 Good morning everyone and thank you all for tuning in. I want to start today by reminding everyone about a special Vermont tradition happening tomorrow, Greenup Day, when we do our part to clean up the roadsides around the state. First Greenup Day was launched by Governor Dean Davis in 1970. It had over 77,000 volunteers that day picking up litter. In recent years we've collected 450,000 pounds of debris in over 5,000 tires annually. So I encourage all Vermonters to get out there and help out if you can. Next earlier this week the CDC updated its guidance for masking outdoors. So today I'll be signing an amendment to the emergency order updating Vermont's policy as well. Effective tomorrow, May 1st, masks will no longer be required when you're outdoors if physical distancing can be maintained. This includes both those who are vaccinated or not vaccinated as yet. Dr. Levine will go into further detail about why this is safe in a few moments. But the science and data show that outdoor transmission is rare imposes little risk if you follow our guidance. As an example, if you're walking down the street, you don't need to wear a mask. If you're at the dog park and you're not in a crowd, you don't need a mask. If you're with people outdoors in accordance with the gathering policy, you don't need a mask. I do want to mention that municipalities and businesses do have the ability to have stricter policies if they so choose. And as more Vermonters are vaccinated, we'll take additional steps in the near future. Finally, earlier this week, we hit our May 1st vaccination target with 60% of Vermonters over the age of 16. So tomorrow we move to step two of the Vermont Forward Plan, which brings most sectors and under what's called universal guidance. We outlined this at the beginning of the month. So as a reminder, this plan was developed in direct consultation with the Department of Health, including Dr. Levine and Dr. Kelso, the Agency of Human Services, as well as our Emergency Operations team and many others. As has been the case from the start, we're relying on the advice of our experts. Mr. Sherling will go into further detail to remind everyone what this means, but I want to take a moment to explain why this is good news. With over 60% of Vermont adults vaccinated, we're getting closer and closer to normal again. Why? Because vaccines work. If you need proof, just look at our declining hospitalizations, our death rate, and our seven-day case count average, which is the lowest it's been since November. And this is especially true for those 65 and older, which is now at over 90% vaccinated. If we keep it up, and I want to stress if we keep this up, and are between 70 and 85% of adults vaccinated by June 1, we'll be able to take our final step when mandates become recommendations in July. I know there are some who think we should be moving a lot faster. And on the other side, there are those who want us to slow down. Even predicting the steps we took in late March and April would lead to more cases, but that proved not to be the case. That's because as we've done from the very beginning, we're taking a science-based methodical approach. That's not to say we won't see a fluctuation of case growth along the way. We expect it, depending on conditions. What we're watching, though, is the hospitalization and death rate. This is the strategy that worked for us throughout the pandemic, and it will guide us until the end. So with that, I'll now turn it over to Secretary French for our weekly education update. Secretary French. Thank you, Governor. Good morning. I'll begin my update by reviewing the results of the PCR surveillance testing of school staff from this week. The number of staff participating in the testing has dropped off, probably as a result of the success of our school vaccination program. This week, we tested 373 school staff. To date, the testing has identified no cases of COVID-19, which means the positivity rate is 0%. The statewide positivity rate remains very low at 1%. This will be the last week of surveillance testing for school staff, a program that started back in November. I want to thank our schools and the health department for all of their work in operating this program. It was one of several strategies to help keep our communities and our schools safe this winter. We are now in the process of working with the health department to organize a pilot program for surveillance testing of students in schools and summer programs. We'll have more information on this program in the coming weeks. Our school districts have been engaged in a planning activity for the next phase of our response to the pandemic, what we are calling the recovery phase. Districts recently completed a general needs assessment as part of this larger recovery planning process, so I thought I'd provide an update on this work. We asked districts to give us a sense of their needs in three focus areas. The first area asked them to consider their needs relative to supporting the social and emotional needs of students, their mental health, and their overall well-being. Some districts identified specific professional development and training needs such as a need for more trauma-informed instructional practices. Many districts expressed an interest in improving their systems of student supports. Some school districts are planning on creating new recovery coordinator positions to manage these support systems at the district level. Other districts identified a need for more mental health counseling services and are working with their designated service agencies to develop plans to provide more services. Several districts said the number of referrals for student behavioral issues had decreased as a result of having students in smaller groups or pods. These districts intend to examine their schedules to consider to what extent pods could be utilized in the future. The second area districts assessed their needs was academics. Some of the needs identified in this area were specific to certain content areas such as reading or math where districts believe students will need additional direct instruction. A central theme in the academic area was the need to have better data on the status of student academic progress and achievement. Some districts expressed an interest in expanding their benchmark assessment systems, whereas others were interested in integrating the use of online learning platforms into the regular classroom so they could have more information on student academic progress. The third focus area for the needs assessment pertained to student engagement and truancy. There was a general observation that there were attendance issues across all groups of students during hybrid learning. Several districts observed engagement and truancy issues seemed to be greater among disadvantaged or historically marginalized students. I expect we'll need to spend some focused effort at the state level to develop guidance and support in this area. This will need to include a review of our current truancy protocols. The next step in the planning process is to turn this general assessment information into planning priorities and from priorities into specific strategies for implementation. Our goal is for every district to have a recovery plan in place by June 1st. We intend to use the priorities emerging at the local level to inform the development of state priorities. A state level goal emerging already is a goal to develop a better integration of education and social service delivery systems and to see that integration well articulated in each region of the state. There are other permissible uses of federal dollars beyond the three focus areas described in our recovery planning process. In particular, there's a lot of interest among districts in using their local federal dollars to address school facilities issues related to the pandemic such as improving indoor air quality. We are now working to set up a central coordination of school facilities work through the agency to help districts in this area. We are working to do this quickly because contracts for this work need to be finalized this month and there are a limited number of contractors available to help design and install these types of systems. That concludes my report. I'll now turn it over to Commissioner Shirley. Good morning. This morning I'll provide an update on our move to phase two of the Vermont Forward Plan but to begin I'd like to take a moment to thank and acknowledge the ongoing work of the restart team, one among many in the pandemic response that has worked diligently multiple times per week since we emerged from Stay Home, Stay Safe early last year. This team has worked to develop and refine the science and data-driven safety recommendations that have been a key component of the statewide effort for over a year. This team includes representatives from the Agency of Commerce and Community Development including the Department of Tourism and Marketing, the Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Financial Regulation, the Department of Health, the Department of Public Safety and Division of Emergency Management, the Messaging and Communications teams from all of those organizations, as well as private sector representatives and is informed by external working groups and sector representatives all working together to form the fabric of the of the health and safety guidance that has guided Vermont for the last year. As vaccination of Vermonters continues, tomorrow marks another important milestone in our progress, the beginning of phase two of the Vermont Forward Plan, which includes two significant components. First, the second and final group of business sectors moves to universal guidance and second revisions are made to the standards regarding gatherings. Beginning tomorrow May 1st, the following sectors move to universal guidance, manufacturing, construction and distribution operations, restaurants catering, food service and bars, religious facilities and places of worship, close contact businesses which includes gyms, fitness centers and the like, sports, organized sports including youth leagues, adult leagues and that encompasses practices, games and tournaments, hair salons and barbershops, indoor arts, culture and entertainment and finally meetings of public bodies. Please remember that while universal guidance transitions us away from specified capacity limits and some of the other nuanced guidance that has been present over the last year, the distancing requirement under universal guidance still remains and continues to apply. That means that safe distancing and crowd limitations are still important mitigation measures in most settings. With this move to phase two guidance, healthcare, education and childcare and summer camps continue to retain specialized guidance but they're the only sectors that retain that detailed and nuanced guidance that exists beyond the universal safety standards that are so important in the COVID response. Also beginning tomorrow gathering sizes will be updated to mirror the following. Indoors gatherings and events may include one unvaccinated person per 100 square feet, up to 150 people plus any number of vaccinated persons. Outdoors gatherings and event events may include up to 300 unvaccinated people plus any number of vaccinated persons as well. Again physical distancing and masking remain important safety measures for gatherings both indoors and outside. Quick reminder as almost all sectors have shed their specified guidance, what universal guidance means. Stay home when you're sick, wear a mask in the presence of others, continue to ensure six-foot spaces and uncrowded places, practice good hygiene including frequent hand washing and think before you travel safely. As we continue to make progress toward more normalcy, Vermont's continued vigilance remains the foundation of our efforts. In addition to universal guidance the most important thing you can do for yourself, your family and your community is to consider vaccination. Thank you and now I'll turn it over to Secretary Smith. Thank you Commissioner Shirling and good morning everyone. I have a few updates to share with you this morning and I'll start with a reminder that we are hosting a vaccine clinic for those aged 16 and older at the Grand Isle Fire Department. This Saturday, May 1st from 9.30 to 12 appointments are still available. You can sign up online at healthformont.gov slash my vaccine or you can call 855-722-7878 to make an appointment. We are also, we also opened registration to out-of-state college students in part-time Vermont residents yesterday. We have scheduled a vaccine clinic at Middlebury High School today and they are accepting walk-ins. There are open appointments in many areas this weekend as well as on college campuses on the following dates. May 2nd at UVM, May 4th at Middlebury College and Bennington College, May 6th at St. Michael's College, May 7th at Northern Vermont University in Linden, May 8th at Castleton University. All eligible Vermonters aged 16 and older can sign up for these clinics. Again, you can sign up online at healthformont.gov slash my vaccine or you can make a phone call at 855-722-7878 to make an appointment. Turning to BIPOC Vermonters, we continue to make good progress. The gap continues to close and is now 7 percent between non-Hispanic whites and BIPOC Vermonters. As of today, 55 percent have either been vaccinated or have made an appointment. In terms of our overall progress, as of this morning, 335,500 people have been vaccinated against COVID-19. 101,900 have received their first dose of vaccine, 233,600 have received their first and last dose. If you have not made an appointment to receive your vaccine, I encourage you to sign up as soon as possible. It's the best way to end the pandemic and get back to normal. We have had great participation in the older age groups, but I want to bring this slide up and show you that we are lagging somewhat in the age 18 to 29-year-old age group who have been vaccinated or are scheduled to be vaccinated. We are urging this age group to get vaccinated. In the upcoming weeks, there are plenty of opportunities to be vaccinated, so please take advantage of them. We have made great progress towards our Vermont Forward Goals and have met the goal for May 1 as the Governor announced. In order to reach the next milestone, we will need all Vermonters and particularly those 18 to 29 to get vaccinated. I also want to remind you to put your vaccination card in a safe place. I recommend taking a photo of it with your smartphone and keeping it handy, as you may need it if you decide to travel. If you lose your vaccination card, you can request a record of your vaccination from the registry directly or through your healthcare provider to request it through the registry. Email VaxRecordRequest.vermont.gov or call 888-688-4667 Option 3. If you choose to have it sent to you by secure email, you can choose to have it done two ways. Sent to you by secure email, which will only take a couple of hours, or by regular mail, which may take a week. I do wish to share an update on the General Assistance Housing Plan for households experiencing homelessness. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Children and Families temporarily expanded eligibility for emergency housing through the General Emergency Assistance Program in response to the public health emergency. As we begin to emerge from the pandemic, this approach is neither financially nor from a program's perspective sustainable. Due to the pandemic, DCF greatly expanded the number of motels and hotels that participated in the temporarily housing Vermonters experiencing homelessness. To give you some context, on the coldest pre-pandemic nights in Vermont, DCF utilized 200 to 300 rooms. During the pandemic, we've been utilizing almost 2,000 rooms. As health guidance changes and more people are vaccinated, motels and hotels are beginning to return to serving travelers and tourists, reducing capacity for those experiencing homelessness. By July 1st, we will lose access to about 250 rooms, and we anticipate we'll lose an additional 400 rooms by October. We strongly believe that motels and hotels are not the long-term solution for people, but they are critical for short-term solutions for those that need emergency housing. We are investing in protecting and prioritizing the most vulnerable households, but we needed a transition plan. I would like to highlight that we have worked diligently and collaboratively with our community partners from the Vermont Coalition to End Homelessness, Vermont Community Action Partnership, Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition, Chittenden Homeless Alliance, Vermont Legal Aid, the Committee on Temporary Shelter and Groundworks Collaborative to develop the first step in the plan to transition individuals and families experiencing homelessness out of motels and hotels to more supportive long-term housing and services. We submitted the plan to the legislature last week. We arrived at consensus with our community partners, and we are very appreciative of their insight and participation. This transition plan is a two-step process, and this is very important, the nearly $40 million we need to even begin to implement this transition is contingent upon legislative approval of Governor Scott's proposal for $250 million dedicated to housing. We cannot move forward successfully with a transition plan unless the legislature approves Governor Scott's housing proposal. Now here is how we utilize the nearly $40 million to achieve the first step in the transition process. $4 million for motel-based housing support services, $4 million in rapid resolution and money for essentials to help households transition out of the motel, hotel supports, almost $30 million in motel costs, and $650,000 for security costs. The next step is to propose a transition plan for what happens after State Fiscal Year 2022. We're beginning to work on the next step in the transition plan, but there won't be any changes to households currently in the motel hotel program until this July 1st. At this time, I'll turn it over to Dr. Levine, who will provide a health update. Thank you. I'm pleased to report once again that COVID-19 activity in Vermont remains low, though we are reporting 124 cases today, but this comes after 10 straight days of daily counts below 100. We are also faring well compared to the rest of the country. As of April 29th, Vermont's 7-day case rate is 77.7 cases per 100,000 compared to a national average of 110.8 cases per 100,000. The number of outbreaks our teams are following is markedly decreased. There is only one outbreak of small number in a long-term care facility. The positivity rate remains low at 1%. I'm pleased to report that hospitalizations have gone further lower in the last couple of days and are now 17 today with 5 in the ICU. Knowing that we're seeing less spread of COVID-19, along with our progress at getting Vermonters vaccinated, gives me a lot of confidence that we can continue along the Vermont forward path. This means easing some protocols, opening the spigot a bit as the governor says, so Vermonters can begin to get back to their lives carefully and safely as you've just heard. So following those same guiding principles, we are ready to adjust our own mask requirements for when people are outdoors, news that I'm sure will be welcomed by many. We've known for a number of months that being outdoors is safer. Past scientific data and more recently accumulating scientific data continue to support this. With less virus circulating and more people vaccinated, any small risk of transmission becomes even smaller. And we know more about the ways this virus can successfully be transmitted between people. This is why when you're now outdoors, masks will only be required when you're in a crowd or with multiple households where you can't keep a six-foot distance from others. This is regardless of whether you are vaccinated or not. So if you're outside on a run or the family is on a hike or out for biking or your kids have an outdoor play date or you're on the sidelines watching a baseball game or you're heading to the beach at a time that there's plenty of space around you, you are not required to wear a mask. But as before, if any of your activities turn into a crowded situation, have your mask with you in case you need it. As we move into a time with fewer restrictions, it means Vermonters will have to make more of their own decisions about how to keep themselves safe and those around them. So here's a rule of three to keep in mind. Outside, masked, distanced. You need two of these three elements. For example, if you're outside in distanced, you do not need to wear a mask. If you're outside and not distanced, wear a mask. And if you're not outside, you should wear a mask and keep a distance. Pretty basic. This is all part of our new normal evolving with the pandemic as our best tool to bring it to an end does its job. And by that, I mean, of course, vaccination. We continue to be extremely proud of the progress we've made in getting Vermonters vaccinated and we will continue to work to overcome any potential barriers for those who are not yet vaccinated. You're already hearing you're already hearing some of these strategies at work from a drive through clinic to allowing people to walk into certain clinics. We're also facilitating clinics as you just heard on college campuses. We recognize there is not a one size fits all approach to vaccination. And we will keep exploring ways to meet Vermonters where they are to make it as easy as possible for them to get their shot. When this effort is over, the last thing we want to find out is that someone could not get vaccinated due to issues like scheduling or time of day or convenience or drive time or location. And not only is the state concerned about this, but we know that many Vermont campuses, businesses and work sectors are equally concerned and want to work with us to make Vermont as safe a place as possible and achieve the highest rate of vaccination we can. As always, and just as important, you can help too. Not only by getting vaccinated, if you have not done so as yet and are eligible, but if someone you know has questions, listen to them with empathy and without judgment. It's normal to have questions with any treatment, any vaccine, and especially a new vaccine. And unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there. Try asking them open ended questions and then ask permission to share information from trusted sources about their specific concerns. Believe it or not, that can go a long way towards increasing a person's confidence. And if, and you've heard me say this before, help them find their own reason to get vaccinated. It might be different from your own reason, or even what you'd think it would be for them. Even those of us in the public health world know people close to us who haven't yet found that reason. One of my employees shared recently that her son had not yet gotten vaccinated. It was clearly not something his peer group was focused on or talking much about. She told him that she wanted him to think about what it would mean if he couldn't visit his grandmother, or did visit her and potentially caused harm because he was unvaccinated. Well, he happens to work at a grocery store with a pharmacy. And shortly after that conversation, while he was at work, he just grabbed a shot. Seeing and protecting his grandmother mattered to him, and getting the shot was easy. It was time for him to have found the right reason and do the right thing. Which brings me to thinking about anything you can do to make it easier for someone else to get vaccinated. Whether it's offering a ride, offering to watch their kids, helping them to make the appointment, or keeping an eye out for a walk-in clinic that is suited for them. You truly can be a trusted messenger and make a difference. And helping a friend or family member get vaccinated not only helps you, but helps you, but helps the entire state. Because the more people who are vaccinated, the quicker we can get to the end of this pandemic. Governor? Thank you, Dr. Levine. We'll now open it up to questions. Starting with Calvin Cutler, WCAX. Thanks, Governor. So as you probably saw, the Senate approved a little over a $7 billion budget yesterday. On the service level, I mean, what do you make of it and sort of how some of the money is spent and where it's spent? Well, first of all, we went through second reading. I don't think it's been fully voted on. I don't believe that'll happen until maybe tomorrow. But having said that, I have a lot of concerns with the budget, mainly around the ARPA funding, this once in a lifetime opportunity with a billion dollars to put towards things, the tangible things that I think are so necessary that will be transformational in so many ways if we do it right. And I don't think they're doing it right. So a lot of the initiatives are some that we all agree on, but I think they're using too much of it, a lot of it, for programmatic needs, for one time budgetary expenses. And at a time when we have about $300 million of surplus money from this fiscal year, $300 million, I don't think we need to use this one time ARPA money for some of those initiatives. So there's still time. We'll see what some of the debate is on the third reading in the Senate. See if there's any changes that will be made then. If not, it is vastly different than the House pass bill. I'm sure that ARPA hadn't passed when they put their initiative over, their budget, over to the Senate. So I'm sure that they have ideas as well. We'll be connecting with them to make our argument, so to speak, for why we think it should change. So it's got a long ways to go. But again, some good provisions in there, but many that I have concerns about. Probably a question I'd say for you or Secretary Smith about the program for people experiencing homelessness and how to phase that out. Maybe for Secretary Smith, how does the state intend to deal with ongoing security concerns from some of these hotels and potentially also the cost of damage in some rooms, too? Well, I'll let Secretary Smith answer that. But this is a good example of where we're I believe we're moving in the wrong direction. The Senate proposed budget. We we spent with FEMA dollars, emergency dollars over $70 million for temporary housing for the homeless through the pandemic over the last year with our proposal. I'm saying let's use a quarter of the billion dollars. Let's use $250 million to put towards housing and half of that, half of that to provide permanent housing for those who are homeless because that will do a number of things. It will give them some security for the future, not just temporary housing, not a band aid on the issue that we find ourselves in, but more permanent housing that has plagued us for quite some time. It will also save us money in the future because we can't afford to continue to provide for over $70 million. Some projections go to $100 million a year of expense. We need permanent housing for those who are homeless. And this budget that we proposed, this plan, this ARPA plan would provide for that to save us money and give those who are homeless some more security in the future. Secretary Smith. Yeah, Kevin. I think the governor explained it well. We were in a transition year where we're going to be putting some restrictions back into the program in terms of the front door getting into the program, but also at the same time, as the governor said, building permanent housing and what more can be done for people that are homeless than providing permanent housing. That's the solution. In the meantime, as we do put restrictions on the front door, some eligible people will be, you know, will be ramping back up the shelter capacity that we have out there. We also will be looking at other rental assistance capacity that we have. We are always concerned about security. We have put money into the sort of the temporary year-long transition period for security. And we will look at hotels and motels and talk to them about any sort of damages that are made there. We haven't made any commitments, but, you know, we are committed to be good neighbors here as we transition out of this program as it currently exists. And I have a last follow-up. What is the plan if the legislature doesn't approve this funding? What's the plan for this program for phasing it out? And I guess is, you know, governor, is your signature of the budget or your final approval of the budget? Is it contingent on this? Well, let me talk to the plan and then I'll let the governor go ahead or I'll do whatever the governor tells me. But the one thing that there has been unanimous sort of approval of this transition plan that we're talking about from housing advocates, from other advocates, and I think generally acceptance from the legislature on this one-year transition plan, as I said in my remarks, it is really imperative. This transition plan is built on a one-year transition that ultimately moves people to permanent housing. So the second phase of this is really tied to this housing program, and we need to build adequate housing. Both adequate housing and the governor have proposed $90 million of housing for the homeless. Just think about this. The 250 that the governor had proposed is one of the is the largest, in my memory, is the largest housing initiative ever proposed in this state. And 90 of that is for the homeless, plus 12 million for shelter capacity above and beyond the 150 that we are going to be re-instituting that was shut down during the pandemic. So as the governor mentioned, this second phase is critically important to the success of the first phase. And I'll let the governor talk about it. Well, again, as I said, Calvin, I'm hoping that we can make some ground up with the house in particular or gets into a conference committee, and then we'll go from there. But I feel strongly about these dollars. I think we need a bold vision, and I provided for that. I haven't seen the vision from the legislature. I just see a piecemeal approach. And if we're receiving a billion dollars, and they're spending about half of that in this fiscal year, I mean, this doesn't happen. It won't happen again. I don't believe we have an opportunity to really, really make a difference here in the state. And so the three of the three things that I think need to be included is that transparency I talked about. They've done that. I'll give them credit for that, creating a separate section in the appropriations bill. I think it has to be transformative. We know what the problems are in the state. We've talked about them. We've debated them. I think we've agreed on them. We just haven't had the resources to do anything about it, whether it's broadband or housing or water and sewer and stormwater. I mean, all of those things, climate change mitigation. I mean, we agree on all of those. So transformative is important, but tangible, from my perspective, is important as well. That's where we shouldn't be using this money. It's borrowed money. I mean, we're going to have to pay it back. Somebody's got to pay it back for budgetary holes, you know? I mean, this is not an ongoing expense. These are things that we need to invest in and get the most return on investment as a result. So nothing is certain. I certainly, I feel it's my responsibility as governor to protect this money and to make a difference for Vermonters. Well, you stole some of my questions. But anyway, with the gap in the, or the number of 18-year-olds and younger folks, 16 to 18, that are not choosing to take a vaccine. What can be done? Or is there a plan in place? Are you looking at marketing? Are you looking at maybe taking the vaccine to the schools? How are we combating that? You know, it's interesting when you look at the graph and see the number of 16 to 18-year-olds, 53%, outdoing the 18 to 29 by a number of points. I mean, that's pretty remarkable that they're doing the right thing. The 18 to 29-year-olds are the problem from my perspective. And I've thought about this a lot. I mean, we're going to use all kinds of different methods. We want to meet them where they are. We want to use education. We want to do, make it easy for people to have to be vaccinated. But at the end of the day, it's about doing the right thing. I mean, we have, again, look at the rates here, look at the 65 and over, over 90%. And I think a lot about public service, what you should be doing for your state and country, stepping up to do the right thing. I think about all those who serve their country in different ways. My dad, World War II, I think about those, the greatest generation, what they were faced with at the time, same age, 18 to 29, being asked to, I mean, asked to. It wasn't forced. They stepped up, signed up, and knowing that they would be gone for quite some time, years in some respects. Didn't know when they would get back. They were going to be in harm's way. They were going to be going into battle. They were going to be shot at. They were going to be wounded. Some of them would not come back because of death on the battlefield. But they did so willingly. They stepped up and took tremendous sacrifice, stepping up to do the right thing over a multitude of years. All we're asking of this group is 18 to 29 year old grouping is to have one shot, do one thing, step up to help everyone else. And I don't think it's too much to ask. So we're going to be doing everything we can to try and incentivize, to try and educate, and try and get to where they are, to figure out why not. What's the problem with doing the right thing for other members of the society? Dr. Levine? We're not standing still on this, as the governor mentioned. And as Dr. Levine mentioned, making it convenient in order to get a vaccine so that there is no excuse not to get a vaccine. As I mentioned, we are on college campuses. Those clinics are open to everyone. But obviously, we are targeting this age group that we talked about, 18 to 29 in that target. But we're doing a lot of other things. We had really good success at Barton this week in terms of the drive-thru. We're going to continue that process as well. You'll see us at Tumbridge Fair on May 8th, using a drive-thru sort of process. We're also sort of merging the concept of registration and walk-ins together. Now, we won't have as much walk-ins as we would during registration, but we are starting to merge walk-ins as a philosophy to help mitigate that age group in particular. So we'll have drive-thrus. The Tumbridge Fair is May 8th. We're looking at a joint venture with New Hampshire and Lancaster, New Hampshire. We're looking at LaMoyle, Johnson, Franklin County, Highgate, Guilford. We're also, we have a mobile unit that we've used. We're looking at May 8th being at Devil's Bowl and May 8th being at Bear Ridge. These are race tracks here in the state. We had great success in Essex County on sort of that barnstorming tour that we did throughout using EMS. We're going to do that again on May 8th and 9th in Essex County, but we're also going to do it in other counties as well. As I mentioned, we're on various sites on college campuses, and we're also looking at the various areas that we can go for businesses, restaurants, workplaces, bringing the vaccine to people, and to those spaces where people get outside Church Street, the waterfront to encourage the vaccine. And of course, we'll be reaching out to the vulnerable as we have with BIPOC and the migrant community. But also, we're starting to make progress in the homeless community, maybe even meal sites, distribution sites that we'll talk about probably in the future. And those are the sort of things that we're doing, merging walk-ins, merging registration, and using, as Dr. Levine, and I'll turn it over to him, talking about the communication aspect of this, not only making it convenient, but also communicating to people why this is important. And I'll turn that over to Dr. Levine. Yeah. I think Secretary Smith covered the list pretty well. And in my opening comments, I talked a little bit about the communication as well. There is a need to combat misinformation for sure. And that's part of a strategy all along, but maybe particularly specific to this age demographic as well. So we have to be very cognizant of that. But a lot of the theme you've heard is making sure that we meet the person where they are. And if there's a large work site and people can't get to a vaccine center to be vaccinated, we obviously want to meet them as appropriate and not rule anything out. The one thing you haven't heard, so the doctor will talk about it for a second, is the remainder of the health care system being involved. Now, frankly, we still do not have sufficient levels of vaccine coming in on allocations to give it to every health care provider in the state and have them be a major focus. There is going to be that transition at some point in time, but that's not part of this current strategy. And I would argue, again, that the demographic we were talking about isn't likely to be at the doctor's office anyways. But that doesn't mean they will not be a key part of this, especially with the advent of perhaps the 12 to 15-year-old age group. We're already working with our pediatrics colleagues who will play a big role in the prephase of getting the vaccine to that audience and to their parents as well, talking with them. The other part of the health care system is in enterprises like Church Street, as was mentioned, partnering with others in health care communities around the state who can help deliver the vaccine and do the education and messaging as well. So we've got a lot on the table, and we're not standing still by any means. Thank you. Thank you. Governor, you've said that a business, a private business, can opt to require a proof of vaccination. Would you encourage businesses to require that proof? Would that get younger people who might say want to get into a bar or go to a concert to get the vaccine? Well, again, I think it's up to the business and what they think is right for them. I'm not going to tell them what to do. But as we have said during this next step in the plan, that we are going to allow for, let's say, outdoor gatherings a certain amount. I think it's 300 right now outside gatherings. And then that's unvaccinated. And then any number of vaccinated over that. So I would think it would be in the best interest of a business who wants to have a larger gathering to find out who is vaccinated, who is not. The masking is another aspect of this. It's not just about vaccinations, but if a if a business feels strongly about continuing to have a mass policy, then we think that they should take that step. But that's up to them. It's not us telling them what to do. And I think that that's something we have to keep in mind as we move forward. We're in the last laps of this very long race, and I've said it before. There's going to become a time when, and it's happening, we have to transition to that, where we have to take self responsibility. We're going to have to take responsibility for our actions and what we do to protect ourselves and our families and others. And that's what we're going to have after the 4th of July, if we get enough people vaccinated. So at that point, everyone's going to have to make decisions based on what they think is the right thing to do. So you won't tell businesses, but would you do you have any feeling personally that you wouldn't encourage businesses to require proof? Well, again, I think they have to do what they think is right. It's about that self responsibility that I talked about. And you know, we have told people for the last 14 months, what to do. I think it's time now for others to start thinking about what they think is the right thing to do for their clientele and their employees and their customers. If I could ask you just about the motel voucher and the transition program, I mean, you want to move folks and motels want to reclaim their rooms in many cases, and you want them to move into permanent housing, but that'll take some time. What is temporary housing mean? What does it look like? Yeah, I'll let Secretary Smith answer that. But again, I feel strongly and again, I don't think anybody disagrees on this issue. I think that we have wanted to try and solve the homeless problem here in the state with different means. But now we have an opportunity. We have we have a billion dollars here, but it's going to take a bold vision in order to to really make the right investments in the right places. And I think housing is a perfect example of that using $250 million for housing, something we all agree on. Think back about two years ago, we took out that bond. I presented that to the legislature. They went along with it $37 million bond. It leveraged another $65 million in private assets, making it the single largest investment housing we've ever seen. We thought $100 million was a lot of money, which it is at the time. But now we have an opportunity to really make another dent and maybe solve some issues with another $250 million. So so again, that's why I feel so strongly about all of this. We know what the problems are in the state. We've talked about them a lot. But now it takes bold leadership and vision in order to accomplish what we think is is the right thing to do and then not look back five, five, six years from now and say, where did the billion dollars go? Where did it all go? Where did we spend it? And I don't want to be in that position. Dr. Smith. Stuart, as I mentioned July 1st, we'll start putting eligibility requirements into the housing program. During the pandemic, the height of the pandemic, we didn't have eligibility criteria. We had opened it up to those that were in need or said they were in need. And as a consequence, we occupied about 2,000 rooms in order to house people. Those rooms, as I mentioned before, aren't going to be available. So once we start putting eligibility criteria in what happens, well, in many cases, we'll still be over the course of this year be using hotel motels at a reduced capacity than what we have been, but still at a $30 million level over the course. Just to give you some context, pre pandemic, we were spending somewhere in the neighborhood of five to $7 million. And my numbers may not be precise, but it's in that range. Five to $7 million. We'll be doing $30 million over the next year, plus another $10 million on other things like the availability of flexible rapid resolution dollars that can help identify safe housing options for those that don't qualify for the program and also a cash assistance program to help those to get essential needs for households as they don't qualify for the general assistance program. The other thing that we're doing is as you, as I mentioned, we're bringing on the shelter capacity again in about 150 beds statewide and then, of course, in the year, in the next year, we'll be bringing on another 200 new shelter beds. The availability of rental assistance, which has been expanded greatly by the federal government, really means an unprecedented opportunity to help people in permanent housing as well. So although we're closing the front door, not closing, although we're bringing some criteria to the front door of the general assistance program. By the way, the general assistance program was never intended to be sort of a permanent housing program. It was intended to help people that were in need for a particular night. But we, as I mentioned, we expanded it during the pandemic as we start putting back various criteria for the front door of this program. We are expanding other programs to help those that don't qualify for this program for the year period. The long-term solution is what the governor talked about. There is no other substitute other than permanent housing for those that are experiencing homelessness. And the governor has put forth a proposal that this state has never seen before and something that I think it will take a year to implement. But we have the transition plan in place in order to make this happen. Okay. Thank you very much. Lisa, G.A.P. Thank you. This is a question for Commissioner Harrington. Is he on the line? I believe he is. Hi. Hi. Yes, I am. About the U.S. Department of Labor ordering the state to review the eligibility of those past unemployment claims. I know you've asked the Department of Labor to reverse that order. Is there any update and has the state reactivated that able and available eligibility trigger? So, to your question and for clarification, there were a number of eligibility criteria that were in place at the start of the pandemic and prior to the pandemic. Obviously, many states with the claims surge that happened chose to bypass some of those triggers as it would be sending massive amounts of claims to adjudications. And what we were finding is that a majority of claimants were simply answering the questioning correctly. So, upon review, we would actually deem them to be eligible anyways, even though they had said they were not able and available. So, Vermont, like many other states chose to bypass that trigger and allow those claims to process to avoid significant backlogs and bottlenecks in the system. The federal government and the U.S. Department of Labor has been interacting with states across the country conducting performance audits and identifying areas of corrective action. This is one of them, and Vermont was identified as needing to implement a corrective action. One, to reimplement or reactivate the able and available eligibility criteria, which we have done. So, claims that do go through and individuals that identify that they are not able and available for work and not willing to accept work if offered and who don't have a COVID qualifying circumstance will not be eligible or will need to have their claim adjudicated for further information. But to the bigger question, and that is the federal government has indicated that the states who have bypassed eligibility triggers now need to go back and review any claims that were bypassed and adjudicate those claims and issue formal determinations on those claims. Vermont submitted an appeal to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor asking them to waive that requirement. Our congressional delegation supported us in that effort and also issued a formal letter to the secretary. However, at this time, we have not heard back or heard a response on that. Okay, and then if you have to go through with this and anyone is found to have been overpaid, how would that be handled? Yeah, so there are two concerns. Yeah, you pick up on the future or would they have to pay it back? Yeah, you pick up on two concerns that we have. One is the enormity of the situation. So, depending on what we can coordinate with the U.S. Department of Labor and what they would actually require us to do, it could be a population as small as 10,000 people that we have to review, or it could be a population the size of 90,000 people or 1.25 million weekly claims that we would have to review. Again, I don't think it will be on the upper end of that. It'll probably be on the lower end of that, but that will come out as part of our negotiation with the U.S. Department of Labor. They have indicated in their letter that if we were to identify someone as having been ineligible that we marked eligible, that person should be put in overpayment and have to repay those benefits to both the state and the federal government. The department remains steadfast in its position that whenever the state is the one who initiated the overpayment, the individual should be held harmless and traditionally unless we're directed otherwise. If someone received benefits because of either a department error or because the department intentionally allowed the claim to proceed like we did in this case, we would typically waive any overpayment obligation. However, I think that's another piece where we have to wait to see whether or not the federal government will allow us to do that. I see. And then just one last thing about the, this is another unrelated question. Oh, I guess about this. Do you know if other states are speaking to have the federal government waive this for them? I don't know if any have submitted a formal appeal. I do know other states are extremely concerned about this and have regular conversations with the U.S. Department of Labor to try to navigate this, but I can't speak to whether they've submitted a formal appeal or not. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Lisa. Thank you. I'd just like to add a little bit of context to this as well. And this is where I'll probably get in trouble with our legal counsel. But if you think back a year, we were jammed up. There were a number of claimants waiting for money to survive. And I remember feeling as though we couldn't do what they wanted us to do because of our mainframe, our 50-year-old mainframe, all the workaround, the things we had to do to get compliance through. So that was really, really a bottleneck in the system and preventing us from sending checks to those who are in desperate need. And I remember the lot of pressure from the legislature at the time. I think the media as well, I mean, and rightfully so. We were frustrated. So finally, we made, I made one of the decisions to take advantage of some of those workarounds. What can we do to work around some of the issues that we're facing to prevent, that was preventing us from sending checks out? And they weren't going to be without risks. And we decided to take those risks. And I, at the time, we notified, I made sure that I spoke with the pro tem and the speaker and let them know that we were doing something that was a little out of the ordinary, an orthodox, and this could lead to some issues in the future. But it was a risk worth taking. I called and spoke directly to each one of our congressional members of our congressional delegation and told them the same thing that we were taking this because we knew for monitors were in desperate need. And I said, we may need you in the future because we know that this is counter to what the U.S. Department of Labor would find acceptable. But we thought it was necessary. And so here we are today. And I still believe we did the right thing a year ago to try and get checks out to needy Vermonters. But this is as a result. Now we're face trying to appeal to the Biden administration to make sure that we hold people harmless and that they understand we were in a crisis situation at the time through no fault of our own. And because of a 50 year old mainframe and all the hoops and hurdles that we would have had to go through, um, we just couldn't. We couldn't make it work without having Vermonters suffer. So again, that's why we're in the position we're in today. I'll take some responsibility for that. But I still think it was the right thing to do. Thank you. Aaron Calvin star reporter. Yeah, my question is about, you know, once the once everyone is widely vaccinated or the vaccine is widely distributed, is there any concern that there, you know, may continue to be outbreaks or continued spread of the virus from, you know, organizations that ideologically don't want to be vaccinated or oppose the vaccine, such as, you know, particularly conservative religious groups or anything like that. Yeah, thanks for that question. The reality is, you're describing what I would call pockets of people who are not vaccinated. But in the sea of hopefully lots of people who are vaccinated, who will be very much protected from any serious consequence. If you look at the experience, and this is a reasonably but not totally fair comparison. If you look at the experience with measles, a disease we thought we almost had gotten rid of at one point. But as you frame it, there were very focused groups that were resistant to getting the vaccine. Where did we see outbreaks? We saw it in those focused groups. We didn't see it necessarily spread widely through communities, but there were concerns and a lot of public health interventions to make sure that didn't happen. It's a long way of my saying, public health isn't going to forget about this pandemic and lose track of it and, you know, things will quiet down and we'll just sit back and go check mark. We're done with that. This is going to be part of the environment for the foreseeable future. We just hope it will be a very minor minimal part of the environment for the foreseeable future so that if anything did pop up in a specific population, we would be able to attend to it rapidly and control it, keep it contained, and make sure that the rest of the greater community was as safe as it needed to be, superimposed on the safety they already had by having a good vaccination rate. I can't say we have identified, we'll call that pockets of resistance in Vermont at this point that we're especially focused on. Okay, so nothing of that sort. Well said, Aaron. Yep, sounds good. Thank you. P. Herschel, V. P. R. Thank you, Jason. Secretary Smith, earlier you said that 55% of Bipophramonters have received at least one dose of the vaccine. I'm looking at the vaccine dashboard updated this morning at the Department of Health and it says 48.6% of Bipophramonters have received at least one dose of the vaccine and I'm hoping you can help me reconcile the difference. I can't hear, Peter, but I will reconcile the difference for you on what is the difference. I got the information from the same people who update the website, so let me figure out what's going on. I appreciate that. Jason, I believe it was 55 who got first dose or are scheduled to get first domestic now. Let me just check on that, Peter. Okay, yeah, that might explain it. Thank you. I'll look forward to a follow-up. Second question. I don't know if this is for Secretary Smith or Commissioner Levine, but vaccination rates among males in Vermont are lagging considerably behind women, 10 percentage points in fact, and I'm wondering if you've been able to ferret out the reason for that difference and if you're trying to do anything about it. Well, we've noticed the difference in males as we notice the difference in age groups as well, and as Dr. Levine had talked about, we are about ready to launch in the next few weeks a campaign that talks peer on peer of why vaccination is important. That will include males. It will include young people. It will include others as well to talk about why that is important. I would suspect there's demographic reasons as well, but I don't have anything specific unless Dr. Levine has something he wants to add to that. The only thing I would add to that is most traditionally in all the metrics we follow in healthcare, women do adhere more and women have more contact with the healthcare system, so getting a vaccination may be more part and parcel of what they would do anyways, but that doesn't tell you what's preventing the male from actually going that extra step, and it doesn't seem to be as prevalent in the higher age demographics. You know, when we look at the data, it's such high coverage in those demographics, so it does seem to be skewed towards a younger age demographic. We haven't especially focused on sex as the dividing line there with why that age group is not doing as well. As the secretary said, we've done much more just thinking about the age group in general, but part of the communication strategy and part of the information campaign, if you will, combating misinformation will be looking at the peer on peer, and males will certainly be prominent. That's about all I can tell you at this point. Can you talk about where that misinformation is coming from? Yes, the internet. If I could just put it out there. There's so much on the internet, and one has to be very, very concerned about what they're looking at and be able to vouch for the veracity of it. Every aspect of the pandemic is well represented on the internet, from should you get a vaccine to why isn't a certain treatment being used more often than it is towards is there really a pandemic at all? The list goes on and on and on. We're able to combat things when we're confronted with them, but when an individual is focused on what they've read, it's very, very challenging, and they may not be the kind of individual who's going to listen to a reputable resource, whether it's us up here, whether it's you at VPR or others in the media, who at least may provide a more balanced picture. They're only going to get the one side. That's where I see most of the misinformation coming from. Thank you all. Tom Davis, Compass Vermont. Thanks, Jason. Governor, the Attorney General, of course, announced earlier this week that the amount reached a settlement with strategic IT partners over this rubble call scam as they directed the calls into Vermonters. I was trying to get information on if there's any data on how many Vermonters were actually scammed and what that total expense to them was. I don't have that information, Tom. We might be able to get that for you, or maybe the Attorney General would be the appropriate place to find that, but I just don't have it. Anybody else have a Commissioner Scherling? No. He's shaking his head, no. We'll do our best to find it, but that may be a better question for the AG. Thank you. Yeah, I submitted the question to the AG. I did not receive a response because I was also curious that while it sounded like they're getting a settlement for $67,000, it wasn't bad. I wondered if that money was not going to be 67. If strategic IT partners follow through and closes up shop, it's going to be $7,000, but also if that money is earmarked for distribution of people that they know got scammed, if I could find that out as well. Okay, we'll do our best to send the message alone to the AG. Okay, thanks very much. Have a great weekend. You too. Joseph Gresser, the Barton Chronicle. Joe Gresser, you move to Eric from the Times-Argus. Yes, Governor, this is about the return to work requirement, and this also might be a question for Commissioner Harrington. I got a call yesterday from a reader who works in the hotel industry and had her hours cut from full-time to part-time because of the pandemic. She's expected to return to full-time work this summer once things open back up, but now that she has to search for work, she's concerned that she might lose her first job because she has to find a second job. So what should people who are currently working part-time jobs that are expected to return to full-time, what should they do in a situation like this? Commissioner Harrington. Governor, I'm happy to answer that. Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. So we certainly don't expect anyone to have to give up their current existing job unless they would choose to. So they have a couple options. Really what we're saying is the work search and unemployment in general is about returning people to receiving full-time employment. So that full-time employment can be through one employer or it can be through multiple employers. So in this case, if someone has a part-time job, they're not required to go out and look for full-time work. They can go out and look for additional part-time work that gets them to a full-time employment and off of, eventually off of unemployment benefits. So in this case, this individual could retain their part-time job and simply look for additional part-time work to help carry them over until their summer employment begins. It is a question that has come up. This is pretty standard in how the program has been operated in the past. And again, they can be very open and honest with the employers they're conducting their work search with, letting them know that they also have another part-time job and that they may only be available for hours on a particular day or hours during a particular time of day because of an already existing employment condition. And that would still satisfy the work search requirements. They were simply looking at very specific additional hours or additional employment. Okay. One of her concerns was turning down a job because it might impact the first job. So she wouldn't lose her benefits if she turned down a job because it might cost her the first one. Yeah. So I would personally, I would classify that under, you know, the caveat there is refusing suitable work. And so in this case, if let's say she had a job already existing that was Monday through Thursday, and she was looking for a part-time job that occurred on Friday or over the weekend. And that second job then came out with a schedule or was willing to offer her work for work on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. If she declined that job because it would interfere with her already existing job, it would not be considered a refusal of suitable work because it was not exactly what she was looking for in that case. Okay. Thank you. Kat, WCAX. Hi. Are these pop-up or walk-in clinics that you're holding using up all of their vaccine doses or are there leftover doses at the end of the day? And if so, what happens to those? I believe a number of them are still continuing to use the Johnson and Johnson. So there's no wastage there. And I believe we're using up all the others. So there's no wastage either. But I'll let Secretary Smith answer that. Kat, thank you for the question. As we try to expand both walk-ups and the registration aspect, the end of the day probably will be less problematic as we move forward. So what we'll try to do is use Johnson and Johnson, those that we don't use. Johnson and Johnson can be stored a lot easier. In other instances, I don't think we're going to have the same issue of calling around anymore with the front-end walk-ups that we have. If we do, we'll deal with it. But I don't foresee that being an issue anymore in terms of how we're planning these events. We certainly didn't have that problem in the events that we've planned so far. So they're filling up? Yeah, they're filling up. Or we're filling them up by announcing that there are spots, like I did with Grand Isle today, by talking about that we have slots available Saturday, May 1st from 9.30 to 12. We've been pretty successful in when we're starting to see slots to fill them by either moving up appointments or having the walk-ins take some of the doses that normally would take place at the end of the day. How would you characterize our supply and demand right now? Are we still having a demand that exceeds our supply? Yes, I would say that's the case. At some point we'll probably have that reversed. But right now other states are having problems with demand. We're not one of those states. We're still seeing strong demand. I'd like to see stronger demand in the 18 to 29-year-old bracket. And that's why we've been talking about it a little bit more. But as you can see on our graph, we've had very strong demand at the higher age levels. Really moderate to strong demand coming down until the 18 to 29-year-olds. And that's where I really would urge everybody that are in that age group to get vaccinated. So right now demand does, right at this moment, demand does outstrip supply. I have a last quick question here from a viewer who wanted to know for teenagers ages 16 and 17, she says they need their parent's permission for a COVID vaccine. But she says they're not required to have parental input for some other health care choices that they need to make. So she's kind of wondering why the barrier of parental permission is needed here, especially of course, while we're encouraging young people to get the COVID vaccine. And if you are concerned that that might be deterring some young people who might want to get vaccinated from getting vaccinated. Well, just remember, this was approved on a emergency order, this vaccine. We want parental input into this. I haven't, as we saw on the graph, we've had pretty good uptake in the 16 and 17-year-olds. Parental, I don't think parental sort of permission has prevented that sort of uptake to continue. So I understand if there's a concern about a 16 or 17-year-old, but at the same time, I think this is an important enough decision that we have parental guidance here as we move with this vaccination program. Thank you. Just to clarify, Jason, you were right. The website is on those that are vaccinated on BIPOC. What I was talking about because I have access to more information is that 55% of BIPOC Vermonters have either been vaccinated or have made an appointment. And I'll make sure that I follow up with Peter if he isn't listening with this. Okay. Lisa Loomis, the now reporter. Good afternoon. I heard you say that as we move through the phases of the Vermont Forward Plan, that towns and businesses can enact stricter guidelines in terms of masking and social distancing. And I believe you said in response to an earlier question that businesses can require proof of vaccination. We had a question from a reader about what happens once the state of emergency is lifted. Can businesses and organizations continue to require masks? I believe so, Lisa. But I don't, from a legal standpoint, I probably should check. But from my perspective, they could. But we will not be in control of that. So who would be in control of that? I think it would be the business owners themselves. I mean, we're seeing this play out with some of the colleges and universities. I mean, many of them, hundreds of them have already made the decision that they're going to require anyone coming back to school or or enrolling in their college or university have to have the vaccine in order to to come to that institution. So I think we're seeing that already. But this is about masking, whether masking can whether businesses and organizations can require masking. Yeah, I again, I think they can. But we'll let me let me I guess contemplate that and and check with our council on that. I just don't know from a legal standpoint. I think I mean, I mean, think about it very much. Yeah, Lisa, think about it in terms of, um, you know, no, no shirt, no shoes, no service type of thing. I think it's the same falls in the same category as that. Okay, I look forward to the answer. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Jason. Secretary Smith. Welcome back. You are missed. I'm glad the governor finally gave you a few days off after a year. I don't know this. He didn't ask me, Mike, by the way, he just left. Well, I'm not sure who this goes to, but it deals with farmers markets. We're hearing about frustration with regulations for farmers markets. Obviously many of the markets are going to be opening for the summer. And one reader said, apparently they were at a craft show, uh, a big one at the university mall, and customers were allowed to handle all the items and everything. If the farmers markets have been told, you know, they've got to take off their boots, customers are not expected to touch anything. Why are the different rules between craft fairs and farmers markets from the state? I'm going to let Commissioner Sherling answer that. But again, he can clarify or or. But I think it's the organizations that make those decisions. It's not part of our guidance. Mr. Sherling. Good afternoon. You're right, Governor. I think some of that relates to regulations that individual operators have decided to put in place. I would remind folks that what we announced earlier and have reiterated today is tomorrow we go to the phase two of the Vermont forward plan. So all retail operations, farmers markets, arts and craft shows all have the same guidance at that point, which is the universal guidance that I outlined earlier. Okay. And governor, I may have missed it, but and I think you told Stuart that private businesses can legally ask employees if they've had their COVID 19 vaccine shots, which seems like it's private medical information. I'm wondering, is the state government mandating state employees turn over their medical records proof of the vaccination or they have to answer it? Is and is this a possible type of violation for the state or for private employees? I mean, that I know the state when they give out the statistics, they plug them a little bit and say, well, we can't say 100% anymore at the age groups, because that would tell everybody that everybody's getting the vaccine. So now leveled it off at 95%. So how do you how do you resolve this apparent inconsistency? Yeah, first of all, I don't I don't believe if I did, I didn't mean to say this that there was any requirement of employees to have the vaccine. In fact, we can't. It's under the emergency order. So you can't force anyone to have it. I think I was I was talking about customers coming into their place of business and whether they'd have to be masked or or identifying whether they had the vaccine or not. So they knew whether they could go over their unvaccinated limit. Think about an outside organization having some sort of a fair or something. And so they could go over that 300 person limit. So that's what I was talking about there. But but I might I don't know if Secretary Young is on. But we're not we're not requiring when we're not requiring state employees to have the vaccine if and when they come back. Thank you, Governor. We're not requiring it. And we're currently developing a plan for when the state of emergency is listed and transitioning into the fall to some sort of a hybrid returns work program. And that, you know, obviously there will be questions around that as we roll that out. But also, you know, we're going to have more answers about the efficacy of the vaccine and and who that risk if they're not vaccinated in the workplace. And you would talk about, you know, universities and colleges mandating all students. I mean, how do they get around mandating that some of that information about whether somebody had their shots in private medical information again, or or sampling, you know, more more of a mandate more of a legal question. But but at the same time, I think that they mandate other vaccinations as well. I mean, think about some of the summer camps and so forth where you had to have a vaccination or you're traveling or whatever it is. I think there is a provision somehow to get there. But but maybe Secretary Young or somebody else can answer this better than I can. Governor, this is Commissioner Harrington. I would just add that our legal team from a labor perspective is reviewing the federal requirements about whether or not employer whether or not vaccination can be a condition of employment. And we do expect to be able to issue some guidance coming out hopefully in the next couple of weeks. As you know, it's been a moving target during the pandemic about specific requirements, obviously not something that was contemplated prior to the pandemic and the rules, you know, tend to tend to fluctuate or change. So I would just if I could, and if you're okay with it, circle up with our legal team and see if we have any current additional guidance with regards to requirements for employees and conditions of work. I'd also add that would be great, Commissioner Harrington, but Mike, you know, I know there's some health care providers, some organizations that require their employees to have a flu shot or if they don't have a flu shot, they have to wear a mask. So it may fall in the same same guidelines as that and that was pre pandemic. Okay, yeah, we've gotten a couple of inquiries from readers that I'm just concerned that their medical privacy is being violated by this. But thank you very much. And I'll wait to hear from all the legal vehicles from the state when they hear from the feds. Okay. Thank you. Devin Bates, local 22, local 44. Yeah, question for Governor Scott. And then if Secretary French might be able to weigh in as well on this, we got an email from the mother of a UBM graduate from the class of 2020. She was wondering why they're, you know, they're including apparently winter and summer 2020 in the graduation ceremonies this year, but nothing for spring 2020. I guess my question is, you know, when the new guidance was released for graduation, it was said that these celebrations are not only possible, but encouraged. Should schools be trying to do everything they tend to fit in something for the class of 2020? Obviously, been a tough year for them entering the workforce. There's logistical challenges to that. But what are your thoughts on schools not, you know, doing something for that graduating class? Yeah, I mean, I think our guidance was about moving forward what our expectations or our guidance or our advice is for this year's graduation. What they do in the past is a part of whatever the organization, whatever the school or university or college deems appropriate. So again, this is all happening fairly quick. I mean, we were only about four months into having vaccines five months. And we're getting to a point where we have over 60% of of those who are eligible being vaccinated, which is tremendous in some respects when you think about where we were a year ago. So times are changing. Our advice has been that you can and if you if you're willing to have a somewhat normal graduation, but to go backwards, I think that's up to the individual districts as well as the individual institutions. Secretary French, anything you want to add to that? No, I just appreciate the opportunity to speak to the issue and just to clarify that our guidance pertains to K 12 schools, not universities. But we are, you know, typically with guidance like this as the governor mentioned just recently came out. Typically what we do now is we answer questions from districts on very specific issues. And then we compile those into frequently asked questions. We're seeing some, you know, probably six to 10 questions on graduation so far. So we probably will produce a FAQ document on it. But so far, I think districts are finding fairly easy to work within the framework that we've established between the guidance and the Vermont forward plan. But to the point about retroactively going back, yes, that would be a consideration for the districts. But we haven't seen a lot of discussion of that yet. But it could be out there, but I haven't seen it. All right, the bill ahead. Thank you. Governor Scott, do you support expanding Dr. dinosaurs pregnant women and children who are undocumented immigrants, which is being proposed in a bill that's passing the Senate today? Yeah, I think we propose something of that same nature. But I'll have to look back. But but generally, I think it's a small amount of money. And I believe that it would be helpful to those and to some of our undocumented refugee population and so forth. So I would encourage it. All right. Thank you. I also have a question about the graphic shared on vaccination progress they age band. You know, when you look at the number of people who have had been vaccinated or been scheduled, 18 29 year olds are low. But it seems like the they're outstripping 16 and 17 year old in the vaccinations that just haven't been signing up for their for the appointment. Do you think that they're just holding out for a walk in clinic potentially or like the people being doing walkings like aren't being captured in the data? I think part of that could be and this is just just my my gut is telling me that you can't have the you can't have the Johnson Johnson vaccine for those 16 and 17 when where you can in the 18 to 29 year olds so they they can have a one and done type of vaccination process. So that's not available to the 16 17 year olds. So they have to go through that two dose process. So that might be that may be why but I might ask Dr. Levine to weigh in on that. Yeah, I'm sure that's a big chunk of it. Also, there was a time delay between the two groups. So there may be more in the 16 and 17 year old that are waiting that appointment because they couldn't sign up as early as the 18 to 29 year olds. And then there is that opportunity still for the 18 29 year olds to be able to sign up for more clinics that have Johnson and Johnson when we get the good news that there's more and more Johnson and Johnson coming in. So I think there's a number of reasons. Okay. And when it comes to the, you know, the age group of like 50 to 65, maybe even 40 to 65, you know, the appointments have been open for them for a month or more now. Do you still anticipate those numbers increasing beyond this, you know, in 50 year olds of 72%, 60 year olds of 81%. You know, I know that this population is a disproportionate number of hospitalizations in Vermont. So it seems like it would be good to get them to a higher level. No, absolutely. Although they are small percentage of the hospitalizations. But still, we're showing you one static graph in time, which is right now. But we follow this graph literally three times a week. And we have seen growth in each of those numbers you just mentioned over time. So they are continuing to increase as opposed to having plateaued. So that's the important take home messages. Each of those age groups you mentioned continues to show increases on a week to week basis. Okay. Thank you. Hey, I would love this to be included in one of the weekly data updates, by the way. I want to know these numbers. You can fill out an application. There will be a hiring process and then you'd be involved. Maybe we'll talk about that. Greg Lamberow, the county courier. Good afternoon, Governor. I want to just clarify some of the guidance that was, that you've talked about earlier. So high school sports, for instance, if spectators are in the outfield, social distanced, your new guidance would be that they wouldn't have to be masked. That is my yes. I've spoken with some employers in the last handful of days who are wondering about the new unemployment policy for requiring people to apply for work. Some of these employers, many of them have contributed to the UI trust fund for years. They're concerned that money from this fund is now going to be used to pay workers who are unable medically to go back to work. Their premise to the concern is that many of these people, or at least some of the employers believe that the state has other ways of supporting people, whether it be a welfare system or something of the like, for people that can't work, rather than paying them through the UI fund. And of course, from what I've heard, a lot of those other funds are backed by federal dollars. So I guess I'm wondering if you can kind of explain the rationale of keeping people on the UI system if they medically are unable to return to work? Because it's COVID related. I think this crisis has highlighted the fact that through no fault of their own, they have been impacted. So it's not just our decision, I believe it's on the federal side, as well as the legislature weighing in. But we just think it's the right thing to do because of the crisis situation we're in. Under normal circumstances, you would not be able to draw unemployment due to a health condition. And I'm going to let Commissioner Harrington try and fix anything I've said that might not be correct. But I believe that's the case. You are correct, Governor. Specifically, though, to the question I would say, what we're looking at is temporary displacement from work for COVID related circumstances. Obviously, as more people get vaccinated, those circumstances may become irrelevant. Certainly situations like child care being suspended or a child going through remote learning, causing someone to be home. But they really have to be cases of COVID specificity. So for instance, there is a question right now before the U.S. Department of Labor about individual suffering from long haul COVID conditions. And technically under our program, someone who developed a health related condition because of they had contracted COVID at some point, but they no longer have COVID, they technically are not able and available to return to work because of a medical circumstance. And therefore, like you said, would be eligible under some other you know, longer term disability benefit that's out there. So we really are talking about individuals that are quarantining for a two week period or until they resolve their COVID circumstance or because of exposure. If their child is out of school, if their child care has gone away, but it has to be a direct result of COVID. If they're caring for a loved one who is recovering from COVID or they themselves have a condition that puts them in a high risk category. But again, I think some of that is subjective because if they become vaccinated, does that risk go away in which case they no longer are considered a high risk and can return to work that we depend on the health care provider in that sense. But again, what we're really talking about our COVID qualifying circumstances that are supposed to be short term in nature, longer term or long term disabilities or health conditions would fall under another another type of benefit. Discussion about requiring people that fall into that category to get vaccinated in order to continue getting their benefits. I think that falls again. Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong. But again, we can't require anyone to be vaccinated under the emergency order. So I don't think that that would that would survive from a legal standpoint. We're hopeful again that as we get back to normal, the more people that do get vaccinated and the more businesses that are open back up, the more tourism we start to see and things getting back to normal that people will be able to get back to normal employment. So I'm I'm extremely, extremely hopeful by the 4th of July that a number of people will not need the unemployment assistance and they'll be back to regular employment. I would also I would also add governor, you know for someone who is out of work for an extended period of time because they aren't fall into a high risk category and their health care provider has instructed them to quarantine. It's likely they've already gone through their initial 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. So any benefits they're collecting beyond that point are currently federally funded. So they would be on the extension program, the PEUC program through, you know, if they continued through the end of that program, which is September 4th, it would be federally considered federal benefits. Avery Powell, WCAX. With restaurants moving to universal guidance tomorrow, does that mean there won't be any restrictions on hours of operations and can the municipality still put those type of restrictions into place? The restrictions on hours continues. This is more about the guidance in terms of those in the restaurant during those business hours. And right now that's 10 p.m. closed in, correct? That's correct. For bars and restaurants, it's 10 p.m. And do you have an idea when those will be lifted? I guess just on July 4th, presumably? You know, sometime between now and then. Again, everything that we're doing, all these steps that we're taking along the way are based on vaccination rates. The better we do, the better we do as Vermonters in order to get the increased number of people vaccinated, the quicker we can move to the next step. So the 4th of July is our goal. But if we were able to get to a point where we had more vaccinations completed, it could be sooner than that. Finally, just what's the rationale for keeping those certain restrictions in place? Well, again, you know, we are mitigating this. We're slowly, methodically moving away from some of the restrictions we had in place. We think this next step makes a lot of sense. And then we'll contemplate whether we go to the next move, which would be to remove the restrictions on the hours. But we're just not there yet. Thank you. JD Green aired out. Thank you, Governor. First off, Governor, so much thanks to your administration and to you for the outstanding job you have done in protecting Vermont. We have learned so much from these press conferences, and we appreciate everything you've invested in Vermont. Governor, my dad is a resident at a local nursing home here in Berry. In just the last two weeks, there have been two positive cases from staff members resulting in a facility-wide quarantine. Skilled nursing staff were some of the first that were offered the vaccine when it first became available and granted many, if not most, became vaccinated. Still, there are some who are not. And you were speaking earlier about this 18 to 29 age group demographic, which is right there. I recognize that this vaccine is not exactly 100% effective. And I recognize that we have the right to refuse this vaccine. Personal choice is a fantastic privilege that we have. I also recognize that Vermont is in that real estate and that you've granted much flexibility for skilled nursing facilities to exercise their discretion to operate in ways that they feel as safe as. My question for you, Governor, have you considered mandating all medical and skilled nursing staff to be vaccinated, especially skilled nursing facilities who are in very close contact with our immune compromised elderly here in Vermont are most vulnerable, even when the fact that so many of these residents have long been fully vaccinated. Again, this is not 100% effective. My concerns are obviously great and quite personal for me. If the vaccination is not and will not be made mandatory for skilled nursing staff, I'm wondering why and what your personal feelings are about this going forward. Yeah, JD, this is an area of concern for all of us. I mean, from the very beginning, we saw that the long term care facilities were that was their vulnerable population. That's where we've seen a lot of cases, a lot of death. And so that's why we wanted to get the vaccine in the arms of the staff as quick as possible. It is frustrating for me personally when I see we have a high compliance and many, many of the long term care facilities and they're doing the right thing. But there are some who aren't doing that well and and they're they're impacting others. And again, that vulnerable population. So having said all that, I do believe these are private institutions. I think the entities themselves at some point will have to contemplate whether they can make it make a mandatory. But at this point in time, under the emergency authorization, I don't believe they can make it mandatory. But I know Dr. Levine has gone in particular to the Veterans Home in Bennington, where they have a low percentage of the staff members vaccinated or not as high as we want. And he has reached out to try and find why or why is that? And again, trying to provide the education necessary for them to make the right decision. But I might ask Dr. Levine to comment on this. Thanks, Governor. And I just had some very recent experience that I can offer up here. We talked earlier in the press conference about individual responsibility, but also about peer to peer and connecting with people and allowing them to find the right reason for themselves. We've also talked about misinformation out there. All of those have played a role in my experience in the case of people who work at long term care who have chosen not to get vaccinated. But I raise them not to blame anyone because there were all barriers that in individual cases we could overcome. So there was some uptick in vaccine after a sort of a town hall session designed to let people voice their concerns. There was actually evidence that before we even interacted with those staff, a couple of them had interacted with each other and sort of called out the disinformation and corrected it and influenced behavior. So again, it becomes a very individualized thing, but it can be very, very effective. And I would make sure that the management and the administrative staff at those facilities avail themselves of opportunities to interact with people, often letting them interact anonymously so they don't feel that they're being put under a spotlight, but just allowing those conversations to occur because that's really critical. Having the conversation, being able to point out where information is true, where information is false, and having the opportunity to find out what would really influence that individual in terms of their personal choice and make vaccination the right choice for them. So don't give up on the facility that your loved one is at and work with their staff, their management staff to create opportunities for the staff who may be more reluctant or hesitant to get vaccine to move along in their thought process. Okay, so this, just ask again here, so this isn't anything that you would consider mandating? No, it's not something that we're mandating at this point in time. And as the governor pointed out, the vaccines are still in the process of gaining full approval. And I think everyone would be much more comfortable when they get full approval, both in terms of even thinking about these things like mandating, but probably as importantly to those who are going to receive them, that that is an additional step in the right direction to reinforcing the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. Which by the way, more and more reports are coming out with large scale populations showing that you don't just need to be involved in a clinical trial to show that vaccine works and is safe. We're now seeing it real time in all the populations that have been vaccinated. And there are now peer reviewed publications from CDC and others that verify that these are effective in real world use, not just in a study setting. Thank you so much. Hi, this is a question for Commissioner Harrington. The Labor Department said earlier this week that its legal team was revealing the closure of the Coffee Cup bakery to see if the company had complied with the war natural requirements. I'm just curious as to whether they've reached any conclusions yet. Appreciate the question. To my knowledge, no. So the way the process works and the reason we're connecting with them is that under the current statute, if an employer is making a good faith effort to try to salvage a company and we're divulging that information or the possibility of a closure might end up causing undue harm to the employee, the employer or its negotiations with a financing company, then they could be exempt from the provision. So what we are in the process of doing now is providing them formal notice that they did not comply with the timeline and to let them know that they are compelled to provide us additional information to see whether or not they would meet that exemption. But it really depends on what occurred in the days and weeks and months leading up to the notice and it will be up to them to show us that they had been making a good faith effort. Jassy, and then just a quick follow-up. I vaguely recall something about the state suspending some of the warrant requirements when the pandemic first hit. Can you just talk a little bit about how that factors in and maybe confirm that I'm right there, but is there anything that's been suspended that they might be able to point to and say we weren't required to do this? Not to my knowledge. I think administratively we had said, you know, especially with temporary layoffs where an employer was closed due to a government order, the Warrant Act wouldn't necessarily apply. Obviously that's not necessarily the case. In this case, the closure was not based on any type of government order or any specific condition by the government. So it really had to be COVID specific early on during the pandemic for us to consider waiving that. And in the recent, you know, other layoffs that have occurred on COVID related, we have also ensured that there's compliance with the warrant requirements. Thanks so much. Thank you. Scooter McMillan, Shelburne News. Sorry about the delay. The fire chief in Hinesburg has been embroiled in a controversy over a meme he shared on his personal social media account that many in town, including the fire chief himself, said was homophobic. And we discovered that this meme was not an isolated post, but part of a pattern of social media posts that many consider sexist, racist, or homophobic in a time when people all across the board are feeling insecure. We have heard from marginalized segments of the community who say they feel like they're hated and worry what the response would be if they, their family needed emergency services, that the response would be as diligent as it would be in light of these posts. What is your reaction to this issue that's affecting a Vermont community? Scooter, this is the first I've heard of that situation. Obviously don't condone that action. I would offer to anyone in public service to stay off social media, first of all. And I would ask that we treat everyone, especially in the position that you're in, to treat everyone with respect and dignity and to be fair and just in everything you promote and everything that you do and everything you practice. So would you, what sort of policy do you think would be justified? What is the line between First Amendment rights and social media use that makes some people feel marginalized or threatened by public officials and employees? Yeah, I don't know. First of all, I don't know. There should be like some sort of a code of ethics of some sort, I would think. But but I think that that's for the local municipality to adopt. Andrew McGregor, the Cal Downing Record. Andrew McGregor, the Cal Downing Record. Dear Governor and your team for hanging in there, circling back down employment, and this is probably for Commissioner Harrington, our newspaper here has had two full-time employees receive notification that the employment claim was made in a name, both instances of fraud, including one about a week ago in which the employee visited the website to report it was false. The newspaper disputed the claim. You had a full benefit check was issued and in fact received before even the dispute that time. First off out of curiosity, how does scammers profit if these checks get sent to an employee's physical address? And more importantly, how prevalent are these false claims? How often are the steps to fair it out? The false claims not working as in our instance, and how many employers have false negative ratings? So a lot of questions there and a lot of different information. What I would, let me try to take those one by one, but essentially what likely happened is between the time the claim, the fraud report was submitted, it probably had already gone through some form of processing step and a payment had been issued. And when our team received the fraudulent report and went to put a stop on it, it may have just one occurred faster than the other. The way our system is designed currently, I shouldn't say currently, the way our system was modified during COVID was around expediting claims to ensure that people weren't waiting longer than need be for benefits to pay out. And so we were individuals were able to come in the door, we would process their initial claim overnight. And the next day, they could potentially file for benefits with payment going out the following day. That's not always the case, but that is probably the fastest opportunity for that to happen. We have since put in multiple cross match and cross checks that are slowing that that processing of payment just so we can conduct some additional checks, checks on the information. So we're not paying out fraudulent claims. I would use this opportunity to highlight we never can fight in claims being filed just even earlier this week and over the past week that we found a high percentage to be fraud. And so the number of fraud reports that have been submitted has gone up over the recent weeks. If individuals do receive notice at their house, if they saying they filed a claim and they didn't, they should report that to the department immediately. I will use this opportunity just because it is part of the conversation to say the biggest avenue for fraud coming into the system was our online initial claims application. And so we have temporarily removed that from the web and individuals needing to open an initial claim need to call our call center first to validate their identity. Individuals making their weekly claims can still do that online, but new individuals need to file by calling our call center. To your question about how fraud gets to individuals, mostly what we see are individuals fraudsters using direct deposit and they may go in and file using a correct address. And then they may go in and change that information when they file to redirect it to a direct deposit. So in or they may use a different address to send the benefit check. So in this case, I mean, it may have just been that the fraudulent filer hadn't made the changes to the account yet and the first check process before they were expecting it to. And that's how it got to the individual at home. But we know fraudsters are using, you know, individuals names, social security numbers, home addresses, phone numbers, license numbers, any data points that they think we're going to cross check against, they will use that in the system so that it looks like the actual individual filing the claim. And so that makes it even increasingly harder for us to identify those that are fraud. But when individuals do file a fraud report, we do put a cancellation on the claim. And we do ensure that the individual, the Vermonter in this case who's impacted by the stolen identity is not held liable for benefit payments that may have gone out the door. So again, individuals should report the fraud immediately. That ensures we can close out the account. We don't issue any fraudulent payments and that they aren't held liable for those payments later on. Later on. All right. Thank you all very much for tuning in today. We'll see you on Tuesday. If you haven't signed up for a vaccination, please do so this weekend. Take the time. It's for the public good. And it'll do a lot to get us to where we want to get back to normal. So thanks again.