 Good morning, everyone. Thank you for tuning in. Today, Secretary Curley and Commissioner Goldstein will join me to introduce phase two of our economic recovery package. But before I get to that, I want to take some additional time today to talk about racial equity and the movement we're continuing to see across the country. I think it's important to keep a focus on this so we don't lose momentum and make sure this translates into action. I was asked yesterday if this feels different than other times when we've seen calls for change, but little has been done. My answer was yes. I'm not sure what it is, perhaps the magnitude of participation across the nation, but it feels like this time is different. For example, NASCAR has banned Confederate flags from their sanctioned race events. To me, that speaks volumes, and it's powerful. And I give great credit. And I'm very proud of Vermont native Steve Phelps, president of NASCAR, for doing so. Because the fact is they risk losing part of their fan base with this move. But they didn't let that stop them. They stepped up to do the right thing. And we need more of that. More people and entities stepping up and doing the right thing, even when it seems hard and even when it seems uncomfortable. And we all need to look at steps we can take, large and small, to increase equity and address systemic racism and disparity. Recently, we launched the Racial Equity Task Force. But I want folks to know that's not all we're going to do in state government. And there's work that's going to be going on for months and a year, but we need to accelerate it as well. For example, the Department of Public Safety and the Vermont State Police have been focused on fair and impartial policing for years. But they've also joined with law enforcement leaders across the state to issue a 10-point proposal yesterday with actions and reforms to improve policing in Vermont. The point is we need to make this an ongoing effort. We need to listen and learn, educate each other, and put real action behind it because this can't just be led by state government. All across Vermont, we need to think about how each of us individually can end bigotry and hate, increase equity, and improve the lives of all Vermonters. Now, turning back to our COVID response, three weeks ago, we presented the first phase of a $400 million economic relief package, which proposed directing $310 million of federal CARES Act dollars to small businesses, agriculture, housing, and consumers to help our struggling businesses survive while we work to restart the economy after this pandemic. My team spent weeks on this proposal working with hundreds of employers, associations, community leaders, and legislators to target these dollars to the areas of greatest need. We were inclusive in this work in hopes it would move through the legislature quickly and largely intact. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that it's going to be the case, as they're only including about a third of the money we recommended. Although I recognize it's just passed the Senate and it hasn't passed through the House fully yet. So while I'm appreciative of the legislature moving forward with something, even if it is a reduced amount, I'm hoping they will get back to work on the remaining $300 million quickly. Because the fact is, while this pandemic has impacted everyone in the state, it has crippled small businesses. The folks who provide the jobs the families rely on and generate the revenue we need for the services we provide in state government. And I can assure you, these employers are on the brink. Some are weeks or even days away from bankruptcy and shutting their doors forever through no fault of their own. They can't wait another month or two for relief. They need our help now. And that's what this CARES money was meant to do, to help keep our economies on life support until we get them fully restarted. On our end, we'll continue to answer the legislature's questions and prepare so we can hit the ground running once it's fully passed and get the money into the pockets of Vermonters. Next, Secretary Curley and Commissioner Goldstein will share details on phase two of our package, which is a total of $90 million that's focused on long-term economic recovery. So, here's the bottom line. If we don't act now to save our businesses and these jobs, the budget gaps we're facing today will just be the tip of the iceberg and we'll face systemic losses and revenue for years to come. I believe we can come out on the other side of this crisis stronger than we were before, but we have to be selfless, strategic, and smart in order to do so. I'll now turn it over to Secretary Curley. Good morning. Thank you, Governor. When we announced the first phase of this economic relief and recovery plan, our goal was to work collaboratively towards real solutions. We engaged with hundreds of businesses and community leaders in various sectors of our economy and those hardest hit by the COVID crisis. The resulting plan was intended to do several things, bring immediate cash and technical assistance to businesses on the brink of bankruptcy, keep struggling Vermonters in their homes, and bring increased spending power to Vermonters so they could support their local businesses. For phase two, we again collaborated with communities, businesses, and other state agencies, and today we will outline another $90 million in economic support. Commissioner Goldstein will be speaking about the specifics of our plan to support additional financial assistance, housing and community recovery, broadband expansion, and regulatory modernization. Phase two is an investment in the future of Vermont, helping businesses and communities find a path forward after phase one looked to invest $310 million to keep them from going under. That phase one money was intended to cast a wide net. We wanted to be inclusive of all sectors of our economy harmed by this crisis. We created three entry points for financial aid so that every business could potentially tap into the relief they needed to survive. To date, none of the phase money has reached Vermonters on the brink of collapse. The teams at ACCD and other agencies have been engaging with the legislature for nearly three weeks and current legislation, as the governor mentioned, being considered divides our proposed wide net into much smaller parts. This fractioned approach is taking much longer and will initially deliver less than half of the financial support that was originally proposed. These business owners employ Vermonters, fill our vibrant downtowns with entrepreneurial spirit, and keep tax dollars flowing that are used to educate our kids, fix our roads, and provide support to our most vulnerable Vermonters. This crisis, even once we are through it, is going to focus us to create new and innovative economy that can withstand and thrive even through the worst of times. Phase two of this total $400 million investment is a first step. There will be much work to do in the months and years ahead, but we cannot be effective in doing that without first ensuring that our businesses survive. Rents are due, fixed costs are mounting, and the burden is growing each day. We cannot wait any longer. Our businesses and their employees need us. For our historic downtowns, rural landscapes, and city centers to return and remain full of life, we need to start getting money out the door now. I'll turn it over to Commissioner Goldstein now to talk more about the plan to help Vermont thrive in the wake of this crisis. Thank you, Secretary Curley. I'd like to add a little context. More than a month ago, we were putting the finishing touches on the governor's $400 million economic relief plan. The Agency of Commerce and Community Development and the Department of Economic Development right from the get-go were at the epicenter of incoming messages regarding business closures, limited reopenings, and alas, the consequent pain and suffering of those who are in dire need and dire fear of their livelihoods vanishing right before their very eyes. The anguish is palpable, evident in every phone call and email, people in business for generations, over 40 years and through recessions, through thick and thin, just could not foresee how they were going to make it through this crisis. We spent the first few weeks after the passage of the CARES Act, promoting the Paycheck Protection Program and other federal relief efforts, but it became abundantly clear that that was not the solution for all businesses. We needed to see what could the state do to fill the gaps using our federal coronavirus relief funds to direct aid to those impacted by COVID-19. The guidance issued by Treasury clearly spells out as an example that grants to help businesses recover from the losses they face due to the business interruption is an allowable, permissible use. That much is abundantly clear. So that is how we came up with the previously announced $310 million. There was nothing capricious, nothing whim about the ask, all very intentional and thought through. ACCD is on the front line of the need. Businesses and nonprofits are directly asking us for help, sector groups and trade associations, legislators all directed their inquiries from their constituencies and municipalities. All roads led to ACCD. We can all agree that government has a role in helping businesses recover, but where we differ perhaps is in the scale of the help. This is not just a handout. This is about preserving the parts of the economy that we have the ability to help. This is about injecting liquidity into the economy, the flow of funds. It is about rebuilding the structure of the economy. Businesses help to create the revenue upon which the state budget is built. If we limit the funds to help them, we are limiting the state's recovery. They need us, but actually we need them. So I'm here to reiterate our need for the governor's ask of the full 310 million that was introduced weeks ago, but also to reintroduce our ideas on the phase two of the plan, which is the remaining 90 million. This includes 55 million in financial assistance in the forms of grants and also some seed capital to start-up businesses, businesses that are pre-venture or pre-revenue stage. In phase one, just for point of comparison, we asked for 250 million in financial assistance and early next week we're expected to see the 70 million dollar grant package from the legislature passing, knowing full well that it will not be nearly enough. Irrespective of this, we are proposing an additional grant funds to provide an inevitably oversubscribed program with more funding so businesses will have access to assistance. The second part of the package is the pandemic has revealed the absolute necessity of broadband availability and access. It has the power to keep people safe during the public health emergency for mantras who have internet access could work from home, could stay safe, could do remote learning, could still get healthcare through telehealth. We're aware that 23% of our state, close to 70,000 businesses and residences, have insufficient broadband. We have included $20 million in broadband expansion program to connect the last mile, bridge the affordability gap and streamline the processing of pole licensing applications to ensure that businesses and families have continued access necessary to adapt to this new way of life. This is also a small part of the overall broadband plan that was submitted by the public service department. We are also proposing $11 million investment in community and housing recovery. There's mortgage assistance that is necessary for Vermont homeowners in need. We know that providing limited financial assistance now, we could prevent home foreclosures in the future and keep families in their home. We've also created a Better Places Vermont fund that will provide help to our downtown and villages with necessary capacity and materials to convert some of their streets, parking areas and perhaps public space to reconfigure for the new normal. The final piece is a regulatory streamlining package that is intended to enhance our economic recovery by modernizing Vermont's regulatory programs and environmental permitting tools. These investments will accelerate the transition of a program administration from primarily paper-based to web-based and digitizing many of the permit processing functions. I want to be clear that we refer to this as phase one and phase two and perhaps people have heard the legislature has referred to tier one and tier two with a little bit different timeline. We really can't afford to wait. Regardless of semantics, this is a $400 million package intended to allow our businesses and economy to survive and thrive. The goal has always been to inject $400 million immediately into our economy and into our communities to spur the necessary economic activity that will make up for the tax revenue we've lost. We cannot make businesses and communities wait any longer for the relief and lifeline they have been waiting for. Vermont needs this substantial investment so that we may help businesses and we hire those who are now unemployed, vitalize our communities that are now very vacant and create the revenues upon which our budget is built. Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thank you, Commissioner Goldstein. I'm Mike Pitchak, Commissioner at the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation and have been leading Vermont's COVID-19 data and modeling team for the past few months. This week's data and modeling update will again start by reviewing our most recent data in the past week, again with particular focus on the Winooski-Burlington community outbreak. I will then provide an update on our four key reopening metrics that we continue to monitor closely and update weekly. I will then finally provide an update on our regional data that we've been focused on for the past month or so with an update on our regional travel map as well. As always, for those watching at home, you can find today's presentation on our department's website, dfr.vermont.gov, under our COVID-19 resource page. Last week, the most significant aspect of Vermont's data was the outbreak in Winooski, and that continues to be the case this week. Over the past week, we saw 84 new confirmed cases in Vermont, with at least 38 of those cases traced back to the Winooski-Burlington community outbreak. We need more time to analyze the outbreak and how many more of those cases might be connected to it. But again, for some important context, our northern New England neighbors of New Hampshire and Maine continue to see case growth that is far more, far higher than Vermont, with Maine having 219 cases in the past week and New Hampshire 383 new cases. So again, I think that's just important context for Vermonters to consider as we see the rising cases related to the outbreak in Winooski and Burlington. I think it's also useful to review the regional dynamic heat map that we've presented a few times. The heat map generally illustrates the number of new confirmed cases on a week-by-week basis since the start of the pandemic. Again, as we've explained in the past, the highlight of the map is really the fact that the virus is shown to be spreading from Metro to New York, to other metro areas, to suburban areas, and then finally to rural areas, and then largely starting to recede from many of those places. Again, for Vermont, I think the heat map also helps demonstrate that the recent case activity is centered in Chittenden County and the rest of Vermont's counties continue to experience low case growth. So again, some important context. Also important to remember that our testing also remains high. The most recent days are showing that the state continues to surpass 100 tests occurred target. And today we have tested nearly 50,000 Vermonters, which again is a great threshold and milestone and important context to remember how much our testing capacity has increased over the recent months. Again, however, due to all of these factors, the statewide case count increase does make us continue to deviate from our best case scenario that was run on May 12th. We have not run an additional forecast due to the fact that the outbreak obviously does skew our data. It skews data, for example, like our doubling rate, which now stands at eight weeks compared to 12 weeks last week. But again, I think more important helpful context when you look at the total cases per capita for Vermont, we still rank in the top 10 in terms of the lowest number of cases per capita, currently sitting at seven nationally. So even though our data does get skewed by these factors, it's important to look, I think, more globally and holistically at some of these more stable factors, like the percentage of new cases per capita, or our four restart metrics that we'll go into next. So again, turning to the restart metrics, I think this is again important for context. These are metrics that we've been monitoring during our restart Vermont process. We've been really focused on how are these indicators trending? And we've also set up guardrails for each of them that tell us when should we be concerned that a certain target or multiple targets are either trending in the wrong direction or passing a certain guardrail or warning flag that we've established for ourselves. Again, currently, these metrics, these four metrics continue to perform well and they do not have any signal of trouble at this time. First, I wanna point out Vermont's syndromic surveillance, which is a measure of the percentage of Vermonters reporting COVID-like symptoms to emergency rooms and urgent care facilities. This continues to hold stable, trending below 2% down to even 1%, but trending within that very low percentage threshold. And again, it's well below our 4% guardrail that we've established for ourselves. And again, this is important when considering that syndromic surveillance is one of the early indicators and warning signals of challenges to come. We also see this week a slight uptake in our three to seven-day viral growth averages, but again, somewhat expected given the community outbreak. But again, the growth rate remains below 1.5%. And we do not have the sustained level of viral growth that would be a cause for concern at this time. So again, even though this rate has increased, it's not the sustained level of growth, nor is the RT rate to a degree that we would be concerned that this signals broader community or statewide case growth that we should be concerned about. Our third data point is the percentage of COVID-19 tests that come back positive. Here we can see that the outbreak associated, the associate outbreak does cause the numbers to spike, but that those numbers have come back down and the three-day average continues to hover around 1%. Again, here we've established a guardrail of a 5% percent positive tests coming back, which is well below the threshold of 10% that the World Health Organization has provided in terms of guidance as to indicating whether a particular region has sufficient testing and has the virus under control. Our fourth metric regards ICU capacity. We're glad to report again that here, the ICU remains free of any patients with COVID-19 and that our overall ICU usage remains well below our 30% threshold that we have established, putting our hospitals in a strong position to properly treat Vermonters if that need ever arises. Again, taking together these metrics provide the best insight on our progress during restart and we continue to watch them very closely, but they do not signal any troubling signs as of today. Transitioning to our regional data, the next slide compares new cases over the last two weeks for each of our northeastern states. Again, you can see the relative number of cases that Vermont has compared to our neighbors, but again, looking at this as on a regional basis, there is good news, 35% case reduction week over week from last week, so our region has seen significant improvement. Again, we have an updated version of our drive time map, which illustrates certain data within the driving distance of Vermont's borders. Currently, there are still an estimated 135,000 active cases within a five-hour drive of Vermont's borders, which should obviously make us still look at this with caution, but it is also a 16% reduction in active cases from last week. And I think that leads us well into our travel map discussion because as we pointed out last week, not every region of the Northeast has the same level of risk when we're talking about current active cases. Last week, we did announce the first step in our leisure travel policy guidance and presented an interactive map to help Vermonters and visitors better understand which counties are no longer subject to the 14-day quarantine. Since our presentation last Friday, seven additional counties have moved below the 400 active case threshold, equally in about an additional million individuals who can travel to Vermont without quarantine restrictions. Again, there are now 62 counties with 4.6 million residents no longer subject to Vermont's quarantine. Further, we also saw nine counties move from red to yellow in the past week, but we did see three counties move from green to yellow. But again, on a net basis, we saw an additional million people that are now no longer subject to the quarantine and additional seven counties as well. And we'll point out that almost the entire state of Maine but for two counties is now not subject to the Vermont quarantine. Additionally, last week, we did announce the second step, which becomes effective on Monday that allows travelers from visiting Vermont from any county to come so under a revised quarantine requirement. The revised quarantine requirement focuses on quarantining at home for those individuals that would like to quarantine at home for seven days and then get a COVID-19 test that comes back negative. They're allowed to drive to Vermont, stay in Vermont and do leisure travel, visit friends or family without a quarantine. Separately, individuals can travel into the state, stay at a lodging establishment for the purposes of quarantining. They could do that for the traditional 14 days or they couldn't quarantine for seven days and then get a negative test. There's more guidance about that on ACCD's website, but I think it's important to note that not only is step one available for those that are in the counties that no longer require quarantine, but now as of Monday, that second step will be available that provides a revised quarantine for all individuals in the Northeast. I do also wanna talk just a minute about the travel map that we talked about. There has been some confusion that I think would be worth clarifying. So for those that try to calculate their local county or their local community, it's important to remember that we are focused on active cases, not total cases. There's a big difference between those two in all instances, total cases will be significantly higher than the current active cases of communities experiencing. Active cases is a better example of the current risk that a particular location has. Total cases, largely, came from March and April. Those individuals have recovered, so they're no longer a threat of transmitting the virus to those that might be around them. So I think that's an important distinction for people to remember this is an active case count, a total case count. And then when we're talking about the active case count at the county level, we did put out a methodology this week that's on our department website for those that are interested. Active cases requires us to apply an estimate to arrive at a number because the counties and the states around us do not provide that data on a county by county basis. So we created a reliable methodology that allows us to make a estimate of the active cases that are around us based on information and data from Johns Hopkins University. So I do encourage others that are interested in learning more about that to read that methodology and reach out to our department with any further questions. In conclusion, we will continue to monitor our statewide data closely and also the Wynuski-Berlington outbreak closely as well and hope to have additional forecasts next week. And I just want to again thank Vermonters for their patience and their sacrifices and their continued commitment to get through this together. At this time, I'd like to introduce Commissioner Levine. Thank you. Just have a few brief comments today to update people on the outbreak and a few comments on testing. First, I want to just again recognize the fantastic collaboration that the health department and the state have had with city officials in Wynuski and Burlington and just the plethora of community partners that are all working with us in terms of testing residents, tracing contacts, really all the ingredients to help contain this outbreak. As of last evening, the total number of cases associated with the outbreak was 81. Again, the breakdown between adult and children is about 60% adult, 40% children. Close to 80% again are related to Wynuski and about 15% with Burlington. Small number of residents elsewhere in Chippin County. We continue on a daily basis to show that about one in five individuals actually have symptoms at the time they're identified as a positive test. We've said before and I'll say again that with a large number that are asymptomatic, this may be a contributing factor to how the virus can spread in the community. And it's a reminder though that overall, the prevalence of positive tests that you just saw in the data is very, very low. The virus is still obviously still circulating. Lest we think the virus is totally benign, fortunately there are no deaths associated with this outbreak but we did have our first recorded hospitalization. We're happy to again announce that everyone associated with the outbreak, whether they've been identified as a case or a contact, have been incredibly cooperative with regards to helping prevent further spread. I would like all Vermonters to continue to use what I like to term universal precautions though, which of course are keeping the six foot or more distancing between one another, wearing a facial covering, obviously washing your hands as often as possible and definitely staying at home if feeling ill. A little bit about testing. Rough estimate of tests done just in Burlington and Manuski alone at the pop-up sites we've run through last night was over 3,000. I suspect by the time we get through the day we'll be in the close to 3,500 range. Test sites in those communities continue to be scheduled on a daily basis. We of course also have pop-up sites in other regions of the state that are continuing on their schedule and refer to humanresources.vermont.gov slash pop-ups or call 211 if you're interested in a location of a test site near you or want to schedule an appointment at one. Just to call out a couple other points about testing, we just completed testing at our sixth and final correctional facility, the southern state facility. All tests were negative there. It's been a strategic part of our approach to testing high risk vulnerable facilities or populations. And I continue to not yet be aware of a positive test associated with a protest anywhere in the state. Thank you. Thank you all. I will now open it up for questions. All right, thank you. So, Governor, regarding the economic stimulus package, I'm wondering what conversations you've had with the speaker and the program and where that disconnect is in terms of... Yeah, well, I'm not sure there's a disconnect other than their approach is different. I think the speaker and the pro tem, I'm not sure that they're on the same page either, but I know that they have an interest in trying to preserve some money in hopes that there'll be some flexibility from the federal government to utilize this money to fulfill the budgetary problem that we have in the state of Vermont. That doesn't exist today, but what I do know exists today is that these businesses and jobs are impacted. And if we don't fix this now, we're going to have this systemic problem in years to come. I mean, it just seems so basic to me that if we don't protect the businesses now and protect those jobs that are associated with those businesses that a year or two from now will be suffering. And it'll be almost a self-fulfilling prophecy to neglect it now, we'll be impacted a couple of years from now. But if we do this right and preserve those businesses, give them a lifeline, then we'll be able to be able to get through the hump, so to speak, the budgetary hump, and then have our economy back to normal in another year or so. And I'm also wondering, so a lot of these CARES Act dollars that we'll be spending, the money has to be spent by the end of the year. The entire administration is proposing a lot of broadband housing projects. The time construction season, the clock is ticking. I'm wondering if you believe there'll be enough time to get a lot of these projects? Well, there will be, I believe, there will be, if we act now, obviously if we wait a month or two months, we may run out of time. But I feel the proposals we put forward are doable and we'll be able to hit the ground running just as soon as they pass something and then move forward. I think, you know, Vermonters expect us to do something to help the economy now and we have an opportunity to do so. Question about the number of cases that are rising in 20 plus states. We've had almost 100 new cases this week in Vermont, but are we seeing a second wave already as we look to reopening more here? Can we take some cues from what we're already seeing and so many other states? I may refer to Dr. Levine on that. That's a great question. I'm always asked, are we gonna have a resurgence? And the answer is yes. But is this the resurgence? I don't think so. Most experts in public health and in the field of viruses, virology, feel that the resurgence will come after the summer. Some who have a greater degree of self-confidence are saying the fall. Others are saying just after the summer could be fall, could be winter, could be a combination of both. Will it be a resurgence or will it be a bunch of small little peaks that over time get contained and then reoccur, et cetera? That's unclear. But what we're seeing around the country right now in many of the 20 plus states that are seeing increases in their viral numbers is really a continuation of their original experience with the virus. Some are being criticized for reopening too quickly. Some are being criticized for making the wrong moves in the way that they chose to restart their states. But actually, others are having good luck and people predicted they would have a bad experience and they haven't yet shown that. But even in New England, you hear that, the number of cases that were just commented on happening in states joining ours, there are still efforts being made to reopen in a very strategic and hopefully safe way. But they've had a lot of experience with virus activity going on still. I think the thing about our curve that's so much different is we were for a couple of weeks so low in our test positivity and our new cases that this outbreak looks very dramatic in the context of that data. But it still is a true outbreak in one particular part of the state with a lot of factors behind it that to me just indicates the virus is still amongst us. It was suppressed, but it's always here and as we've said it's in the air we breathe that we all share. So the reality is I wouldn't wanna label this Vermont's resurgence of COVID-19. This is just part of our experience with it from the outset. And this isn't what I think resurgence is gonna look like. Yeah, Governor, as to your phase two now of recovery, you have been fairly generous, I think, with the communication between you and the legislature and saying that the legislature has taken a different tact and such. But given the situation, are you still writing this off as not political? Yeah, I don't think it's political. I think it's just a different approach. And again, I don't know what's going to happen in terms of the guidance with the CARES Act, whether this money will be able to be utilized, the backfill or budgets, but I'm not sure that seems so short-sighted to me because even if we could backfill our own budgets, the problem is we don't have the businesses with the jobs to sustain those budgets over time. So it's just a different philosophical approach. I believe that we need to take care of the problem today, not wait again for next six months from now and then a year from now and then a year and a half from now. This is the time to rebuild this foundation today, the economic foundation today, because we can see it in real time. You don't have to go very far to talk to some of these businesses and some of the employees who are not working today because the businesses are impacted because through no fault of their own, aren't able to open fully. So it's having an impact on all of us in Vermont, but it's just a philosophical difference. And as to reopening, Governor Sununu's really taken a more aggressive, it seems now, tact. His numbers are looking a little bit better, but does it concern you that he's opening up as large as he is spectators, sports, restaurants, and ends fully? Yeah, I mean, I don't know, I know that he had had an announcement yesterday and I don't know the details of the announcement, but some of, with the restaurants and so forth, we were working along the same approach, but he took it a step further. We'll see whether he's right or not. We'll learn from that, just like we are everything else, but we do share a border and we do share a lot in terms of people going back and forth and I hope he's right. I hope he doesn't see an additional spike, but we'll wait and see. Will that affect your decisions as to maybe shutting down a couple of counties or whatever? Yeah, I mean, we'll continue to update the data and make sure that we're protecting Vermonters the best we can. So that's why we've taken the approach we have to isolate to different counties. If you see an outbreak, a sustainable outbreak in a certain county, we may indeed shut that county down so that we can, again, protect Vermonters the best we can. All right, moving to the phone, start with Kat at WCAS. I know, Governor, you've indicated that you're gonna re-extend the state of emergency on Monday for another month. So much have written in to me wanting to know why it would take to lift all of our COVID restrictions. Like, what would our data have to look like to do that and what's the benchmark you've set for that? Well, again, it's something that we're doing in time. Again, watching all the data, the regional data as well, seeing some of the other entities, we rely so heavily on tourism in this state. And by the way, I mean, we haven't even opened up the border with Canada, which is, you know, that's a huge sector for us. And they've been heavily impacted. I've heard that they are going to extend the border restrictions for a longer period than, you know, I think it was June 21st, but now it's been extended or it's going to be extended. So that in some respects hurts and helps us. It hurts us from an economics standpoint, but helps us in terms of the pandemic and not having to be concerned about more of the transmission from our North. So, you know, it all depends on the factors. It all depends on the numbers, the modeling, the data and the science. And again, Commissioner Pichek keeps showing the heat map and the numbers are looking better in Massachusetts and New York. But I can tell you that Connecticut and New Jersey, they aren't out of the woods yet either, Rhode Island. So we just have to watch the data because we are so heavily impacted because we rely on them for our economy. But at the same time, they can impact, you know, the transmission of the disease as well. And a clear benchmark then for, like, we will list our restrictions when, you know, let's say there's X percentage of cases nationwide or in our region or something like that. Well, again, we're just looking for what is the, you know, not when is the end goal, but like what does it look like? Well, again, I think what you've seen over the last even week with the modeling, opening up more counties, more area, I think we'll continue to see that. Every week, we've been opening up more of the sectors, doing a little bit at a time to make sure we're not taking the right approach. So we're moving in the right direction. We haven't had to take any steps back at this point. And again, methodically moving forward, opening up the different sectors, we'll get to 100% within, you know, hopefully within the next two or three months. But again, we'll base that on the data that we're seeing at that point in time. Okay, so I was trying to confirm whether it was we need to wait for a vaccine or whether we're going to reopen everything and list all the restrictions, you know. I don't think we can. We can't wait for a vaccine. I mean, that would be the best case scenario if a vaccine magically appeared and could solve this problem for all of us. But I don't think we can wait for that. What we're doing, as we've seen in Winooski, basing it on increased testing and tracing abilities, enhancing that, building upon that, learning from, you know, to be perfectly frank, mistakes we may have made in the past, other states have made in the past, basing it on some of what they've done well, what we've done well, and enhancing that. So if we can continue to increase our testing and tracing abilities, when we see an outbreak, we won't have to shut down the whole state. We'll be able to just concentrate on that one area and make sure that we contain it, box it in so that we don't have any outbreaks in other regions of our state either. So we've learned a lot and I believe that we'll be able to, again, somewhat mitigate this, control this within the state without having to back up and take some of the severe steps that we took initially. Good morning. Wondering what the state of Vermont can do to increase mask wearing by those looking to deal with the state of Vermont. This morning I got an email from a state worker asking why the state is not making any attempts to screen members of the general public when they come into state office buildings. No questions, no temperature taking, no nothing. And as this employee noted, restrictions have been put on businesses by, I guess, ACDD and others, but close, not their own state government. And as a side note, I got two delivery guys from Ferris distributing, popping and popping, unloading a big truck in a small store, made multiple strips into a convenient store. The deposit product vacuum on the floor and neither had a mask. Same thing, excuse me, same thing this morning. Another federal delivery truck doing the same thing at a full gesture store. And liquor control, step in and insist that beverage distributors wear masks and what about the health department for other food delivery to keep the promoters in alert, safe in those situations? Yeah, you've got a lot there, Mike, and I'll try and answer a few of those. We do have guidance within ACDD in terms of employers and what our expectations are for those employers. In terms of the state, you know, employees, we're still working out the details of that. I don't know if Suzanne, Secretary Young, is on the line, but we're developing a policy for reopening as we speak and trying to get ready for that and what it will look like. I'm not sure at this point, but it will require some social or physical distancing and so forth. Secretary Young. Thank you, Governor, and there was some guidance put out in terms of meaning for the employees when they come to work. There, I guess I would be interested in a follow-up conversation with Mike about what particular departments or agencies have concerns about their interactions with the public because we are trying to balance the safety of our employees and those who interact with our employees and following the guidance that ACDD has put forth. We are actually, you know, the district that state employees have been on the job since the beginning of the pandemic in many different ways. Many, many are telecommuting, so they have been able to continue their job. Other employees that actually return to the work sites as your guidance has allowed them to, depending on what sector they're working in, and we have directed them to follow the guidance from ACDD in terms of interactions in the office space and with the public generally. So I would like to maybe do some follow-up with Mike and find out where there is a concern. I think this is more about the public coming in, not that the employees are wearing masks, but more about the general public are just walking into state offices or what I'd like to leave out. Okay, so I would be interested, I guess, to know which office those are. I'm going to ask the... I could try to answer your question. I'm going to ask Dr. Levine and maybe Secretary Curley weigh in as well. I just want to give a personal experience, and that is every day I get out of my car in the parking garage on Cherry Street to go upstairs to my office before I even get to the elevator. There are abundant signages that are telling me exactly what symptoms I should be informing someone about and not coming to work with. There are signs regarding that I need to be wearing facial covering. And then I get on the elevator and in the elevator I have more signs saying the same thing. So that's a state office building and clearly employees of the state and public are being informed about what the rules are, so to speak. And Secretary Curley, do you have anything? And they walk right by those signs all the time. I've seen them at stores saying you must have a mask to come in the store and people walk in, and the store clerks don't want to lose the customer. Yeah, Mike, this is Secretary Curley. I just wanted to speak a little bit too. You talk about people making deliveries and employees not wearing masks. Our guidance is really clear that employees must wear masks while in the presence of others. So again, if people are seeing something that looks like it's uncomfortable, we would ask that they reach out to us because it's a great opportunity for us to remind folks of our guidance and the expectations that lie within that guidance on our website. As far as customers, employers or business owners are able to require folks to wear masks. But again, if they choose not to enforce it, that's not something we can necessarily control. We can just encourage it and encourage the public to do it for the sake of others. As far as the state of Vermont as the employer, our teams, as Secretary Young mentioned, we've been developing our restart plans in terms of when our employees might go back into the offices. Right now, we're taking the approach that if we can work remotely, we are working remotely in hopes that we can get other sectors more broadly open. But for those areas of state government that are open, the guidelines are the same, whether they work for the state of Vermont as an employer or any other employer. So if there are areas where we need to tighten up and give more education, we're happy to do that as well. And one quick follow to the governor. By all accounts, you've been putting in an incredible number of hours each day, each week on COVID, in little time for anything else for the past three months. Thunder Road has been open on June 18th. Do you think you'll be able to take a few hours off and put number 14 on the racetrack that night and have a little fun? Yeah, nice thought. But no, that isn't in the plans. We're still in a state of emergency. And until that's over, my racing days are over. Thank you. Mr. Roy, Newport Daily Express. Yes, good morning. Could you speak a little bit about the money that you were talking about earlier on in this conversation and where it's gonna come from and how are you gonna be punished, that amount of money that you're gonna be sending out? And we are also hearing from people who want to know when individuals will be able to visit family members and friends in correctional facilities at a long-term care facility. Chris, I'll answer the second part of that first in terms of the long-term care facilities. We are wrapping up some of the guidelines and some of the details as we speak. We'll have an announcement on, I would say Wednesday of this next week on some of the long-term care facilities and hospitals. In terms of the money, I just want to make sure that I understand the question, but we received the 1.25 billion as well as a few other dollars in other sectors, other parts of legislation. That's where the money that we are anticipating spending is coming from. It's the Congressional Act that was passed and we are using that money for this economic relief package that we talked about as well as the first phase and second phase. So that was a $400 million package that we put forth, but as well there's going to be healthcare as well as the emergency itself, education and other initiatives that will well exceed the 1.25 billion. Does that answer your question or is it more specific? No, I'm just wondering if the state will have to pay that back or how is that going to be replenished? No, that's a grant. The only way we'd have to return the money is if we misspent it, misappropriated it. And so far that's what some of my resistance in terms of waiting on the utilizing it for our budgetary concerns because they're quite clear in the guidance that it cannot be used to fulfill any budget shortfalls. It has to be for COVID related expenses and that's the guidance we're moving forward with. So any misuse of that would be clawed back by the federal government and we'd have to pay it back. Thank you, County Courier. Just before I asked too much, I wanted to ask if there was an update on employment with USCIS on Wednesday you said or your staff said that they would get back to me. Have you heard anything? We did reach out to the congressional delegation Senator Leahy in particular and it does appear that there may be a furlough due to a few things, the border being shut down, lack of immigration into the state and so forth. So it does appear, I don't know the magnitude, I don't know the details. At this point we're waiting for them to get back to us on that but it does appear you were correct that there is going to be some sort of furlough. So what does the state doing to prepare for that? Because we've got a number of questions since we asked that question. We need to get the details of it. Obviously we'll be taking care of that. I don't know what the furlough would look like whether there was any pay involved in terms of the federal government but we do still have the unemployment assistance and they would be able to be signed up. We would then treat them like anyone else and try to find opportunities for them. But this again puts a highlight on we need to provide relief for some of the sectors within the state in terms of the economic relief in some of the businesses. So that we, before this pandemic we had the lowest unemployment in the country and we actually had a shortage of people for all the jobs we had available. So that is in the case today. But we want to return to that so we want to preserve the businesses and jobs here in Vermont so that we can put people back to work. So I don't have all the answers on that. We're still working along those lines trying to find out what the magnitude. Nobody has told us what that means, how many people it could entail. So until we have those details, hard to know how to react but we do have our unemployment and our labor department ready, willing and able whenever that occurs. All right and then I have a question and a follow-up to some of the data that was presented earlier. The house is currently working on legislation pertaining to mail-in voting. There's some arguing as to aspects of that bill. One of the debates is whether candidates, campaigns, 501c4 organizations should be able to handle voters' ballots. Would you like to see provision in the bill that would disallow those types of people from handling ballots? And would you consider a veto if there are aspects that would allow people with conflicts of interest from handling ballots? Well, I think the legislature has made it quite clear that they have their own thoughts on the election in November. So we'll let this work its way through the process. I don't know about any of the details but I do know that they're taking me out of this which is fine. So we'll just have to see what's past when it comes to be. Data, you guys shared earlier. I see that Chittenden County is about twice the case load that would allow for traveling against Chittenden County were outside of the state. For those of us in Franklin County and the other counties that aren't Chittenden County, is it safe to travel to Chittenden County? And if so, why is it not safe to travel to say Albany County, New York? I'll let Commissioner Pichek start with that and maybe then Dr. Levine. So thank you for that question and allow us an important clarification as well. I think that we made last week but I didn't reiterate today that the travel policy does not apply to Vermont or Vermont counties. We are watching those four metrics that I mentioned earlier in the presentation. They are sort of broad statewide metrics that are important for us and more detailed for us as we reopen. We don't necessarily have that same level of granularity with all the other states that are around us, particularly on a county by county basis. So we have much greater understanding and knowledge of our own cases and know that that number that increased to Chittenden County from 159 to 814 is related to that outbreak in Winooski and not necessarily at this time broader community transmission. So that's why we're not necessarily applying that same metric to us. You do see a change in the map. We did change the color of Vermont so that there is a difference when a state goes, when a county rather goes over the different thresholds we've set for other counties around us. But again, we're looking and have a much better understanding of our data because of the more detailed data that we do collect and have than we do on the other counties. So that's why we've used this active case count as a good proxy for the risk. And I'll just chime in from the public health standpoint on that. Bottom line is those are new cases. So they do affect the way we portray our data, obviously. But as you noticed on the way that the cases were portrayed, there wasn't a vast increase going on. We were on a more downward slope which we'll continue to watch very, very closely. I remind people that there was a point in the outbreak when we had one or two long-term care facilities that had large numbers of cases if we looked at that number of cases and said, gee, they're in Chittenden County. Maybe I shouldn't go to Chittenden County. I think we would have been blowing that out of proportion. Important as those cases were to where they were, that did not indicate a county-wide issue. This outbreak we believe also is not a county-wide issue at this point in time. And we've been watching it very closely and trying to do our best to do the containment process as you've seen playing it out. So what I wanna leave you with is words I used earlier, universal precautions. Whether you're in Wyndham County or Chittenden County or Grand All County, I don't really care, you should be behaving the same. Same respect for all of the principles that we've put down. Because maybe you didn't know that Chittenden County had these new cases, and you assumed it was like the rest of the state because it was before we actually knew there was an outbreak. You wouldn't have wanted to be more casual about your attention to these core principles about not going to work if you're sick, doing the proper hygiene, making sure you keep the appropriate distance, and making sure about the facial coverings. I've kinda said this many times until we have the proper treatments and the proper prevention like vaccine for this virus, we kinda need to behave that way, whether we're in our own borders or outside our borders in traveling. And I think that's why there are so many distressing scenes portrayed by the media as they go around the country looking where cases have begun to increase again and focusing their attention on the public's behavior, whether it be at a beach or in a bar or what have you. We need to pay attention to those things. It's a clear part of our new reality, and it will come to pass. We will actually get through all of this, but we need to actually continue to pay attention. We had a reader contact us with a similar comment that say Massachusetts, for instance, if you were to take out the captive populations in nursing homes and prisons, there are some of those counties that the number would be well under 400 per million, and in a captive population like that, it doesn't tend to spread to the general citizens in that county. So is there a better way to calculate something like that? And I'll just leave you with that. Thanks for your time. Thanks for that point, and there probably is, there are many ways we could portray data based on that, but I want you to keep in mind those captive facilities, as you said, most of the time, if you're going to find an outbreak in a facility like that, it's because the people who work at these facilities, not intentionally, but are perhaps bringing the virus in from their own experiences in their life, in their communities. So again, adhering to all of the principles in your day-to-day life is still the operative principle here at work. Our next questioner, Lisa, at the AP. Thanks, back to the mail-in voting. Have you, it's up for final approval in the House. I mean, have you seen the legislation and do you expect to sign it? I have not seen it. So you can't say if you expect to sign it. We'll see what it looks like in its final form. What I said before was if it was to take me out of the equation, to put it in the hands of the Secretary of State, I wouldn't stand in its way. So if it continues to do that, I have no problem with it. Okay, and then something you said earlier, you expect, or you said that the state would be 100% open in the next two to three months? My hope would be that based on the data in the science, as I continue to say, that we base all our decisions on what's happening on the ground. I'm hopeful that we'll get to a point where we're open, having everything open at some point. I'm hoping it's in the next two to three months. I mean, look how far we've come in some respects. Over the first three months, from shutting everything down and now reopening at least to a quarter, maybe to a third at this point, I'm hoping that we can continue to follow that path and things will get better so we can open everything up. Okay, thank you. Joe Barton Chronicle. Dr. Levine. I was wondering, it appears that there have been almost no cases of COVID in the state's IC units for some time. I wonder, is this a function of the increased testing picking up a lot of cases that are completely asymptomatic? Or are doctors getting a little bit better at treating patients when they come in so that the disease does not escalate to the point where it needs more serious measures? Challenging question, but great question. I think that part of it is we are seeing less active viral infection in the population because not only are the ICUs doing very well, which means of course no one's on a ventilator, but our daily count of people in the hospital with a diagnosis of COVID is in the low single digits on any given day. Occasionally I think it's been zero, but very low numbers. So there are not enough people having an illness severe enough to even get in the hospital, never mind to require ICU care at that point in time. And so yes, we are doing a lot of testing and finding that the positivity rate in spite of an outbreak is still very, very low. And that's nice. I mean, that's kind of like what we would hope to have seen in the summer, although just on yesterday's news alone, states like Arizona and Florida, which are sort of a heat belt, are seeing vastly increasing numbers of cases that are actually getting into the hospital as well. So I wouldn't want to let thoughts about temperature or humidity be the whole explanation because they can't be. One thing I'd like you to know that we're doing in Vermont is if you've been identified as a case, we are providing you with what's called a oximeter, a simple device that you can put on your finger and understand the saturation of oxygen in your blood. Because what we've learned a lot from looking at the most severe cases in Vermont in our experience, many of those cases seem to have, prior to the time that they may have died, had fainting spells, confusion, things that would indicate not enough oxygen getting to the brain. So the concern here is maybe if you can identify a person having low oxygen levels as a person living at home at that point in time before they got sicker, this would be an early warning signal to enable you to get involved with support services, perhaps oxygen and try to get them through a challenging part of their illness without it graduating to a level that requires either a hospital stay or an ICU and a ventilator. So that's actively going on right now in our programming. Did I answer your question, Orkai? For the most part, so just so I can be clear what you're saying is that there's no indication that the virus is becoming less virulent, but there's some sense that even though you don't have treatment modalities for the most serious cases, you do know enough from your experience to be able to head off some of the worst effects. Yeah, that's correct. And I don't think the virus itself has changed at all, but our ability to pick up more people who have an asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic state, yet a positive test of course, has been enhanced by our strategies. So we are identifying a lot more of the population that isn't going to suffer as much with the virus. And if you remember back when we first started in March, everybody was talking about the fact that 80% of us are gonna do fine or more, and it's less than 20% that may actually end up in the hospital or have a more serious time with the illness. We still believe that to be true, but now we're learning so much more, not just in Vermont, but across the country and across the world, about the fact that the rate of people being infected but not having severe symptoms or perhaps any symptoms may be quite large, so that maybe we'll have more refined numbers to report in the future regarding the 80-20 breakdown. But I think that's a big part of what you've noticed looking at our data. Thank you very much. Time's our guess. Yes, this question is for Secretary Smith. For the homeless population, are they going to remain in motels and hotels until a better solution is found, or is there some kind of deadline that the money run out at some point and these people might be back on the street without a shelter system to support them? Secretary Smith. Thank you for the question, Erica. The objective is not to have people on the street. That's why we're phasing this motel hotel program out. We're phasing it down over the next year as I talked about last time. This is a $23 million package. 10 million of it would still be for motels for safe housing over the course of the next year. Just to put this into some sort of perspective, if we annualize the numbers we're paying, we're doing right now in terms of the homeless population in the motel hotel system, if we annualize the cost of that, that's $48 million. Pre-COVID, we were paying $6 million. So you can see the difference. So we're still spending quite a bit of money with the motel hotel program as we phase it down, but we are going to institute, as I said, at the last press conference, a whole host of other items that will cost 13 more million dollars as we look for housing for these individuals. I also want to, Eric, just remind you, the governor and ACCD has another package out here as well, $50 million. So we're talking a total of $73 million for homelessness as we talk about it. Those two components are integral in terms of eliminating what I would say is a homeless issue that we have here in the state, plus making sure that we get people into a permanent housing situation. The motel hotel program is not sustainable and is not a long-term solution. It was great during the height of the pandemic. We got everybody off the street, but what the failure of that system is, is that we are housing people without services and it's unsustainable from a cost perspective. So I think we've got a great plan in terms of how we're going to transition this program over the next year and then involve the community partners next July of the fiscal year 22, involve the community partners in how to even enhance this program as we move forward. So the answer to your question is no, we're not throwing people out on the streets. We are transitioning this program. We are putting new requirements into this program as we move and we're moving families. One other thing about this, we are trying to end a family homelessness in this state and this program accomplishes this. Eric, I know you didn't ask this, but I'd be remiss in not bringing a subject that's not even related to this up, but I need to. Dr. Levine and his staff, it's part of the agency of human services, but I just wanna emphasize how incredible the work that they've been doing over the last two and a half weeks to a month in terms of testing and tracing. They need to be called out and congratulated for what they've done. Just the last seven days, we've done 9,326 tests. Again, 9,326 tests. That's a rolling seven day test average of 1,332 tests a day. That is amazing. That's not even talking about the contact tracers that are where, I got my report from contact tracing last night. I believe it was 1.12, that's AM. So that tells you how hard they're working. So Eric, did I answer your question? Yes, yes, I guess we've been hearing from some advocates that are concerned that some homeless people might get lost along the way. So I guess, so they will stay in these hotels and motels for the foreseeable future until something better comes along, is that correct? Yeah, there will be people that will be reinstituting sort of criteria for being in a hotel motel that we had prior to COVID. But this is gonna be a, what I would call a soft transition as we're moving forward. Okay, thank you. Anne Wallace-Allen, BT Digger. Hi, I think this is a question for Secretary Curley. However the millions of dollars in financial assistance, whether it's just the 70 million grant package for grants and loans does come out, how is that money going to be allocated? Is there going to be an emphasis on getting the money to small businesses? And if so, who and how is this gonna be decided? Yeah, Anne, thank you. I'm actually gonna pitch this to Commissioner Goldstein who has really worked the details out with this. So she's right here. Thank you. Thanks, Anne. Yeah, we are working, as I speak, we are working with various, the tax department and others to come up with a methodology to ensure that we are getting the assistance out to those who most need it in as quickly and as efficiently as possible. So anticipate that there will be a ceiling in terms of annual revenue beyond which may not be eligible. So we are gearing this toward the smaller businesses by design. Did that answer you? Well, somewhat. I know you know well that some of the PPP money, there's been a lot of concern that it went to a lot of big businesses that didn't necessarily need it, where the very small businesses were kind of left out for various reasons. They either didn't have the infrastructure or the staff available to apply or they didn't qualify for one reason or another. So now small businesses are concerned. Are we still not gonna qualify? Let's say it's a one-person business. How will you be able to reach them? And how will you make those determinations? Sure. And first let me say that I think some of that reporting had been a little bit over emphasized because we know in Vermont nearly 12,000 businesses were able to access PPP and some of the small businesses we've been working with have been able to access that. So let me just make that point. The other is that we do have a proposal in for technical assistance providers and we are anticipating working with partners who particularly work with micro businesses, small businesses and local businesses. So we are, we think we have the bases covered. We are going to do outreach in addition to appearing here, for example, also on our social media as well as our email, which if you haven't signed up, people should sign up for ACCD.vermont.gov. There's a section to sign up for our COVID newsletter. It goes out three days a week. So we are amply getting the word out and we're available to help. We do have a phone unit as well as an email response team that will help businesses get to the assistance that they need. I guess I'm asking about criteria specifically. Oh, right. So we're working on the criteria right now. I mean, when we actually propose one set of criteria and things have changed so abruptly from the legislative version, they are requiring 75% loss in revenue from one year to the next. So that will leave out quite a lot of people. We were hoping to not have that criteria in there, but we are working on other eligibility criteria. It's not ready for prime time just yet. Alrighty, thank you. Thanks. I think it is a good point though. It depends on what the legislature does and it would impact, you know, we were asking for more flexibility because we don't wanna penalize those businesses who are struggling along during this pandemic being creative doing all they could just to keep the doors open and we're gonna penalize them now. And for those who didn't take the initiative, they would be rewarded. So we wanna make sure that we give as much money out as possible. And again, the limited amount of money that they're talking about now would limit the program as well. Right, got it, thank you. 35 and we'll meet up halfway through our queue. Next up is Steve from N-E-K-T-V. Hello, can you hear me? We can. Thank you, Governor. A couple for Dr. Levine, if I could. Dr. Levine, you just mentioned the rise in cases in Arizona and New Mexico. Could those be attributed to the co-morbidities like obesity and diabetes, the increase in testing, the higher incidence amongst Native Americans and things like that? So it was actually Arizona and Florida, but I'm not sure about the status of New Mexico, but thanks for allowing me to talk about this for a second because I don't know the specifics yet because this word just came out about their increase in cases and in Arizona specifically, they're very concerned about their increase in utilization of the healthcare system. But you are absolutely correct and this press conference began with the governor's discussion about racial equity and if it hasn't been clear to everyone in the country, the population in the United States that has been most severely affected by the pandemic is the Navajo Nation. We need to recognize that because all of the factors that feed into why that's true feed into understanding problems and racial equity in the country. Some of it may have to do with higher rates of some of their underlying conditions that put them at higher risk, but again, that's not necessarily because genetically they're problematic, it may be because how their particular genetics interfaces with the environment that they've been raised in and are living in may dictate why there are higher rates of obesity, why there may be higher rates of substance use, things that are not correlated with being free of COVID, unfortunately. And then to start thinking about the fact that one of the new revelations that come out is a high percentage of those living on the reservation are actually far in distance from actual potable water and don't even have that in the site that they're living in. So you can imagine with a strike like that against you, there are many, many strikes against them from the start that have to do with the circumstances they find themselves in, what we kind of term in public health, the social determinants of health, whether it relates to poverty, whether it relates to transportation, basic needs like food and water, et cetera. So without knowing the specifics of what's happened in Arizona to explain this most recent upsurge in cases, there's certainly a lot to explain why the Navajos have had a tougher time. Okay, and regarding the numbers out of Massachusetts, they've lost roughly 7,000 people of fatalities in a state of about 7 million people. And most of them being 70 plus. Do we know what the average fatality rate without COVID would be for that segment of the population in say four months? I mean, how many people over 70 would die if natural causes and over a four month period? I bet you that information is available somewhere, but I don't have it on the top of my head. We'd have to look for that. But you're making a very valid point, obviously. And there are people that are talking about losing a generation of people, so to speak, in places in the world that have a very, very high rate in their vulnerable populations where people are dying. I'm not sure what to say about it in the United States right now. Okay, and a quick one for the governor, if I may. Governor, you talked about racial justice. And in the interest of racial justice right here in Vermont, would you be considering the pardoning or commuting the sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, which have been trapped so many people of color in our prison system? We are working with the legislature as we speak on a justice reinvestment program. So we'll be considering all aspects of that, but that's moving through as we speak. We've been working on that for the last year or two. Great, thank you all very much. Okay. Brittany, Local 22. Hello, my question is for the governor. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about why you feel it's important to support the city's move to paint Black Lives Matter message on State Street? Yeah, I just think we're seeing the frustration throughout the country. And it appears that enough is enough. There are many, as I mentioned before, even NASCAR weighing in, many sports entities weighing in, individuals all coming together for the common cause. I don't want this to be just a moment in time. I want this to be a time when there's transition to real action. And we have to be reminded of that. And I think this is an expression of sentiment. And I believe that this is something that the city has asked to do. They actually take care of the streets. The State Street is part of what they do. And who put it in front of the state house that is, again, a symbol of the people's house. We, I think, are making a powerful statement ourselves. So I'm just supportive of taking that stance to highlight this and to say that we're in this for the long run. We're going to change things. Thank you so much. Tim, Vermont Business Magazine. Hi, Rebecca, if there's time at the end I have a question for Michael Harrington. But for the Governor, it sounds like the disappointment that you and John Goldstein and the currently have with the legislative package, I just want to be clear, it does not sound like you're considering a veto of what they sent you at this point. Yeah, no, I mean, that would be counterintuitive in some respects. If they're going to give us a third of the money, let's say we need to get that in the hands of Vermonters who are in desperate need, as you know, Tim. So we'll take a third of a loaf at this point, but in hopes that they will go back to work and take care of the other two thirds plus the other phase of this package so that we're providing relief and recovery for individuals, for those who are out of a job. They need a place of employment and we need to provide that for them and we have the means to do so. In other legislation, the mayor's coalition has put forth a couple of issues and one of them is extending the TIF deadline so that because they've kind of lost a year here and another one, which would be more problematic is changing Act 250 rules for them because they have permitting. Have you reflected on either of those issues? Yeah, I mean, we would be look favorably on either one of those proposals. We're in fact in some of the packages that you'll see. We are contemplating how can we put projects that fast forward some projects with everyone on board so that we don't prolong the permit process. So that's in line with what we've been thinking in terms of the TIF districts. I'm sure we would look favorably knowing what we know now about the crisis that we face and the effect on our economy. Okay, great, thank you. Mr. Chester Telegraph? This is for the governor. We've asked several times about the travel from out of state and the representative of your office emailed us to say that just because the number of out of state cars coming into Vermont on Fridays roughly matches the number of leaving on Sundays, you can't conclude that people are coming in just for the weekend and not quarantining. Now, since the beginning of the state of emergency, the administration's been characterizing its decisions as being science-based and data-driven. But shouldn't the data showing similar numbers arriving and leaving over a weekend drive the collection of more detailed information on these visits and quarantining? Otherwise, what would be the end result? What would you ask us to do? I'm just wondering if you're making these decisions on travel with data that is showing you what's going on? What's actually happening on the ground? Well, not all our decisions are based on the data, on traffic data. Could I also ask, are any of the people who are involved in the Winn-Utsky Outbreak traveling in from out of state? Not that I'm aware of, no. Dr. Levine? Dr. Levine says not that he's aware of either. Okay, thank you. John Dillon, the VPR? Thank you. Governor, in a normal year, legislature would be gone by mid-May, and now it's mid-June. Those were the days, John. Those were the days. Those were the days, I remember normal. They're now talking about wrapping up the week of the 26th, Friday of the 26th, and then maybe saying for a few more days to handle lingering care funds issues. So that's three, well, five weeks since you have asked them to do it in a week. Is your message now just get it done, get it done fast and go home because of the urgent need out there? Is that what you're telling them? No, I just want to get this money out the door. I think there's a sense of urgency on the part of business owners and those who are unemployed right now. When you look at the numbers, we were at a height of 90,000 at one point. We're down now to maybe 60,000 or something like that, 50 or 60,000. That's 50 or 60,000 people unemployed right now because many of them, because the businesses aren't open or not open to the full capacity. So we need to provide relief for that. We need to make sure that we preserve that because if we don't, if those businesses fail, we're going to have possibly thousands and thousands of people unemployed over the long term. So I'm saying we have the money, we have the CARES money that was forwarded to us by Congress for just this purpose and I'm just asking us to act. Let's move forward. Let's shore up the crumbling foundation that we're seeing in our economy. So it's just a, not a frustration, well maybe there's a frustration. We just need to act. We have the money to do so. We need to take that step. And their philosophy of hanging onto some up to third or at least half until the fall in hopes of flexibility, does that make sense to you at all? Well, I understand the temptation. I really do. It's not going to be easy to deal with a three or $400 million budget deficit but it's not easy for those businesses right now who are struggling to figure out how are they going to survive through no fault of their own. So we'll cross that bridge when it comes. We'll take those steps but if we don't have the income, the revenue from these businesses because they don't exist anymore and we're continuing to pay out in terms of unemployment because people aren't employed anymore then what are we doing? And I think we need to take action today. We have the means to do so and we just need to move forward. Thank you. Avery, WCAS? My question is for Secretary French. So we're just wondering if the agency of education has a plan yet for when high school drivers add and behind the wheel instructors can get back in a car or student to complete driving hours? Yeah, thank you. We are working with the State Board of Education that will be part of it. State Board received a waiver request from me a couple of months ago and they're gonna take that up at their meetings. I mean, we, but we are also working with the ADQ Thomas Community Development and the Department of Motor Vehicles to continue to reopen things and try to get these programs up and running in the summer. And a quick follow up. Are you all leaning toward waiving if our observation requirements like the DMV has in contributing that responsibility to the parent? That was my disposition a couple of months ago when I presented the waiver to the State Board. I'm not convinced that waiver is now needed considering we're opening the programs back up. But that'll be, I think, the issue before the State Board next week. Okay, thank you. Maria, Washington Post? I'm gonna ask about these 14 people who are under investigation in the hospital for COVID. These tests are also coming back so quickly. That's been a pretty consistent number of weeks to meet on some of the stations. So what's the situation with them? Are there more people who have been hospitalized who have ultimately had positive and haven't been discharged before? We get that test back, so what is happening with that? Maybe you could repeat the question. Did you say, we don't have, maybe I misunderstood, we don't have 14 people hospitalized? Oh, under investigation? Yeah, under investigation, right? It's kind of consistent this year. I'm curious about it. Is that the test results are coming back more quickly nowadays? How could it be? What does that mean? It's actually that there are more people in the hospital with COVID and are they just discharged before we realize that they were hospitalized or? You know, you do make a good point, but not every hospital has the turnaround capability on the test to get it back as quickly as they'd like, but certainly within a day, I would think, but the category of under investigation just means they're fitting what the admitting physician views as a person who should be under investigation. Doesn't mean that the reason they felt weak and passed out was COVID, but COVID could be the reason, but they might have just been dehydrated or had an infection of another sort. So when those do not convert into hospitalizations, if they were COVID, they would be then put in the category of recovering from COVID because they were in the hospital such a short time and got out. So I suspect that they're just more people with a greater suspicion for the diagnosis that doesn't actually turn into COVID. And so that's just a high rate of clinical judgment being exercised that says, we ought to consider COVID for the reasons this person's here. It's the best I can do. That's the best I can do for you. Just a couple of quick follow up. So earlier, as you mentioned, thanks to Frank, you know, that there have been some mistakes in the past. You know, the state does look better than other states, but what is your assessment of that? What did the state do you think were made in the past? Is the news to be one of them? Is something transmitted there? Mistakes was probably a strong word on my part. I just think that we all evolve through any crisis, any experience we might have on, and then reflect on how we can do things better. Certainly if in the beginning, if we'd had better testing and tracing, we might not have even had the number of cases we have today. But that wasn't the case. We didn't have that capability, and we've increased that since. So I don't know if it's a mistake, or had we had the foresight before all this happened to put in place a better testing tracing program, we would have been better off, but we didn't have that ability, nor was the science keeping up with it. So we've evolved very well and taken advantage of that, and increased that, and our numbers proved that out. So I'm very pleased with where we are, but obviously if we could have had better, again, better testing in the beginning out of the capacity we have today, we would have undoubtedly been better off, but that's reflecting on what was going on a month or two ago. And just pardon me, the other part of that question about Winnowski, what's happened there? We've been asking for some time, I think since the cases numbered around 30, now they're, I think, about 80. So what actually happened? You know, was there a barbecue or soccer game, like something vague that wouldn't violate anyone's privacy, but we still don't know what happened? Yeah, I just believe that they were all socially connected throughout that community. It's a small dense population in Winnowski, a very small city, and it's just very socially connected and had some social events together. It just seems very vague, and I think, you know, like Dr. Winnowski was saying earlier, it's helpful when the media covers these things in some detail so that people understand as you lose their restrictions how this can spread. Any details whatsoever? I'll let Dr. Lee in the answer. So, no, I'm not aware of a core event that would have brought a lot of people together. So one thing you need to know about the growth in the numbers, which we predicted for you, if you will, is that with a large percent of asymptomatic conditions in those who are test positive, it indicates that the rate of spread usually within small communities and within households was relatively easy for that to occur. So just like the governor said, a densely populated city, often there's densely populated homes and easy to transmit within a very small household or within, as he termed it, their community. So I can't really give you like, everybody attended some specific event and came down with something because that's not the way that this plays out. All right, thank you all very much. Can you assure the modders that the protestors try to establish a police-free autonomous zone in Vermont, like Capitol Hill and Seattle, that you will stop it promptly and decisively and if so, how? I'm not familiar with what you're using for an example guy, I'm sorry. Maybe Commissioner Shirling may be able to weigh in. Are you aware of that situation? I'm listening, Governor, but I'm unfamiliar with that. Wait a minute, the protestors that have taken over six square blocks in Seattle, the lead of every news story, declared a police-free zone. Either way, I read a variety of national businesses this morning that did not come up and we are focused on both the COVID response and Vermont law enforcement and policing reform. Yeah, I admittedly, I must not be that worldly guy because I have not, I've never read the article either. Okay, thank you. Aaron, BT Digger, Aaron, BT Digger. All right, we'll go to Colin, seven days. No question at this time, who's answered, thank you. Thank you, Colin. And Tim, we'll go back to you, Tim, Vermont Business Magazine and we had a follow-up question on labor. Tim, Vermont Business Magazine, yeah? That is, and so. Oh, go ahead, Tom. The number of new unemployment claims went up this week for the first time in about two months and I was wondering if there was an explanation for that and it was kind of noticeable, like 185 claims or so. Are you, not that I'm aware of, are you speaking specifically for the Vermont claims or the national claims? For the Vermont claims, yeah, yeah. They've been going down, as of course you know, for the last couple of months, sort of slow and steady and there was a little bit of an uptick and that's where I'm going to stop. There's five reasons for that. Or people in this bar, people are looking for work, you know, that's it. So let me just back up. So in terms of the claims going up, I think you're talking about a few hundred, right? Yeah, a couple hundred, yeah. Yeah, yeah. No, I think what we are seeing is, you know, there is a lot of flexibility in the workforce right now, so we're just seeing a lot of movement up and down with people that may have gone back to work part-time and then come back off of work and file again. We do continue to receive and see initial claims in the amount of about anywhere from 250 to 300 initial claims per day, about 1500 a week. And so again, it's just very fluid at the moment. So in terms of seeing a few hundred, I'm not sure I could tie that back to any specific reason, but I will also, I'm happy to follow up with our labor market information division to see whether or not they saw an increase in any one sector. Okay, great, thank you very much. Sure, thank you. With that, we'll see you all on Monday. Thank you very much for tuning in.