounding states come to visit us if they're from the Boston area and certainly the area that we're concerned about, and we continue to see a prevalence of that, we may have to impose some sort of restriction or ask some of these entities to find out where they came from and if they came from a county that is not on the list, that they may have to refuse entry. But it's not something we've put into place at this point but if we continue to see a violation of this, of the executive order, then we may have to take other actions. As a follow-up, if there are any provisions in mind for when college kids start coming back to the state and not that I wanna say 20-somethings are gonna be more prone to violating executive orders and staying inside, but how that might play out and what could be developed to ensure compliance? Yeah, we have contemplated that. In fact, some have already started arriving in the Chittenden County area and we put out guidance in accordance to that. Maybe secretary, yeah, maybe secretary Curley would be the best to answer that, maybe find the guidance or commissioner Sherling, one of the two. I know you were part of the discussion as well when we were discussing having people move in in the Chittenden County area. Yeah, Governor, can you just repeat the question? It was about, you know, as we welcome back college students and what guidance we're giving them as they arrive back in Vermont. And for ensuring compliance. Yeah, okay, yeah, there is a quarantine policy in place and I would have to find it on the website but the students can quarantine at home before they come. They can quarantine for 14 days or they can quarantine for seven days obtain a test and then come with a negative test or they can come to Vermont and there's an opportunity to quarantine here. And I know that they were working with the colleges of the university. They have a plan on how they can obtain testing. And again, I can't put my fingers on it right at the moment but there's definitely a plan and it's laid out and again, you know, maybe Commissioner Scherling or Dr. Levine have a little bit more on that up top of their heads. And I'm happy to follow up this if it's still hanging. Yeah, the vast majority of the students are contemplating coming in another month or so, maybe a longer and we are working with the colleges and universities with their plan in working together on how to encourage that and make sure that there's compliance. But I don't think we've come to any conclusion but we are working with them under the guidance of Rich Schneider, former president of Norwich University who is leading the charge, so to speak. Mr. Scherling, anything to add to that? In anticipation of one of the busy move dates which was June 1st, there was messaging that went out from the colleges, from the state, from landlords, we worked together on ensuring that folks were aware of the quarantine requirements and how to move, do their moves safely. And then I think what we heard from the municipalities who host a disproportionate number of students where the things went reasonably well, they had a good compliance with the health guidance that's been issued and we're hoping that's the same thing in late August or early September when you see that second set of moves occur. Thank you for your time. All right, A-3 WCAS. My question is likely for Secretary French. So we spoke with the Vermont NEA who expressed some concern about the reopening of schools and just all the different issues that could arise. How are you all working with them and teachers to kind of come up with these solutions like internet connectivity and just kind of both like technology gap? Yeah, thank you. Well, we're working closely with Vermont NEA and other education associations in the state, particularly on the health guidance as I mentioned earlier which will be coming out this week. But yeah, there'll be a lot of concerns to address. I think once again, the health guidance is sort of the foundation of the guidance that we'll be propagating through this district through the reopening of their active players and been active participants in the development of that guidance as have been others. I think once the health guidance is done, we do envision the need to do a broader community and communications outreach. So we're expecting, I think, to create a better process to get current input in particular. But I think for now I'm very pleased with the level of participation by the groups that they certainly contributed significantly to the development of the guidance that we'll be putting out this week. Colin B.T. Digger. Yeah, hi, good morning, afternoon, I guess. For the governor, as the state of emergency continues, I'm wondering how long you plan to continue holding three times a week practice conferences? How long do you want us to? Let's not leave it, I want to leave it. As long as we have information to give and we'll leave it up to a lot of you as long as you want us to continue, we'll continue. But there is going to be a time when we look forward, as we look forward to that, when we'll reduce the number of press conferences in the week. But at this point, we still have a lot of information to disperse and it seems to be working. But if there's a time when the press is not interested anymore, please let us know and we'll reduce those numbers dramatically as a result. Justin, saying in the past few weeks, you've sort of shifted topically based on the news of the desert. Are they sort of all-encompassing now? How should we sort of think about that? Well, I've tried to be transparent and honest when you asked a question. I would rather talk about just COVID. But obviously, this is topical and important to have these discussions about racial injustice and what we're seeing across the country in Vermont. And we need to answer those questions. But again, I've just tried to answer the questions. We could limit those and just talk about COVID if that's what you'd like to do. But I would ask if that's what you'd like to not ask any of the other questions. Yeah, I guess those are most of my questions. As far as press conferences about other things, is there a more political type of stuff as with once a case, once a week, have you considered perhaps reopening a time where the press can ask you about things that aren't COVID-19? I'll have to confer with my people and we'll get back to you. Is that calling? John, VPR. Thank you. I don't think I need to confer with anybody because it's a question about the terror alert app. We got a query from an Airbnb owner who wondered how mandatory that is because she says her guests somewhat impressed, not looked with her because maybe the invasion aspect was the privacy concerns they had. But and then a larger lodging establishment has set up their own certification form and it's not having their guests register with Sarah. So I wondered if what the state was doing to ensure consistency and how this is being enforced or if it's being enforced and what can you tell us in on our behalf? Yeah, Commissioner Levine. Yeah, thanks for letting me clarify. Sarah alert is not mandatory. It is voluntary. It's actually meant to be helpful and to be considered by the user to be an aid for them. In terms of their knowledge acquisition about what's going on and their ability to communicate in a relatively simple, direct way, daily if desired with the health department about their condition. So the only issue is really making sure that somebody who's coming into the state and perhaps choosing to quarantine at a lodging facility connect with the health department. And that of course would enable them to also be able to access the day seven testing if they're completely asymptomatic during that time period. And then when the result comes back, the release from quarantine. And Sarah alert would certainly help them understand all of that as well. So again, it's meant to be helpful. It's not mandatory and the health department's eager to talk with any and all people who are finding themselves in the position where they need to be in a quarantine situation. Found this earlier, Dr. Lydian, but are you saying when Wolfman asked you about Lydnitsky that it's not contained, but you're encouraged by what you're seeing there? Is that the underlying point about the Lydnitsky for Lydnitsky now? Because it may not be contained, but you like what you're seeing. I'll try to rephrase that for you. I do like what I'm seeing. I don't want to be overly enthusiastic about what I'm seeing this early, because we're really having just the weekend as our data point for saying things are looking much better and there's no increase in activity and it's stable. We do think we are actually doing a nice job with containment, but I would like to see the results of the targeted testing this week where people have the opportunity to walk in with an appointment to get tested in Burlington or Winoosky before I put closure to the outbreak, if you will. But certainly all the data I've shown you this morning and talked about gives me reason for great hopefulness regarding that outbreak. Great, thank you very much. Maria, Washington Post. Thank you again for holding these really informative press conferences. I'm sorry if I missed it, but it's going to be updated on the USCIS furloughs. You've gotten any numbers or information about what might happen. Yeah, I don't have anything at this point. I think Commissioner Harrington looked into it as well. Commissioner, do you have any updates? Yeah, thank you, Governor. We did speak with the contractor specifically, but it doesn't seem there's any indication with those that are under contract working for USCIS. That being said, there have been indications in the news across the country about possible furloughs across USCIS. And we do have formal request into USCIS specifically about their government agents and whether or not Vermont would be impacted and if so, to what extent. And I believe that went in last week. So we have not heard anything back in terms of what that actually means in terms of people who work for the federal government through USCIS at this time, at this time. All right, thank you very much. I just wanted to follow up with Dr. Levine. Dr. Levine, at the last conference you mentioned that you did nothing when you were assigned of a second wave, that that's not what you thought the second wave would look like. And I'm curious about what you do think a second wave would look like and whether Vermont actually might not experience one. Do you want to move to your number? Sure, thank you. To me, a second wave would look like a more sustained peak and more prevalent across the broader Vermont population. I wouldn't think it would just spark in one particular place. We have a pretty small state and interconnected state. So I, you know, it's really hard to even ask me what I would think the sort of resurgence or second wave would look like because when you ask national experts, they'll give you diagrams that are all over the place. But clearly, if you look at what our experience was in the so-called first wave, that was way more prominent and concerning. And that was at a time when we couldn't really do containment for all the reasons we've stated many times in Vermont or in the country, this time we could. And I think a second wave would really be more sustained community transmission across the broader community as opposed to within a number of households, things of that sort. So for many reasons, I don't see this particular outbreak as representing that feared consequence. Thank you very much. Tim, Vermont Business Magazine. Good afternoon, Governor. The ski areas are starting to set out their requests for ski passes, other bookings and things like that, and they're not as nimble of hospitality industry as a single restaurant or a hotel or something like that. Given the level of infection we're seeing, not only in the region but across the country growing in that case, what can you tell them about what their expectation might be in another few months, as far as your reopening? Yeah, yeah, difficult. I mean, if things kept going the way they're going right now without that second wave that Dr. Levine was talking about just now, we would be on the path to being open almost normal by the time that late, late fall into November, December. But hard for us to say at this point, we're going to continue to open up methodically here in the state and try to get everything open, but just not understanding what's going to happen next and how that affects us and what happens in other states as well in some of those areas where we count on tourism and those who skiers from some of the, from New York and Massachusetts and Connecticut and New Jersey and Rhode Island and so forth. So we'll just have to wait and see. I can't give them anything definitive at this point in time, but we're encouraged by the numbers we're seeing today and hopefully we'll continue to move in the right direction and there'll be a vaccine that will magically appear in the very near future. Magic, right? Yeah, okay. And I think we're all hoping for that. I'm just wondering if you would caution them to pump the brakes a little bit on their bookings and selling tickets and all that? Well, sir, I would think that they'd have to balance this, obviously, not knowing, they have no way to determine the future either, but as long as they put provisions in place where there's some caution to the wind, so to speak, I don't see any reason why they couldn't be selling passes at this point. And, you know, they lost their profit margin, really. You know, they make a lot of their profits at the March, April range. Was there any money targeted? I don't think there was for them, for any relief. I know these are large national corporations, but was there any local assistance going toward them? Financial assistance. Yeah, not that I'm aware of. All right, great, thanks, go. Aaron, VT Digger? Can you hear me? We can. Okay, just confirming because that was not for the last time. I noticed this morning that the data space went from about 50 people being monitored, which has been out of the range each day to over 400. I wanted to confirm that that is correct. And also just ask, are these all types of risky outbreaks? Is there, has there been like a significant change in the way the health department monitors people or reports on that number because of the risky outbreak? Yeah, that doesn't sound right to me. I watched the numbers fairly closely and I hadn't seen that. I don't know if Dr. Levine or Commissioner Pichek or anybody else has seen that spike. We'd be happy to take a look at it and get back to you, Aaron, but not anything that has risen to our attention. It's on. Okay, okay, well yeah, we've determined it's on the website, so we're not questioning that. We just want to look into why. Yeah, yeah, okay, okay. If you don't mind, you know, my second question was like, has the nature of how the health department is type tracing and monitoring change at all because we're going to keep? You know, we continue to learn every day about what we can do better. We went over that this morning, lessons learned, so to speak, and we're always trying to enhance and grow and be better prepared in the future. So I would have to say we've learned, obviously, but I don't believe this is anything dramatic that's going to change. We just are getting better, more nimble and in growing the capacity, Dr. Levine. So just to be clear, the question was, what have we learned that we can do better? Specifically with contact tracing, has there been any changes to the WANU C operator? Yeah, so, you know, I'm really proud of my epidemiology section and all of the people in that section, plus others we've drawn in from the greater health department to do contact tracing. Even before the WANUSKI outbreak, we actually had done a so-called table talk exercise looking at how we would go about managing an outbreak, how we would reach a certain capacity in terms of how big an outbreak could get before we would get very concerned that it had outstripped our capacity to deal with it. And I have to say that we came away very confident after that exercise. And as WANUSKI has evolved, it's probably involved maybe a tenth of the capacity that we envisioned we might have in a very severe outbreak that would be statewide with lots and lots of cases and needs to do contact tracing. The interesting thing that's happened is we've all come out of a stay home, stay safe order and try to begin opening up everything in Vermont, including our own lives. And what that means is we actually are in contact with more people than ever before. Contact tracing was a piece of cake when people had the family members at home and there was really nobody else they were in contact with. And now it's much more complex. Not quite perhaps for some people the way it was before COVID, but still in that continuum. So the contact tracing work actually is more complex than it ever was with numbers of people. And we're going back 14 days in people's experience, which is why, and I can remind Vermonters now, we've asked Vermonters to kind of be conscious of what they're doing on a daily basis because if they become a positive test and we start to contact trace, they're gonna need to remember a couple of weeks worth of connectivity in their lives. So that's very complex. But it's all gone very well, I have to say. We'll always be able to do things better and we're learning how to do that. But I have to keep people reminded that this isn't new work for a health department. It's a new virus. It's got new ramifications. But anytime people had foodborne illnesses related to something they bought in a store or ate at a restaurant, anytime we had prior epidemics of flu viruses or other things, contact tracing is something in investigation of cases is something that is a pretty routine thing. So we need to be able to scale it up and we were happy that we could scale it up for this episode. And God forbid, if we need it for future episodes, this has given us that confidence. Any KTV? Can you hear me? We can. Thank you. A couple for Dr. Levine and maybe a couple for the governor, if I may. How about one for each? Dr. Levine. Okay, that's right, sounds like a deal. Dr. Levine, earlier you said that you saw it in the beginning of the conference, you said you thought the increase of cases in the other states could be due to their reopening. Could they also be due to the massive amounts of increased testing? I guess the nuanced answer is that's possibly a component. Although some of the states are actually reporting they're not able yet to do the testing that they wanna be doing in terms of quantity. When we look at our metrics where we've actually surpassed the quantity we thought we would need for minimum surveillance testing in the population. The concern in the other states is most of the testing they're doing is people who are actually symptomatic with disease. And that's why some of them are concerned about the utilization of their healthcare system. So it's a little different proposition, if you will, which tells me that it's not just increasing testing, it's doing testing on people who actually are reporting symptoms of a condition and finding them as a case. Little less so testing general people in their population. Having said that, there are plenty of states that are actually doing abundant testing. And similar to what we're doing in finding low rates of test positivity across large populations. It's just that the states that have now been identified more recently are clearly having a problem with illness in their states. I see, thank you. Governor, this goes back to a question I'd asked on Friday. The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery except for prisons. And I asked you about commuting the sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. A large portion, which are in Vermont prisons, are people of color who may or may not be from Vermont. And when I asked about commutation, you tossed it to the legislature, which are leaving in a little while. Couldn't you just get the data from your corrections commissioner, look at these people who've had nonviolent drug offenses, and not only free them, but not only free them, but save the taxpayers about 50,000 for a year? Steve, we've reduced the offender population by about three or 400 already in the last three months by doing just what you're saying is in some of those situations, making sure that we release those who are on the lower. How many? About 400, between three and 400, out of a population of about 16 or 1700 to begin with. So we've reduced dramatically over the last three months. I think what we need to do to be quite honest is make sure we stay there. And then we can try and bring what I'd like to see is bring the offender population in from out of state and get them here within our borders. But some of it is out of our control. I mean, there is the judiciary, the judicial branch, as well as the legislative branch that makes the laws. And then we have to adhere to them. So not all of it is up to us in the executive branch. So Secretary Smith, is there anything you want to add to that? No? How's that, Steve? All right, we'll move to Courtney, local 22. Can you hear me? We can. Just a quick clarification question regarding campgrounds and outdoor lodging being able to open 100%. And I think we did just a tonic briefly, governor, but does this mean anyone coming from out of state would need to quarantine at that campsite for 14 days? And would that be up to the owner of the campground to sort of monitor that? Well, again, we have opened up different counties throughout the Northeast region. So anyone who is from most counties can come without quarantining. And we have enhanced our policy for those traveling from the other parts of the Northeast, they would have to quarantine beforehand and or come to Vermont. And after a seven day period have a test and so forth. So there are provisions for coming from other parts of the region without the same 14 day quarantine period. Colin, seven days. Hi, governor. I have a question about the defund the police movement. Three Vermont state lawmakers have proposed reallocating 20% of the Vermont state police budget towards social services, which they believe are sort of better points to handle some of these societal problems, poverty, homelessness, et cetera, that police often handle on a daily basis. I believe you said that you don't support the concept of defunding police and would rather focus on reform and modernization. I'm just curious what you say to the activists out there who believe that we are sort of past that point as a society, we need real way to address racial injustice and police abuse is to shrink the footprint of law enforcement. Yeah, I think we can do both in some respects. I don't, I believe that we have a obligation to perform public safety as a high priority and that, and again, visions of public safety are different for different people. From our standpoint, we've taken a lot of steps over the last two or three years to try and move in that direction, whether it's street outreach, counselors and so forth, embedded to counselors and our state police barracks, we have proposed enhancing that provision in this past budget and so forth, but we, I don't believe there's a 20% to cut in law enforcement at this point in time, but we do need to change the way we're training, I believe, and also enhance some of the mental health providers, counselors and so forth. Mr. Scherling, anything to add to that? Thank you, Governor, I hear this year we proposed a suite of modernization initiatives that included many of the things folks are talking about now, including enhanced mental health and social service provision, expanding those programs statewide where they only exist in some areas now. It is no secret that the scope of things that police officers and law enforcement are called to today continues to increase, but we're very much on board with expanding resources to ensure that we're sending the right resources at the right time. All that said, reducing budgets is likely not an apart. There's a variety of investments that we need to make to stay modern and contemporary, particularly as the governor noted, the training and also in information technology. Just a quick follow-up for you, Governor, a budget board to make this way to your desk, does this support a 10, 20% something along the lines that's being requested? Would you not support that? Yeah, again, like with all other pieces of legislation, I'd rather see the legislation, see what it actually says before committing one way or the other. So I would obviously, we would be part of the conversation along the way and then determine at that point whether we would support it or not. So just that, I mean, it's not a non-starter, though? Well, nothing's a non-starter. You know, I do value the legislative input and I think that some of the dialogue, some of the discussion is important and if nothing else to fully vet some of the proposals and ideas and people want to be heard. And that's part of the challenge and part of the frustration many have is they just don't feel as though they've been heard. So we need to listen and we need to at least contemplate this but be happy to weigh in when this becomes a reality and gets closer because I'm sure we'll have a seat at the table. Joel Burlington, Free Press. Hello, Governor. Yes. Yeah, hi. I have a question about testing that's maybe part of this might, I believe is for Dr. Levine. I'm pretty sure all of it is. No, part two is just for you. The, for the nasal swab testing, this is for Dr. Levine. How useful would it be to the health department and all the monitors to give folks submitted to the nasal swab test even if they're feeling perfectly fine? I mean, if they've been out some, is this, would this be a burden on the health department if suddenly you had 80% of Burlington residents just show up and get the swab test? So that's my first question. And the second question, perhaps for the governor, and I was on furlough last week and my wife and I were walking on prospect for you here in Burlington and I noticed a pop-up test done that the Army National Guard had. And we sort of hummed and hawed and we're feeling fine, but there's some natural reluctance to say, okay, let's do it for the team. We finally decided, yeah, hey, let's do it once. And it's uncomfortable and it's no worse than getting those four pollinated pool water, I think. But I'd be interested in knowing from you, governor, how, if these tests are useful in the general population, how might we better persuade people to do it? And I don't know if there's been an incentive, but maybe a toxi roll or maybe something more substantial or healthy. But anyway, so that's a two-part question and I apologize for taking too long to ask you. Joel, at this point in time, we are encouraging people if you wanna test, come get a test. I think that's important. If you have any questions, you should definitely get to one of the pop-up sites and have the tests done. In terms of, I believe testing will be changing. This is, I'm obviously not a physician or part of the health community, but I do believe that the testing is going to get easier at some point and we're going to, it's going to become more a part of our normal lives and at least before a vaccine comes our way. So I think we'll see that they're working on this as we speak. I know a number of companies are working on this to make it easier for going to a large event, a sports event of some sort or the thousands, tens of thousands of people going to have some sort of a testing procedure that's instantaneous. And that would alleviate a lot of the concerns people have about attending those events and to allow the events to happen. But I'll let Dr. Levine answer generally most of the two parts. I think that the question is almost the same in both sections. Thank you. Hi, Joel. So let's talk about the test itself first because you're right, it all involves the nose, but there's really two variations on that theme. One is called nasal pharyngeal, which is really stuck, the swab is stuck way in the back of your nose. So that would be mildly uncomfortable for some people. It's fairly quick, so that's the good news. We would like to ultimately replace that completely with what's called just a nasal swab, which is actually the front of the nose, which a person can actually do themselves under observation. We're doing that in children. We're doing that in a lot of nursing home patients. We would like to do it in most people, but for the shortage of the swabs that are needed to actually do it that way, because they're a different type of a swab. But we are gaining more access to those swabs, and once we can really have a vibrant number of them, that will be the test that we do. Probably just in time for it to be replaced by another test. So the goal for the future is to actually have a saliva test. And if the saliva test works, you can imagine that's way easier for a person to produce and give to somebody than having a person geared up in PPE and sticking the swab into the back of someone's nose. So that's the ultimate goal, is to make it much more user-friendly for both sides, the collection side and the person who's giving their specimen. We certainly have, as we're showing, capacity to do a lot of tests per day and per week. And we're talking close to 10,000 tests in a week that we're done. If you think about the combined populations of Burlington and Winooski, that's a little over 50 to 55,000 people just in those areas. So it wouldn't be a reach to say we could actually test 80% of all of those people over a period of time if there was a desire for that to happen for them. Certainly from a public health standpoint, it might be interesting and useful information, though I couldn't tell every person it was important for them to do it just to see the extent of this outbreak, which we think we've begun to understand at this point in time. So that's kind of the answer to your question. I think the governor's correct that if there's a long period that goes by without a vaccine, with people having to live in this sort of trying to restart but not quite getting there 100% yet and wondering when they can go to a basketball game, when they can go to a concert, et cetera, perhaps there will be a sufficient point of care, if you will, testing technology where that can be your ticket to admission, so to speak. And you're allowed to be in such a mass gathering because at least at that point in time, your test was negative. And that's all people need to know to be more comfortable being in that setting with you. So I would hope we actually don't get to that point because with all the vaccine candidates that are being examined now, and a couple are being very much fast tracked to later phase trials, not just phase one or two, but trying to get to phase three, maybe we won't have to go through a long period of time, but maybe that's wishful thinking as well. So time will tell. All right, well, thank you both, appreciate it. Commissioner Pichek did get an answer to Aaron's question on why we went from 40 to 500 monitoring. Commissioner Pichek, could you share that? Yes, thank you, Rebecca. So as of today, actually 15th Department of Health is including in the persons under monitoring category, those that have registered with Sarah Alert, including those that are traveling, returning from travel back to Vermont, and those also that are close contacts with people with COVID-19. So I think that first piece, people traveling to Vermont from out of state, either to the state or back into the state is a new category, which accounts for the jump in the number. Aaron, are you still on the line? I can relay that directly to Aaron as well. We wanted everybody to get that update, and that was it for today's question. Great, thank you very much for tuning in, and on Wednesday we'll be talking about long-term care facilities. Thank you very much. Thank you.