 Good afternoon, everyone. First of all, I want to start by congratulating Ryan Cochran Siegel, winning the silver last night on the Super G, 50 years after his mother took home gold. Vermont is a very proud of what he's accomplished. And as I was watching last night, I also noticed he was wearing bib number 14, which I think has some symbolism, as Vermont was the 14th state to join the union. I also know it's a great number to have for all kinds of racing, regardless of what it is. But again, I want to congratulate Ryan and the entire family and thank them, the whole family, for continuing to inspire us. Moving on to the COVID front, things continue to move in the right direction, so I don't have much to add. So in addition to our usual lineup, I'm joined by Commissioner Tierney, as we'll be discussing our $51 million proposal to expand wireless service across the state. Over the past several years, expanding broadband, rightfully, has gotten a lot of attention. And we put forward plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build out service and connect more homes to what is considered an economic necessity in the 21st century. Fortunately, the legislature has worked with us on these plans, and we're making significant progress with the help of Director Hallquist and the BCB. Even though broadband has received a lot of attention, anybody like me, who's driven around the state, a lot can tell you it's time we bring Vermont into the 21st century with cell service as well. In the year 2022, when almost everyone has a phone in their pocket and fewer having landlines, sales coverage is a necessity, and it's an area where we need to do much, much better. I proposed a plan two weeks ago in my budget address that invests over $50 million in ARPA capital funds to build more towers and significantly expand service. The benefits of this are obvious, from economic development to public safety. As we seek to grow stronger, more vibrant communities and attract people, not just to Chittenden County, but all parts of our state, we need to have access to cell service. It's not a luxury, it's an expectation, and not just by Vermonters, but also tourists who are critical to our economy. And from a public safety perspective, the need for more coverage just makes sense. If you're in an accident or come on to one, you should be able to reach someone no matter where you are. The bottom line is, if you're in need of a first responder at your home or on the road, lack of cell service shouldn't be what prevents you from getting the help you need. For almost a year, ever since the American Rescue Plan passed, I've talked about the need for using one-time federal money for transformative, tangible initiatives. This plan does exactly that, and it's the type of project that will be very difficult to fund in the future if we don't take advantage of this opportunity today. Just like with broadband, expanding cell service to the extent we're talking about will require public investment. This plan is currently in the hands of the legislature, and if you agree, reliable cell service across the state is critical, I encourage you to reach out and ask them to make it a priority. With that, I'll turn it over to Commissioner Tierney, who will go into further detail. Commissioner. Good afternoon. I'm here today to talk about Vermont's need for expanded cell service, and Governor Scott's plan to address that need by spending over $50 million of federal capital project dollars to deploy 100 new cell towers in Vermont. Now, the need to materially improve cell service in Vermont is obvious to many who live, work, and travel in our state. Expanded mobile wireless is critical for public safety, transportation, education, and the economy. This is a truth that stings when we find ourselves in a place with no cell signal and we face the repercussions for missing or dropping an important call. It's happened to all of us. Fundamentally, the need to act on cell service in Vermont is about equity as well. Too many of us, and particularly in rural parts, do not have reliable cell service to get help. To work, to learn, to check in with doctors, nurses, caseworkers, and to be in touch with our loved ones. In short, many people in Vermont do not have cell service that allows them to prosper, as fellow Vermonters do in our population centers where cell service is better because the customer base is bigger and more profitable. Our cell service suffers from market gaps just like broadband. Now in 2018, the Public Service Department, which is the agency I lead, did a drive test of all federal aid recipients, that is to say highways that receive federal aid in Vermont. And here is some of what we found. 62% of roadways have marginal cell service. 10% of Vermont roadways lack a signal from any carrier at all. About 70% of tested road miles have a signal either from AT&T or Verizon. And that's why so many of us are carrying around two phones if you can afford it, just to have reliable coverage wherever we go. Here's what the governor's proposing. We would establish and fund a critical communications infrastructure program to be carried out by the Department of Public Service in partnership with the Agency of Transportation, the Department of Public Safety, our regional planning commissions, the Agency for Commerce and Community Development, and most importantly, in a manner that respects the will of our communities. Now here are the two core objectives of the critical communications infrastructure program. The first is to ensure there is uniform voice coverage along targeted corridors in Vermont from one or more of the three nationwide carriers. And the second is to improve mobile wireless data services, internet on the go if you will. This will help with public safety, health, education, and commerce. Here's what the critical communications infrastructure program will do. The state of Vermont will facilitate building 100 new cell towers. The towers will be deployed in rural areas to reach unserved roads and improve coverage in population centers presently underserved by cell service. Priority coverage areas will be identified by experts under contract with the department using fresh cell coverage data collected through a new drive test that updates the extensive testing the department did in 2018. That project is underway as we speak. Now here's the funding for the critical communications infrastructure program. Governor Scott proposes to use 51 million in federal monies from the Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund. This is a discrete pot of money that was established by the US Treasury set aside specifically to address the severe infrastructure challenges laid bare by the pandemic, especially in rural America and travel communities and low and moderate income communities. The Capital Projects Fund aims to help ensure that all communities have access to critical services via high quality modern infrastructure, such as broadband and other forms of digital connectivity. As you may know, the American Rescue Plan provides 10 billion nationally to carry out critical capital projects to strengthen and improve the infrastructure we need to participate in work, education and health monitoring, infrastructure that will last and that will pay dividends beyond the pandemic. Now Vermont's share of the Capital Projects Fund is approximately 100 million. Here are the five steps of the critical communications infrastructure plan. The first is to identify priority road corridors via drive testing and traffic and population analysis. The second is to identify suitable tower sites, locations to serve these priority areas. The third step is to conduct a request for proposal process to confirm carrier interest in using the towers to expand their service and identify co-location rent rates. The fourth step is to grant funds to cell service providers to hang their gear on these towers. And the fifth step is to conduct an RFP process to deploy towers at the identified locations. Now I want to emphasize that this program will have a robust community engagement process for identifying tower sites. We will partner with communities, their leadership, their regional planning commissions and public safety organizations. We will seek public input where folks have opportunity to voice concerns and provide real world information about what they need and want. For instance, you've heard it said, there's a gap on route 12 where I always lose my calls or don't put that tower right there. It's going to have a material impact on a favored community picnic spot. All of this will be part of the corridor targeting and search ring analysis that the department will perform with its experts. And this will happen well before tower sites are selected, well before any processes for permitting. So there will be ample advanced public notice and input. This approach makes respect for the will of the community, the North Star of our planning process. There are several touch points of the critical communications infrastructure program in the life of our state. To name just a few, as you heard the governor say a moment ago, public safety, health and human services, education, the economy, workforce development, tourism and transportation. Let's talk about public safety. Most E911 calls are from mobile wireless. Now too many people lack access to wireless coverage so they can't call from home. A significant portion of road miles lack access so they can't make calls from rural roadsides. 75% of calls to 911 in 2021 in Vermont were from mobile wireless, which is up from 71% in 2020, forgive me. 14% of calls to 911 are abandoned, likely because these were wireless calls that were dropped. Let's talk about health and human services and how it's touched by this program. People need reliable and ready access to their doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers. Self service is the tool they need to be in touch. Social workers need to reach their clients as they travel the state to check on their health and welfare. When time is short for someone, especially someone who's vulnerable, crucial help can be delayed or come too late when there's no reliable cell service. Education. Remote students are more technology aware than ever before. Software and website developers are producing applications specifically for the classroom. Wireless networks are used for real-time data collection and assessment. Wireless networks allow for vast learning opportunities in remote areas. Wireless enables remote learning which can reduce dependency on transportation systems. And then the economy. Attracting workforce and business development. Nearly every industry from the self-employed to corporate executives rely on a cell phone to connect with clients and customers. We need to attract workers and business development. We also need to keep our youth. They are tomorrow's workers and tomorrow's business developers. Tourism. Cell phones are critical to make reservations, find accommodations, check transportation options and locate attractions. Visitors expect connectivity. Tourists enjoy sharing their Vermont experience in real time with family and friends, think texts, think pictures. 100% of people polled between 18 to 29 have a cell phone. For most of them, they can only be reached by cell phone. 98% of US college graduates rely on their cell phone. Finally, transportation. Wireless communications are critical for current and future transportation needs. We have a convergence underway between fiber, wireless, the electric grid. It's all becoming a seamless unified network. We need to support that with adequate cell service. Intelligent highway management, snow plow and emergency vehicle tracking needs cell service. Reporting on real time highway conditions, absolutely critical. Crowd sourcing and smart navigation, also very important. Automation and modernization and transportation, our fleet management and our distribution tracking depend on having good cell service. With that, Governor, that concludes my remarks. I'm happy to take questions or pass it back to you. Good afternoon, everyone. Momentarily, I'll give an update on our COVID-19, our usual COVID-19 topics. But before that, the pandemic has exposed some gaps in our care system. Last week, we talked about the stressors on mental health. This week, I want to focus on an area that went well during the pandemic, helping to make mental health and other care and services more available to Vermonters. During the pandemic, a lot of healthcare was delivered remotely and many people were able to apply for services in new ways. These changes have increased access, oops. These services have increased access to some of our most vulnerable Vermonters. But it hasn't been universally felt by everyone. One of the gaps that it's exposed is the lack of universal, high-quality, reliable wireless and cellular service. While most Vermonters find that these are important components, it's particularly important for Vermonters who have immediate or high-risk health conditions. Are in need of benefits or in need of services, live in rural areas and are more isolated than others and lack access to transportation. Adequate wireless and cellular service means more Vermonters can connect with healthcare providers without leaving their home, access telehealth and telemedicine mental health services, can consult with specialty providers located out of state but who have license in Vermont, which allows us to expand significantly our healthcare workforce, connect or access case managers and home visiting providers between visits, access life-saving services such as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and the Crisis Text Line. And for those who are blind and visually impaired, cell phones help them to navigate their communities, assist with object recognition and text-to-speech assistance. Connectivity also increases the availabilities of Vermonters to apply for benefits. For many people across Vermont, online applications have become the norm. It also helps to mitigate health disparities caused by the lack of reliable transportation. For Vermonters who have stayed home because they are high-risk for the negative health impacts of COVID during the pandemic, cellular service gives them tools to help reduce isolation, which has been a key factor for improving and maintaining mental health. Cellular service is also critical for our AHS staff and for service providers. It allows them to connect with clients no matter where either party is, giving them more flexibility. It reduces the number of times that staff show up for a home visit only to find out that the client's not available. And like many Vermonters, AHS and other service providers are often on the road between clients' homes and district offices. It can put them in precarious situations. Cell service allows them to connect when they have an emergency. We look forward to a time when all Vermonters have universal reliable cell service to support equitable access to benefits and services. The governor's proposal to improve cell service and wireless access in Vermont is key for health and human services clients and staff. Now, speaking of the systems of care and COVID, we continue to monitor our hospitals closely. The number of ICU beds and the bed availability across the state has been stable and we are seeing less staff who are absent from work due to COVID. So many Vermonters did their part and got a vaccine during the pandemic, which is likely a key factor in why our hospitals, which did experience serious stress, did better than many other hospitals across the country. So many Vermonters did their, throughout the pandemic, we've seen continuous access to hospital and emergency services for urgent needs. Sometimes that's been difficult to access in other states. As of today, 58% of Vermonters, 12 and older, are up to date on their vaccines. Thank you to Vermonters for staying up to date. Staying up to date in vaccines protects our healthcare system and continues us on a path forward with COVID. That said, we recognize that it can be hard to plan in a time to get an additional COVID vaccine. We wanna make it easy and accessible for any Vermonter to be vaccinated, regardless of whether it's their first shot or their third shot. So for Vermonters, you can make an appointment for a vaccine or a booster by going online to healthvermont.gov slash my vaccine or calling 855-722-7878. If you're a community organization or an employer or another group, please reach out. We'll come to you so that you can host a clinic to make it easier for the people that you serve. To make a request for a clinic, you can go to healthvermont.gov slash business. Thank you for today and I'll turn it over to Secretary of French for an educational update. Thank you, Secretary Samuelson. Good afternoon. I have just a brief update today about our schools. With our high vaccination rates and with Omicron receding, our schools have reached more stability in their operations. It is important that we continue to make progress with vaccination, however, so I continue to encourage parents to get their children vaccinated and to get their boosters when they're eligible. We are reaching stability in both the supply and demand for antigen tests relative to our Test at Home program. Our supply remains very strong, so this week we announced the expansion of Test at Home to include independent schools. They are able to order those tests as we speak. Another testing program we're working on is what we're calling an insurance testing program for school staff. When we announced we were ending regular PCR surveillance testing in schools, we heard from a number of school staff that they would welcome the opportunity to have some sort of regular testing present in schools. The testing program we're designing for school staff will include two antigen tests per staff member per week to provide them some assurance about their status relative to the virus. These additional test kits will be delivered to school districts for this purpose and participation in the program from the perspective of the school staff. School staff is entirely voluntary, and we hope to launch the program very soon. We'll have more news on that shortly. That concludes my update. I'll now turn it over to Commissioner Pichac. Thank you very much, Secretary French, and good afternoon, everybody. As the governor alluded to, the COVID-19 trends in Vermont have continued to improve as the Omicron wave subsides from our state and our region and the country as a whole. In Vermont, we're reporting on the seven-day average under 400 cases. We haven't reported under 400 cases since the mid-part of December, so that really puts us back to the pre-Omicron level in terms of the case counts that we're seeing. We're down 41% this week and down 79% since the peak in the middle of January. So on the case front, things are improving and expected to continue to improve. Testing has been down 30% this week, 54% since the peak, so case decreases are outpacing the decrease we're seeing in testing. As we have mentioned previously, as there are fewer cases, there may be less demand and need for tests, less exposures. Also, of course, we know that people are doing at-home tests as well that we may not be picking up, but all of those things factor into a declining positivity rate and some confidence that we are seeing the decline in cases across Vermont in the region and those declines are real. We're also seeing a decrease for the first week and long-term care facility outbreaks and also college campuses are seeing their cases go down as well. On the next slide, you'll see that these improvements are not limited to Vermont, but in fact, the map is now pretty much green almost everywhere, just indicating that cases are on the decline. This is not the prevalence of cases, but the decrease in cases that we're seeing decreasing pretty much and improving across much of the country, down about 46% nationwide, down 39% in New England. And again, both the country and New England getting back to pre-Omicron levels. On the next slide, you'll see the forecast for Vermont, so we do anticipate cases to continue to decrease through the month of February into March. You'll see that the forecast right now anticipates that they'll get down to about 200, maybe a little bit lower than that by the end of the month. So we still anticipate having 100 or 200 cases a day, maybe, that we'll see, but we do expect that improvement to continue and hopefully we'll get even lower than that throughout the month. And of course, we also fortunately expect the fatality rates to decrease as well, as you'll see on the next slide, improving through the month of February and into March. On the hospitalization front, both our admissions are currently hospitalized and our ICUs have all improved this week, consistent with improvements that we're seeing across New England. On the admissions front, we're down 14% over this past week. So that's an improvement that we've been seeing over the last two or three weeks. In terms of those that are currently hospitalized in Vermont, we're down about 13%. So continuing to see improvement in our hospitalizations, less pressure from COVID-19 on our hospitals. And our ICU numbers are down about 17% this week as well. So broad improvement on all of those metrics, which is good to see. On the availability, as Secretary Samuelson mentioned, we're seeing less pressure from COVID. We're seeing stable availability in terms of our general hospital beds and our ICU beds. You can see the numbers for today, 71 beds available across the state, 15 ICU beds available. But the trend is improving availability based on those leaving the hospital, in terms of the numbers of people having COVID leaving the hospital, I should say. In terms of fatalities, we are reporting now 558 fatalities for the entire pandemic, 13 deaths, unfortunately for the month of February. But as I said, fortunately, we do anticipate those numbers will decrease this month and get to a much lower level, hopefully over the next four to six weeks. Looking specifically at boosters, we wanted to highlight some information that really reiterates things that we've been talking about here in Vermont since boosters were widely available to Vermonters. But three recent studies that the CDC has published or highlighted really show the effectiveness of the booster shot for those that get them to keep people out of the hospital, to keep them not infected and to keep their symptoms very low. So these three studies, all supportive of Vermonters going out and getting their booster shot, the first one was out of 80,000 hospitalizations across the country, found that the booster was effective 90% of the time to keep people out of the hospital. So really effective in terms of improved hospitalization outcomes, 82% effective against emergency room or urgent care visits. So again, highly effective in terms of keeping people out of the hospital. Also the rates between people who were not vaccinated and those who were boosted about five times different. So those who were not fully vaccinated about five times greater case rates compared to those who were boosted. So again, showing improvement in terms of preventing infection as well. And then in terms of symptomatic infection, even if you do get the infection, 67% of those who were boosted did not result in a symptomatic infection. So again, the evidence is very clear from the literature. We see it from the national data and we're seeing it from our own Vermont data as you'll see on the next slide. These are the graphs that we've been continually showing, but eight times difference between those who are not fully vaccinated and those who are fully vaccinated and boosted in terms of hospitalizations over the last six weeks in Vermont. So pretty stark difference there. And then in terms of fatalities, you see the 10 times difference for those who are not fully vaccinated compared to those who are fully vaccinated and boosted. So the data is very clear in our state. It's backed up by academic literature and a scientific review across the country that getting your booster will mean much less likelihood of getting an infection in the first place. And even if you do get an infection, much less likelihood of hospitalization or death. And as you can see from the vaccine scorecard, Vermont continues to do very well across the board, particularly well on the booster shots as well, being at or near the top of the country in terms of the rankings. And some new data that we're showing this week for the first time, those 12 to 17 per the CDC, Vermont at 33.5% of those eligible who have gotten their booster shot outpacing by quite a bit the rest of the country. So Vermont doing a good job in getting booster shots. And as you'll see on the last slide here, about 3,500 Vermonters got their shot this past week. So that is certainly good news, but you can see that declining number there over the last three or four weeks. We still anticipate over 150,000 Vermonters are eligible for their booster shot, but have not yet gotten it. You can see that the evidence, the data is very clear, both to put the Omicron wave behind us and to be prepared for whatever COVID might throw at us next critical to get your booster shot to get the full protection of the vaccine. So at this time, I'll turn it over to Dr. Levine. Thank you. Not surprisingly, I will also speak to the booster theme. So as the Omicron surge continues to subside, we still have plenty of reason to look ahead to the future of COVID with hope. Now we talk a lot about vaccination being the most powerful public health tool we have in the pandemic. Remember that just a year ago, many of us had little to no defense against the virus and were still eagerly awaiting our turn for vaccination. Since then, the virus has changed, but so has our ability to respond. And the power of vaccines is still strong, improving our chances against the worst outcomes of COVID as you saw once again on the slides. We've learned a lot in the past two years about this evolving virus and virus protection. So to be clear, we now know that your immunity decreases over time, and for this tool to really work for you to be as protected as possible, being vaccinated means being up to date with your booster shot. For most people 12 and up, that means you need a three-dose series for full protection. The real-time data collected during the ongoing pandemic clearly shows higher protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death with this third dose, the booster shot. Getting your booster is especially important for Vermonters who are old or otherwise at higher risk, but boosters also have an impact across all ages and health status, reducing your chance of spreading it to people at higher risk of a serious outcome. Our high vaccination rates and nation-leading rate of 64 percent of people being up-to-date with all recommended doses of vaccine have helped keep Vermonters protected and out of the hospital, including residents of long-term care facilities. I do credit our high vaccination rates with putting our state in a position to better weather the Omicron surge, but this isn't just about getting through Omicron. It is about better positioning all of us to meet whatever the virus might present us with in the near or not distant future. In Vermont, so many people have stepped up so quickly to get vaccinated to protect themselves and their community. Let's see if we can recapture that enthusiasm for getting the next level of protection from a booster shot. Now, I don't believe skepticism is the reason that Vermonters who have not yet gotten this additional dose have still not gotten it. It's more likely issues of time or not prioritizing or inconvenience. Well, we still have vaccine clinics available around the state, most with walk-in availability, and we continue working with businesses and event planners to make getting boosted easy and convenient. So if you've gotten your booster, help spread the word to friends and family. And if you haven't yet gotten yours, find a time and place that works for you. You can start at healthvermontgov.slashmyvaccine or call your provider. About 64% of primary care providers in Vermont are administering vaccines, which is a great opportunity for patients to get their shot right then and there. Clinicians and healthcare providers can also help by talking about getting vaccinated and boosted as part of their regular interactions with patients. And Vermonters can seek them out as a trusted resource for any questions or concerns. The healthcare system has been and will continue to be a huge key to our vaccination success. And I thank every member of our healthcare system. You are among the heroes of our pandemic response. To close out and sum up, the amount of virus in our communities may be going down, but Omicron is still here and still very contagious. Now is the time to get that needed protection. We know the virus is not going away, but vaccines and boosters can help keep it less of a threat to us all. I'll turn it back to the governor now. Thank you, Dr. Levine. We'll now open it up to questions. Starting with folks in the room. Governor Scott, as governors along the East Coast and the early Connecticut Delaware move to end indoor mask mandates in schools and other indoor settings, where do we stand in Vermont? Any plans to follow suit? You can add to that list, California and Oregon. It seems like a somewhat of a consolidated effort by many Democrat governors across the country to make this shift. As you probably know, and we've talked about this a lot, we've extended our mask guidance for schools a number of times, about every 30 days or so. The 28th of February is when we're scheduled to identify whether we're going to make that change or not. And we're contemplating that. The sooner we can get people, kids in particular, back to normal and that's without masks, the better. I reflect on, I was talking to a mom a week or two ago and she was telling me about her two young daughters. They'd never been to school. They started school during the pandemic. They'd never been to school without a mask on. And one of her daughters came home last week or the week before and said to her mom, you know, mom, I don't mind wearing the mask, but I don't know what my friends look like. And I thought, how sad is that? That they've been in school now for two years and they don't know what their classmates look like or their expressions on their face. And it's a big part of this social interaction. And so I, if the numbers continue, we'll have this discussion. We'll make these decisions just like we have throughout the entire pandemic as a team. We'll listen to the experts, our own experts and determine the path forward. But, you know, it is interesting that the states, we have, as Commissioner Peachak had said, we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the country amongst kids by far. And when you look at that compared to, let's say, Oregon, I think we're at 75%, something like that. When you look at Oregon, I think they're 50%. So if they think it's safe, we are more prepared than any other state in the country to do this, to make this move. So we'll take all that in and we'll try and give you information on that just as soon as we possibly can. I think it's also important to note that many of these states, it's not instantaneous, they're looking into February, first part of March. So they're just giving that foreshadowing. Governor, I know we've talked about this before and it's in the context of boosters and how you see them playing out in the long term. You know, we want people to get boosters now, but I mean, is this something that we, that you see happening every year? You know, it's- It's just like it's COVID. Yeah, it's COVID. Yeah, it's COVID. I think it's going, we're moving, we're evolving from pandemic and to endemic right before our eyes. And just like with the flu, there's going to be different variants or going to have to, I believe, probably have vaccinations on a regular basis after that. But I'll let Dr. Levine answer that question. Thank you, Governor. Keep in mind, even though we're calling the third shot of booster, it's caught a life of its own. It really should have been regarded as a three shot series to get people's immune status up to speed with something we'd never vaccinated anybody against before and people didn't really even know timelines and what have you. Now, in retrospect, and as science is honing this down further, it looks like maybe the second shot should have been eight weeks after and not three or four weeks after. And then the third could have come at another interval after that. But of course, during a pandemic, it's an emergency response and things happen as they have to happen. And I think the entire country responded the right way in this effort. What we don't know in the future because we don't have rapidly accessible tests to establish this that are clinically useful and practical are testing of these memory cells that we have, B cells and T cells. And the whole side of immunity that has nothing to do with the antibody level in your blood has to do with these memory cells and especially the T cell side of immunity. As we get more sophisticated in being able to measure that and understand that, we will understand more about what's needed next in the future. In combination with whatever the virus throws us in terms of if there's a new variant strain that has particular characteristics that make the current vaccines not as effective, things will be designed. But most people are kind of resigned to the fact that this may be a yearly event, but there's no 100% certainty about that right now. I'll take a question. And it looks like this week, the house is picking up potentially medical monitoring. Some lawmakers get their way of your time as a charm. What do you make of the latest medical monitoring? First of all, Calvin, it's not an off topic. It is a topic for weekly press briefings at this point in time. We're evolving as well. So that bill in particular, as you know, I've vetoed that before, but it's come a long ways. And they've made a number of improvements that make it much more palatable. So I don't know all the details of it, but again, it looks much better than the bills previously on my desk. Rental registry. I know that's in the cards as well, you vetoed that, expressing concerns about the mom and pop. I still have concerns about that. And I've been vocal with the Senate in particular about that. We've been having some discussions and ways they've improved at some, but not as far as I'd like them to go. But we're in discussions with them right now. We'll see whether they take any of the proposals that I've put forth to them and put it in the bill. And if they do, then maybe we'll have something we can work with. But if not, it may face the same demise. We'll see. Governor, you spoke a little bit before about kind of the challenges that this pandemic has created, I'm president of the challenges for even students. Some students not even seeing other students faces. I guess if you can speak a little more about the mental health challenge of it, with students and schools and teachers and maybe a message that you have for parents on how to help with students that are going through mental health due to the pandemic. Yeah, we've known for quite some time. I mean, we identified this months ago that our kids aren't okay, right? And that's why we worked so hard, I think it was a year ago, to get them back into school. I mean, that was important to us because we knew that they were better in school than out of school. Regardless of whether they were wearing a mask or not, it was important to get them to in-person instruction. So we're well aware of this. We have, there's a lot of federal money that's been included that's going directly to schools for just this purpose. But the sooner we can get them back to anything that resembles normal, the better off the kids are going to be. And that's what we're working towards. Secretary French, anything you wanna add to that? Yeah, I've just been reflecting a bit on, particularly this moment and the question about masking and that transition that we're in. As the governor mentioned, I think the planning and certainly acknowledging that mental health's a key issue has to be addressed. But I think right now in the next month or so, I've been thinking a lot about just lowering the anxiety level that's in our schools. And that pertains to, I think to a certain extent, how we view the virus and our relationship to it. It's to a certain extent, we've been on a roller coaster ride with the virus and certain things we haven't been able to control. But we do control how we perceive it and we convey anxiety to children. So what we need to do in schools right now in particular is really focus internally in individual schools and across the system on lowering that anxiety level. And that's really part of what getting back to normal for me means. So there's routines inside of school, whether it be in the cafeteria, in the arts and so forth. Those activities should start looking more normal for students and we should just take that pressure off them. And I think it's a great opportunity to try to emphasize those things at the local level. Thank you. Thank you very much. I ask along those lines with teacher burnout, do you think things along those lines would help prevent that? Yeah, absolutely. I think it's a complex topic. We can certainly talk more broadly about workforce issues and education is not isolated from that. But we have set schools up and this is sort of an unfortunate after effect of our mitigation success. We've set schools up to be sort of isolated and protected and that tension is not sustainable particularly as we start coming out the other side of that. And every single day our teachers are in a classroom trying to make students feel normal and that's a hard load to bear. Particularly when we have staff absenteeism as a parent in other sectors of the economy. So yes, I think it's important that we really kind of collectively work on our attitudes towards the virus and really do our best to sort of acknowledge we've been through a heck of a journey here. And it's a pretty amazing accomplishment that we've been able to keep our schools open throughout some of the more difficult moments of the pandemic which every educator should be tremendously proud about. But now we should work equally hard to sort of lower the tension in our buildings and really get back to the joy of teaching and learning. All right, we'll switch on over to the phones starting when we start at the Associated Press. Hi, thanks, Jason. I boosted, yeah, I can be a number of owners roughly have not gotten that picture. No, I see the percentages, but do we know the number? We got part of that, Lisa, but I think your question is for Mr. Pichak, how many have not received the booster? Is that the question? Yeah. Okay. Yes, so Lisa, we know that there are about 440,000 people that are fully vaccinated in Vermont, give or take and just under 300,000 that have received their booster. So some people are not quite yet eligible for the booster. So somewhere between the 100 and 140,000, somewhere in that range. Okay, thank you. Can you hear me okay now? Yes. Okay. And then governor, I was wondering if you have any comment about the debate that's going on in Burlington over the next police chief, you know, that the mayor had wanted to promote the acting chief, John Murad and the city council rejected that. Do you have, and they've been without a police chief for two years now, a permanent one. Do you have any comment about what's going on there? Yeah, I mean, it's concerning obviously for law enforcement in general throughout the state with all they've had to go through in terms of different training and some of the public pressure on them. So getting back to some sort of a semblance of normal is good for Burlington as well. I would just say, without getting into the particulars about who makes what decisions and what communities, I do think a leader, the mayor or the governor or whoever it is should be able to surround themselves with the people they want. And I look at my team and I've handpicked my team based on those four C's I've talked about a lot, but I need the right chemistry for it to work for me. So I can deliver the best product to Vermonters. But if I'm hampered by a body that prevents me from doing that, it makes my job that much harder. And they have to, we have to have trust in our leaders. They're elected to lead and to form teams that deliver the services that their constituency expects. Okay, thank you. Diana VanDyne, VPR. Hi, yeah, I have a question for Secretary French. Secretary French, you talked about the importance of vaccination for schools and for kids, but there are still really so far disparities in vaccination rates around the state. I'm thinking about like in Essex County, only 26% of kids five to 11 are vaccinated while in Chittenden County, that number is 77%. And last week, you said that the state needs to be able to provide support to school districts with lower student vaccination rates. But you said at that point, you weren't sure what that would look like. Do you have any more clarity on what that might look like? Yeah, thank you. The first part of the question, it's just getting a little more accurate on the data. It's taking a little longer than I hope, but our team at the AOE is working closely with a team at the Agency of Human Services to kind of put those data together. So what we need to do is focus it on, literally on a school by school basis. So, you know, I think, and then once we have that information and certainly coming out of Omicron, it's a little easier to think about, but we have, you know, the same tools we've always had in our toolkit, whether they be testing or additional support in terms of helping schools navigate mitigation strategies and so forth. We would be putting together some sort of portfolio of resources, but I think if the broader context of our schools, the simmer comes down off the pot, so to speak, it's going to allow us to deploy our state resources in a more focused way on specific ecosystems and school districts. Would that mean something like additional school-based vaccination clinics in those areas where vaccination rates are lower? Yeah, absolutely. You know, I used an example a couple of times during the pandemic. Our team worked directly with the Berry City School District as an ecosystem, if you will. And I went out with our team at one point for a site visit just to understand some of the dynamics. And they have, every community is a little different in Vermont in that regard, so we have to understand what does it take to get to that last mile of getting vaccination out? Where do people live? Do you have homeless communities and motels, for example? Do we need to do that sort of last mile effort? Is it communication? Is it transportation? Whatever it is. There's a lot of local expertise in those districts, and we need to come in, I think, in a more focused way to support that. It's been challenging to do because we've had to supervise the entire state across the board. But I think, you know, ultimately, that's with a more precise understanding of the trends, it'll allow us to come in in a more focused way to support those communities that need additional support. All right, thank you. I just might also add that we had this in mind before Delta, actually. When the kids are coming back to school, we've had a 80% threshold. If you had 80% vaccinated in schools, that you wouldn't have to wear a mask, and there'd be a financial benefit to doing that. So we put that on hold throughout Delta, and then we weren't sure what was going to happen with Omicron, but that's still another tool we have and something that we'll be talking about and considering whether we continue with that or we do something different. But just as a reminder, we were trying to find opportunities as well as with testing and making sure that we had vaccines available for the schools, that we've provided some other care for them to attain that level. All right, we'll move to Aaron Potanko, B.T. Digger. Okay. You know, as you kind of contemplate dropping the mask mandate in schools, you know, you kind of put out a mask recommendation, indoor mask recommendation for Vermonters way back in November, and I haven't really said much during the Omicron wave and in recent weeks about whether you think that Vermonters should be wearing a mask indoors. Do you still stand by that indoor mask recommendation or do you think it's safer for Vermonters to remove the mask? Yeah, I might clarify that throughout since we made that decision, we weekend and week out, we've been talking about the importance of wearing a mask when in congregate settings where there's people around and indoors in particular. So that still has been a good idea. Now, we're going to be talking about just that with the hospitalizations. We've said we weren't going to watch the case numbers. It's really about the hospitalizations at this point in time. And that's the metric that we're again watching to see it receding, which is good news. So we'll put that in the mix. Obviously, if we're telling kids it's okay to go into settings without masks, then we'd be saying the same thing for other areas as well. Now, that could be complicated by some of the massing requirements that we gave to municipalities to have their own mass mandate. So we'll have to, again, we'll have to work our way through that. But just so everyone's aware, I mean, we've only provided, we don't have any mandates as a state. We provided guidance to schools and most of them, 99% of them, except for maybe Canaan, have adopted that. So we'll provide more guidance by the 28th and it's up to them whether they want to follow that or not. Okay, thank you. Governor, I also, I know this happened very recently. You may not have heard proposal five actually just passed Vermont House approved it, sending it to the voters. Do you have any thoughts to share on that passage of proposal five? Yeah, I've been supportive of that. And again, I think it'll get through the house and then it'll go to the voters at that point and they'll make the decision from there, but I've been supportive of that. Chris Roy, Newport Daily Express. Chris Roy, all right, we'll move to Lisa Loomis to die reporter. Good afternoon. Thanks, Jason. This is a quick question for Commissioner Pitchak. During your presentation, you said that 60% of those who are boosted did not have symptomatic COVID infections. How were those specific cases diagnosed? Yeah, thank you, Lisa. I was referring to one of the academic studies that was conducted that looked at 13,000 infections that occurred with Omicron and then made a determination about individuals vaccination status or where they boosted fully vaccinated, not fully vaccinated. And then looked at whether or not they reported symptomatic infection. So if they were infected, did they have a symptomatic infection? And it was, I think, 76% of those who were boosted did not have a symptomatic infection. I think it was 66% of those who were fully vaccinated that did not have a symptomatic infection as well. So they were looking at that sort of controlled group of 13,000 individuals with Omicron and based on their vaccination status. So it was based on those PCRs? That was PCR testing done in a medical study? Yeah, I think they would have been confirmed. I mean, they would have been confirmed cases. I mean, I can't remember from the study if it was antigen or PCR that they used, but I would assume it was PCR. Okay, thank you. That's it for me. Senator, seven days. Hi, thanks. On the topic of boosters, it doesn't seem like our numbers really are budging that much over the last handful of weeks. And I'm curious, Dr. Levine, I believe you had said you would like to see us get up to around 90%. And at what point do you start to have some concern that we're just not gonna get there? And does that complicate our transition into the living with the virus phase? Can you talk a little bit about that? Sure. I mean, the fact of the matter is, though we have less people stepping up to the plate every week, we have people stepping up to the plate every week and that's really important. And it's been through the entire Omicron. We've gone to higher numbers than we have now, but still we're making progress every time. Clearly, when you look at the nation's progress, it's been quite slow in this regard as well. So there's been a feeling of a lack of sense of urgency that most people have had, even when Omicron was at its worst. So there's only so much arm twisting one can do, but I do think one of the reasons we have one of the highest rates is because we have made access a non-issue. Everyone has access in a convenient and sometimes very timely way. Many, many states are not actually actively involved themselves in the ability of a citizen to get vaccinated. We have remained involved from the entire pandemic and are just as involved now as previously. So I think knowing that there are clinics, knowing there are opportunities, will continue to be the strategy. And now that things are getting even further integrated into the healthcare system, particularly the doctors that people go to for their routine care, there's always going to be opportunities there because as one of those doctors, when you see a patient, you address the issue that they're there for, you may address some of their ongoing chronic issues, but you also address what we term health maintenance, which maybe are they up to date on screening for a mammogram or what have you, are they up to date on their immunizations, which now includes COVID. So I see abundant opportunities. The second part of your question was if it may interfere with the progress sort of that we would like to make moving forward. And I can't say that the state with the best poster rate would have this rate, even though it's not at 90% interfere seriously with our ability to move forward. But I do again want to reiterate what I said in my comments, which was we're not just here to take care of Omicron with the booster and make your outcome, if you got Omicron the best outcome possible and not a serious outcome. We're also thinking towards a future of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and will it come back in another surge with another variant or what have you? Because what we've seen is that that nice expanded immunity that vaccination provides, whether you had a previous infection or not is really going to be fundamental to how we can respond as a whole state to whatever comes next, hoping nothing comes next, but at the same time being realistic. Great, and then just one question for the governor. You had mentioned the moves by some other states that lift their mask mandates. And I was just curious, do you think that they are moving too quickly or do you think that this is sort of every state needs to make its own decision here? Yeah, I think every state needs to make their own decision. Obviously they're feeling pressure in their states from their constituencies. Otherwise they may not be making this decision so quickly. Seemed like all of a sudden, that's why I was wondering if it was a coordinated effort of some sort, but we are seeing this receiving case numbers, hospitalizations are down throughout the country. So this is real and we are benefiting from that as well here in Vermont. And as I said before, if any state can do it, it's us because we have some of the highest vaccination rates, booster rates in the country. So we'll see what happens in the next week or two. Thank you. Tom Davis, Compass Vermont. Tom Davis, all right, we'll move to Guy Page from Mount Daily Chronicle. Hello, Governor, CDC website, King's Island and the School of Dectyl, I'll ask you, have there been any vaccine reaction deaths to the Pfizer vaccine, either in Vermont or the U.S.? You cut out there right at the end, Guy, but I think you wondered if there was any deaths due to reactions to the Pfizer or maybe any of the vaccinations? Well, thank you for asking. I did mean specifically the Pfizer vaccine, either in Vermont or the U.S. I'm not aware of any in Vermont. I don't know about the U.S. I'll ask Dr. Levine if he has any knowledge of that. I'm not aware of any in Vermont. I'm hesitant to speak to the whole country because I'm not sure, so I'm not gonna give a potentially incorrect answer. Thank you. This morning, Commissioner Levine and Secretary French spoke at a Vermont Humanization Advisory Council meeting in which I quote, the meeting notice was, quote, the question of requiring COVID-19 vaccination of preschool and school-aged children is expected to be discussed. So I'm wondering why with COVID-19 apparently causing so little harm to school-aged children and with COVID on the way, is this state advisory body considering requiring vaccination? I think we have to meet, don't we, Dr. Levine? I think it's just a scheduled meeting, but I'll let Dr. Levine and Secretary French answer for themselves. This is a statute mandated body and meeting tempo, so it needed to have a meeting. It needed to be reorganized because it had been some time since previous meeting. There are one or two members that need to be added because of the fact that others had retired. And the body is meant to be just what it says, advisory regarding vaccinations in the school-aged population. So that means there'll be a need to review on a broader scale the performance in Vermont of vaccines with regard to percentages of students who have met the requirements for attending school with the vaccine schedule. The topic of a mandated COVID vaccine is an important one for the body to become informed about and potentially advise the commissioner of health and others regarding. I do not regard, in keeping with the tone of your question, I do not regard it to be an urgent matter since so many of the students and children have become just eligible to get vaccinated, we are by far leading the nation in the effort to get them vaccinated and the percentage that are already vaccinated. So though it needs to be discussed over time, it's certainly not an urgent matter at this point in time. So are we looking at possibly a discussion of it like an annual required school vaccine for COVID-19? That would be the question on the table. What do you think about that? Oh, at the present, I don't feel it's something that we need to think about, as I said today, but there are a lot of things we need to sort of integrate into our thinking regarding why this should or should not happen. A lot of it has to do with how the vaccine performs in that age population. A lot of it has to do with how the disease functions in that age population. Some of it has to do with Vermont specific data about how the uptake of the vaccine has been and what the outcomes have been regarding illness in that population who has been vaccinated versus not been vaccinated. So there's a lot of things to sort of put on the table. This is a very early juncture, I would regard. Not the least of which is, of course, these vaccines are just, for many of the youngest children, just becoming available for them. And some are still under emergency use authorization and haven't yet achieved the approval for the, that the older population recently achieved for both Moderna and Pfizer. Okay, thank you. Tim McQuiston from our Business Magazine. Hi, Governor, I have a question about the wireless proposal you have, but first I was wondering, looking at the numbers, the COVID numbers recently, the number of fatalities is still relatively high even though the number of hospitalizations are going down. I was wondering what the profile of these people who are dying from COVID is and are they dying outside of sort of the hospital or the emergency structure, the healthcare structure? I'll let Dr. Levine clarify anything I'm about to say, but it's a mixture of both. I would say mostly elderly with compromised health conditions that have added to their vulnerability, I would say to COVID. So it's unfortunate. I also would say many of the deaths are related to the Delta variant as well. It's still a hangover from the Delta variant and not maybe not, again, I don't have anything to base this on other than the length of stay in the hospital and the high level of Delta we had going through December, but a lot of this is still related to that Delta variant. And I would agree with that. We've done an analysis looking at when people first entered the hospital and many people who do succumb to this often have a very long hospital stay prior to eventually dying and the length of that stay would indicate that they most likely acquired the Delta variant originally. More recently though, of course, with Omicron at such high numbers, one of the things we were very concerned about with these high numbers are even if it's less lethal virus than Delta was, just the fact you have that sheer number of cases will lead to more people having some of these serious outcomes even if the rate of those serious outcomes is lower than it was with Delta. Just a population wide statistic. We are indeed seeing many, many people who are very late in life who have a lot of other chronic medical conditions. And I've often compared that to other respiratory viruses this time of year where the same phenomenon occurs. We do see, and I'm only saying this because it stands out in my mind every time I see the list of people who have died from COVID, there are a select group of people who really have of varying ages but mostly in the middle and older ages who have chosen not to be vaccinated, whose only diagnosis on their death certificate is that they had a COVID related death, related usually to all of the complications of COVID that you might think possible, whether that be respiratory failure, pneumonia, other blood clotting abnormalities related to COVID, et cetera. So to me, those are deaths that are potentially avoidable, especially because it doesn't appear that the person was that ill in any other way. We'll have obviously reports on this. We usually accumulate a number of cases and then develop a report. So we'll be able to report on this at a later time. All right, great, thank you. As for the wireless bill, Governor, is it, I'm wondering two things, one about the timeline of when people say in Orange County might expect better cell service and also is 100 towers enough to get this job done? I'm gonna let Commissioner Tierney answer the second part. The first part I'll start by saying it really depends on the legislature at this point. It's hard to give a timeline when we don't know if they're going to agree with the provision of this vision of providing more cell service for modders in some of these areas that have none. So it's somewhat in their hands and we'll see how they react to this. I haven't heard a lot from them at this point in time, but hopefully they'll see the merits in doing so. I would assume some of your businesses would benefit from this as well, Tim. Thank you, Governor. As for the question about whether 100 towers is enough to get the job done, it's a very good question and safe side caution suggests that we not be over optimistic or hasty in saying as much. What I can say is that 100 cell towers will significantly improve the state of coverage in Vermont and they will be thoughtfully chosen as to maximize the impact. As with all innovations, success begets success. So to the extent that there are pockets left or other gaps, if you will, that are not resolved with these 100 towers, when we have the success of 100 towers under our belts and it's visible, then we can have a serious discussion about completing the job if it isn't already complete. The first thing we have to do is make up our minds that this is the direction we want to go, that we want to invest historic one-time funding in such an endeavor, and that we want to move off the mark because our conversation about cell service coverage in Vermont has been stymied for a very long time by different positions and mostly though, above all, lack of funding and the unwillingness to recognize that when there are market gaps, you have to do something about it and it's not always going to be prevailing on industry to do it for themselves. If there's no business case, they're not going to. But if we can partner with them and provide some form of subsidy, which is exactly what this proposal is, we can get that job done and then we can see it through to completion if this does not prove to be enough. Does that answer your question? Yes, I'm just wondering, June, if there's been any pushback on this because there's not a single Vermonter who wouldn't agree that we need better cell service. I think that's fascinating. I agree with you completely. The data in my department and my experience with the issue clearly shows folks want cell service to be ubiquitous and reliable. And there have been some reactions I've had though that have suggested that some folks who are in leadership are not quite ready to move off the mark. I think they can get there if they understand that Vermonters really want this. There are uglies about it, I'll be candid, but this on balance is the best way forward in my judgment. All right, great, thank you very much. Joseph Bresser, Martin Chronicle. Let me just add to... Sorry, Joe. Just to Tim, again, I just want to stress this is another one of those once in a lifetime opportunities, truly transformative, something that we won't, I don't know when we'll have another $50 million that would be earmarked for this very purpose. So this was clear in the federal legislation that this was for communication, for broadband, for cell service and so forth. So this fits the bill and we want to make sure that Vermonters know about this and if they have any thoughts on it, they should contact their legislator and let them be known. Great, thank you. Joseph, Martin Chronicle, right? We'll try Andrew McGregor, Caledonian Record. Yes, thank you, good afternoon. Governor, you may recall in early December I asked you about an incident in which an alleged serial vandal had damaged dozens of cars in St. John'sbury after a couple of months of legal proceedings and another mental health evaluation that suggests the individuals and competences. Bale was reduced, he was released a few days ago and you may have seen the headlines less than a day later. He turned up in Montpelier and was arrested again. This time he's accused of damaging parked cars, throwing things like rocks at pedestrians, banging on the door and vandalizing the porch of a wheelchair-bound 80-year-old woman and intimidating a pregnant woman and her three-year-old as they tried to leave their home to go for a walk, as well as assaulting a responding police officer on all the allegations in Montpelier from the other day. To many, this seems like systemic indifference to the safety of Vermonters and the needs of this individual. Does Vermont really lack the legal authority to protect its citizens and the ability or resources to care for this man? Yeah, I saw that in the news this morning as well and I thought about what you said back in December and what we've seen throughout Vermont from the same individual and there's clearly a hole in the system that needs to be filled. And so we'll be working on that. I haven't had an opportunity since I learned of this this morning to talk with our legal counsel as well as with Commissioner Sherling about what's the remedy, what can we do to protect Vermonters because it clearly is repetitive. So I agree, we have a problem that needs to be fixed. Can Secretary Samuelson perhaps speak to the forensic working group? But I'm not 100% sure what they're up to but it seems like they're nibbling in this field. Thank you very much. Secretary Samuelson. So the forensic, you are correct. The forensic working group has been looking at the system of forensic care. I think as they've moved forward there's been a lot more questions than there have been answers. But I think what they've done is really hone in on some key areas of focus. That said, as we move forward we really do recognize that this is a serious component of the care and services that we should be evaluating and looking at in Vermont. And we look forward to partnering with the governor and partnering with the legislature on really evaluating what our next steps are here. Is there a fundamental need? I mean, is it a facility? Is it the legal authority? And where, how many cracks are there? And how do you fill them? Yeah, I think I would turn to some of the questions that are in the most recent report from the forensic work group. I can't get into all of the details here. I do know that what we're committed to in Vermont in the mental health system of care is really working with individuals to provide treatment and support. But there is a gap in forensic, in our forensic system that we look at trying to address but we do need to be thoughtful and careful as we move forward, making sure to address both the protection of our communities but also the rights of individuals and their need for treatment. Okay, thank you. And if I may, on the cell tower proposal for commissioner Tierney. You cited the drive study and at least an initial proposal for 100 cell towers wondering how many of the underserved miles are in the Northeast Kingdom and how many of those towers potentially could be cited in the kingdom? So those are really good questions. Thank you. If I could ask you to contact my office, director Clay Purvis, we can get you very precise information about that. Can I get a hold of Andrew? But as we stand here right now, part of the analysis is about taking a completely fresh look and finding those optimal sites. So we can give you an idea, but I don't think we can tell you exactly how many roads are in the Northeast Kingdom and how many of those towers would be there. Safe to say, quite a few. Okay, thanks, I'll reach out. Andrew, I can send you an email and copy Clay to connect you right after the press conference. I greatly appreciate it. Mike, true north reports. Mike, you'll have to hit star six. Hi, I'm here. Hello, can you hear me? Yeah, go ahead, Mike. Okay, sorry about that. All right, so my question is, Pfizer just submitted an emergency youth authorization application for children six months to four years old. They are planning two shots for this age group. However, CNN reported the child shots failed in the clinical trial. What is Vermont going to do about shots for this age group? Okay, what do you mean? If the news were as dire as you just presented, we won't have to make a decision because they won't be authorized by the FDA or CDC. So my understanding is that in spite of the, I'll put it in quotes, failure in that age group, two to four, they were encouraged to seek emergency use authorization. So that means there's something in the data that we just don't have any eyes on at this point in time because that data has not been publicly released for anybody to analyze and it's going to the FDA. So Vermont never makes these decisions in a vacuum and the bottom line is the whole process has to be gone through, beginning with the advisory panel to the FDA, recommending the FDA give it emergency use authorization. Then that would happen if the FDA went by the advice they were getting. Then the advisory committee on immunization practices, which is the CDC's advisory panel, would review the data again and make a recommendation to the director of the CDC. So only when all of those hoops had been gone through and all the check marks in the boxes happened would we even be able to think about what we would do. So we'll go with the best science possible, which means we'll be able to see the science and data as well and we'll go with the guideline recommendations that these august bodies put out. Suffice it to say that they're already allowing us to pre-order vaccine for this age group, just so if it does look like it is a very sound decision to be made and it would be very helpful to that age population, we would already be poised prior to the decision to have the vaccine in the state and begin that process. Okay, well, thank you, all right. Thank you very much and we'll see you again next Tuesday.