 Good morning, everyone. We have a few things to cover today. First, we'll have our weekly education update from Secretary French, a quick modeling update from Commissioner Pichek, as was our usual topics from Dr. Levine and Secretary Smith. As you know, this week we open up vaccinations to all those over the age of 50, as well as members of the BIPOC community and their households 16 and over. We now have almost 40 percent of all adult Vermonters having received at least one dose, and over 85 percent of those 65 and older, who are at the highest risk of hospitalization and death. In this category, we continue to rank first in the nation, which will help prevent hospitalizations and deaths as Northeast sees an uptick, which Commissioner Pichek will speak about in a few moments. The progress we've made to protect the most vulnerable has been due to our age-bending strategy, and our focus on others at risk, like those with certain underlying conditions. It's also helped make Vermont among the top 10 states for vaccine administration overall. And as a reminder, based on current supply, we're only 17 days away from those 16 and over to be eligible. That's less than three weeks, just a little over two weeks. I know some are concerned that other states have already opened up more broadly, but as a reminder, states receive the same percentage of vaccines based on population. And just because the state opens up to a larger group, it doesn't mean they're going to vaccinate any more people. The supply is the same. It's just simple math. They also be opening up because supply has outpaced demand due to resistance to the vaccine. But that's not the case in Vermont. And we're seeing very high uptake and very high interest. With our approach, we can be nimble and adjust the number of appointments based on supply so that we can fill slots efficiently after an age band opens. That's why, unlike other states, we haven't had widespread cancellation of appointments, or seeing people have to schedule their appointments months away, or had some of the most vulnerable still waiting to be vaccinated. But regardless of our success, we still have some work to do over the next four weeks when everyone is eligible. Because even though we protected those at greatest risk of hospitalization and death, increased cases can still cause disruption in the classroom, at the office, or on the job site. So it's critical we pay attention and follow the health guidance we have in place. I also had hoped to roll out our reopening of the blueprint today, but we've decided to wait until next week. In the meantime, let's all do our part by wearing masks, keeping our distance, avoiding crowds, and washing our hands. Next, I'll turn it over to Secretary French for our education update. But first, I wanted to let you know that we're updating the recreational sports guidance today to go along with school spring sports guidance that was published last week. This is just a framework for sports leagues, so they're ready when they're allowed to do so. Secretary Moore is on the line, can answer any questions you may have about that. But at this point, I'll turn it over to Secretary French. I'll begin my report with an update on the weekly surveillance testing for school staff. This week we tested 1472 school staff statewide. To date, one case of COVID-19 has been identified by the testing. This translates into a positivity rate of 0.08%. The statewide positivity rate is 2.1%. We are in the process of reviewing next steps with a surveillance testing program, but no final decision has been made at this point. The School of Vaccination program has gone very well. To date, about 80% of all school staff have been vaccinated. I want to thank the health department, our other state partner agencies, and school districts for making this happen so quickly. Secretary Smith will provide more information on the vaccination program and his update. We made progress this week on drafting an update for what will be a major and perhaps a final revision of our safe and healthy school's guidance. This guidance was originally created last summer to help our schools reopen in September. The last time we updated the guidance was in October in anticipation of the holiday period. We are now revising the guidance the third time with a focus on helping our schools operate in the remaining months of the school year when we expect conditions for the virus to improve as widespread vaccination starts to make an impact. We are also factoring in the cumulative negative effects of the pandemic on our students and seeking to strike the balance between the risks of COVID-19 as compared to the risks of their healthy development and academic success. A major feature of the guidance is that it is now a much smaller document. Previously, it was over 40 pages. The new version is about 20 pages. We are able to reduce its size by condensing some sections and by linking out to external resources. For example, the disinfection section is much smaller. When the guidance was first written in the summer, a lot of attention was put on articulating detailed disinfection procedures. This section has now been condensed and links out to external resources such as those provided by the CDC. In terms of CDC recommendations, we are shifting our distancing standard to the new CDC standard of three feet. We are making this change after the health team has evaluated the recent CDC recommendation and the research behind it. That research basically concludes there is no significant difference between three feet and six feet as a mitigation strategy in schools. We also know that Europe and other New England states have been operating safely with a three-foot standard for some time. Previously, we had adopted the three-foot standard for students in grades K through six, but six feet has been our standard for students in the upper grades. Now all students K through 12 will be under the same distancing standard of three feet. The distancing standard does function as a minimum standard in guidance. Districts may operate under a more stringent distancing standard until they enact the new standard. This will provide some flexibility to schools as they plan to implement more in-person instruction. We have heard consistently from schools that the current six-foot distancing requirement has been a barrier to their goal of implementing more in-person instruction. By making this change in our guidance, I expect we will see more schools move to full in-person instruction in the coming weeks. We are now in the process of getting feedback on the draft guidance from our education stakeholder groups. I expect we will publish the revised guidance next week. We did publish a smaller guidance document this week on the use of school facilities for the summer. School buildings will be open for fairly normal use this summer, but there will be some requirements around safety and mitigation strategies. This week we also published our waiver for standardized testing. In Vermont, that testing is called SBAC. You can view our waiver proposal on the AOE website. As part of the waiver process, we are required to post the waiver proposal for public comment. We welcome comments on our proposal and there's a link to an email address on our website to do so. Our waiver proposal follows the approved waiver template outlined by the U.S. Department of Education. The federal government is requiring us to hold the test. Our waiver proposal requests a waiver of accountability provisions, which include a waiver from the 95 percent participation rate. This is the approach that most states are taking. A few states submitted more elaborate waiver requests before the U.S. Department of Education announced the actual waiver process. We are now seeing those other waiver requests being denied. Notably, South Carolina and Georgia had their waivers designed recently and denied recently and organs was returned for further clarification. I am confident our waiver requests will be approved since it conforms to the required waiver process. We will submit the waiver request at the end of April after the close of the required public comment period. That concludes my update. I'll now turn it over to Commissioner Pichac. Thank you very much, Secretary French, and good morning, everybody. We wanted to provide a brief update, as the governor said, on the COVID-19 situation in the Northeast and also provide some further details on our case demographics here in Vermont as well. Taking a look first at the national heat map, we can see that some parts of the country are experiencing more significant case growth that's leading to more active cases and a higher degree of risk. Again, we've mentioned Michigan, but Michigan in particular jumps out, but so too does Minnesota, Utah, parts of Missouri, and certainly parts of the Northeast as well. Many of these parts of the country also happen to be places where the B117 variant from the UK is being detected at greater frequency in a per capita distribution. This is certainly true for Michigan, Minnesota, Utah, and also parts of the Northeast as well. And when we look at the top 10 states by infection rate, we can see that the increased growth of the B11 variant does appear to be having a significant impact on case growth. Other than Michigan, the other states with the highest per capita rate include those located in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic, including Vermont. Looking more closely at New England and New York, we see that all of the states around Vermont are seeing their cases rise, and most concerning are Massachusetts and Connecticut, who are also seeing their hospitalizations rise as well. The remaining states have seen their hospitalization numbers remain relatively flat, and the death rates are still continuing to fall largely. We will want to keep a close eye on this data in particular in the weeks to come. Since in the past, a rise in cases would usually proceed a rise in hospitalizations and a rise in deaths, but with much progress being made with the vaccination programs across Vermont and the other Northeast states, we hope to see a change in that progression in the weeks ahead. Turning to Vermont's data, you can see that there's a continued rise in cases over the last few days. The Vermont 14-day case rate average is close to an all-time high, and the 7-day case rate average is in fact at an all-time high for the pandemic. And when we look back at the forecast that we presented this Tuesday that was developed on Monday, you can see that the case growth so far this week puts us much more clearly on the trajectory with the higher case growth rate than the one showing cases more stable through the next few weeks into April. Now, looking a little bit more closely at our case demographics, we've talked for a number of weeks about how our median age had been sloping downward, falling below 30 a few weeks ago and now standing at 27 years old. And that median age is going down mostly because we're seeing the most vulnerable be protected while at the same time we're seeing increased growth rates in our younger populations. And this chart here shows you exactly by age band where that growth is occurring, in particular focusing on the month of March when cases started to rise again, a more significant rate. You'll see that as we talked about in the past, those that are the most vulnerable and the most vaccinated, those over 70, they've actually seen their cases decrease about 54% through the month of March. The 60-year-olds who have a fair amount of vaccination at this point, their rates have stayed pretty much steady, rising about 2%. But then you'll see the groups that are largely at this point unvaccinated, or at least not close to having a majority of the population vaccinated. Those in their below 60 down to 30 are seeing their cases rise anywhere between 35% into the 50%. But most concerning are the youngest remonters. Those 20 to 29 years old, their case rates have increased 50% through the month of March. And those also in the 10 to 19-year-old group have seen their case rates increase just over 100%. So we're seeing it here in our case rates clearly that the most vulnerable, also the most vaccinated are continuing to see their rates hold steady or decrease for those in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Those in the middle ages are seeing their case rates increase certainly, but most significantly are the increases that we're seeing in the youngest remonters, those in their 20s and in their teens. The next slide will show us that age demographic with a little bit more granularity. This is looking at four different age groups between 0 and 29 years old. And you'll see that the age group that stands out most clearly are those 18 to 24 years old where much of the case growth has happened, and certainly much of the cases have occurred over the last month or so. Followed that is the 10 to 17-year-old group. And then last is the 25 to 29 and the 0 to 9-year-old remonters. So it's not so much the youngest remonters, and it's not so much those in their late 20s, but particularly those in their teenage years and 18-year-old to 24-year-olds. So as the governor mentioned, certainly as Dr. Levine will mention, we really need these age groups to do everything that they can to protect themselves, protect their families, get tested frequently, and follow the public health guidance to the greatest degree that they can. Looking at the next slide, just showing the impact of these case rates on our hospitalization numbers, you'll see that the rate of hospitalization among our most vulnerable, those over 70, has decreased over the months of January, February, and March. While those hospitalization rates for those under 70 years old have remained relatively stable at 57 in January, dipping down to 42 in February, and then increasing again to 51 in March. So we're not yet, of course, seeing the impact of lower hospitalization on that younger group because they have not yet been fully vaccinated and had the opportunity to get fully vaccinated, but will in the weeks ahead, certainly. You'll also see that the average age of hospitalization has dipped down each month as well as fewer vulnerable individuals, older individuals, end up in the hospital month over month. The final graph that we wanted to show you is really an analysis of the relative risk that COVID-19 presents with Vermont data through the end of March. So we talk a lot about the most vulnerable, those that are over 70, and you'll see from the case graph that they are at a severely greater risk of hospitalization and death compared to the reference group, which are 39-year-olds in this example. But you'll also see that those in their 60s are at a much higher rate of hospitalization and a much higher risk of death than those in their 30s. You'll also see that 50-year-olds, that story is the same. Those that are in their 50s have a much greater risk of hospitalization and death. The same is true for those in their 40s, although those rates certainly do improve. And then on the flip side, those that are under 30 years old, you can see that they actually have a greater risk at this point, based on the data of getting infected with COVID-19. Their rates are higher than the reference group that we're looking at. But at the same time, their risk of hospitalization is lower than 30-year-olds, certainly lower than 40, 50, and 60-year-olds as well. And you'll also see that, fortunately, we haven't had any deaths to date in these lower age categories as well. So I think this graph helped show why it's important to stick to our vaccination program and why we did it in the first place is to not only protect those that were most significantly vulnerable, those over 70, but each age band progressively has less risk, but they still have more risk than those that are younger than them. And we're seeing that in the data as it plays out. So at this time, I'd like to turn the presentation over to Secretary Smith. Thank you, Commissioner Pichek, and good morning, everyone. Today, I will provide an update of our progress with the vaccination program, as well as an update on our efforts in Essex County, and the reopening of our senior center and adult day centers. As you know, we opened registration for Vermonters age 50 and older on Monday. As of this morning, more than 27,800 Vermonters in that age group have made an appointment, including those that have already been vaccinated through our eligibility criteria. That is over 60 percent of this age group. Yesterday, we opened registration to our BIPOC Vermonters. Throughout the day yesterday, more than 3,000 BIPOC Vermonters and household members have made appointments. This is a 7 percent improvement, and we are happy to see these numbers. In terms of our overall progress, as of this morning, 213,700 people have been vaccinated against COVID-19. 86,900 have received their first dose of the vaccine, and 126,800 have received their first and last dose. And as Secretary French said, 80 percent of teachers and school staff have made appointments or received a vaccine. 3,476 homebound individuals have been vaccinated, and we've added capacity and staffing to reduce the length of time homebound Vermonters have to wait for an appointment. Those that are homebound and qualifying for vaccination can call 833-722-0860. That's 833-722-0860, Monday through Friday, from 830 to 434, an appointment. Now, to all our community members in Essex County, we are making significant efforts to improve vaccination rates, and we need participation from everyone in that county. With the assistance of Caliq and Newport EMS, we are deploying mobile clinics to nine locations in Essex County on April 10th and 11th. Please spread the word and make an appointment to be vaccinated. By tomorrow, you can make an appointment online at healthvermont.gov-slash-my-vaccine. If you are unable to sign up online, you can call 855-722-7878. They will be able to accommodate only a limited number of walk-ins, so please schedule an appointment. Finally, we are discussing the possibility of working with a healthcare partner just over the border in New Hampshire to administer vaccine to Vermont residents in that county. I will update you again when more information is available. Let's move on to senior centers and adult day centers. Social isolation has been a real problem during the pandemic for many Vermonters, especially for older adults putting them at higher risk for poor health and outcomes. Opportunities for social connections such as healthy meals, exercise, and group activities are key to older Vermonters' long-term physical, mental, and emotional health and well-being. Adult day centers and senior centers are vital providers in our aging services network, helping to keep over 15,000 Vermonters healthy and at home while aging. They've been closed for group activities since November of 2020, only allowed to serve people one at a time. With most older Vermonters now vaccinated, we are now ready to allow these centers to reopen for group activities such as exercise, the arts, and social groups. The Department of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living, and the Department of Health have collaborated to revise reopening guidelines and guidance which considers changes that may be made as more Vermonters are vaccinated for COVID-19. Key health and safety measures such as wearing a mask, maintaining physical distance, will continue to be important at all centers. As a result, many will open with reduced visitation. Dale and VDH have worked closely with adult day providers and senior centers to review the revised reopening guidance to answer questions and provide technical assistance. We recognize that not all centers will open at the same time, and each center must determine their reopening date based on their site's readiness. Some have been closed for almost a year and may need more time to prepare, including hiring and training staff, a listing of adult day centers and senior centers. The reopening guidance and their estimated reopening timeframes are available at the Dale website at dale.vermont.gov. As you are probably aware, and as we have pointed out at this press conference, COVID cases have recently been reported at the Vermont Veterans Home in Beddington. Some family members of residents at the Veterans Home are concerned that not all staff wish to be vaccinated at this long-term care facility. Love ones are not only concerned about the increased risk to residents in this facility, but also that when there is a positive case, visitation or quarantine restrictions may be imposed on the facility depending on the circumstances of the positive case or cases. Currently, 95 percent of the residents have been vaccinated, but only 40 percent of the patient-facing direct care staff have been vaccinated. Recently, Dr. Levine held a virtual town hall with staff at the facility in order in an effort to improve vaccination acceptance, particularly among LNAs, LPNs, and RNs. We plan on scheduling another meeting in the near future to ensure we are able to speak with all shifts in an attempt to increase the percentage of vaccination with the patient-facing direct care staff. As a reminder, those age 40 and older will be eligible for vaccination appointments starting on Monday at 8.15 a.m. You can make an appointment at one of our health partner clinics through the state website at healthfermont.gov slash my vaccine. If you are unable to sign up online, you can call 855-722-7878. We can also make an appointment directly with, you can also make an appointment directly with Kenny Drugs, CVS Pharmacy, and Walgreens. All of these options are available at healthfermont.gov slash my vaccine. Again, I've said this repeatedly, but I just want to make sure that everybody hears this. Please cancel your appointment in the state system if you get a vaccine at a federal pharmacy program like CVS and Walgreens or Kenny Drugs. Thank you. And now I'll turn it over to Dr. Levine for a health update. Thank you, Secretary Smith. Well, anyone who's been listening to me over the past year should know by now that I generally tell it like I see it, but that I also have an optimistic outlook when I can in this pandemic. And today is no different, but I do need to make clear that my optimism is for the future. The future is very near, but when it comes to the present, frankly, I am very concerned. Vermont is still seeing high numbers of daily cases, often reaching into the 200s lately. Now, higher numbers of people in the hospital, whereas within the last week, we were back in the mid-20s. Today, we are at 35, only two in the ICU, fortunately. Our positivity rate of 2.2% is still quite low relative to other places, but it too is higher than we have been used to. We are seeing more community transmission, and those cases continue to appear in workplaces, schools, across all sectors of society, with all kinds of challenging ripple effects within those communities, and often with subsequent spread in households among loved ones. The bottom line is Vermont is no longer the one green state in a map of red COVID cases across the U.S. We are just like all the other states in our region, a region that is currently doing even worse than some other parts of the country, with more disease circulating right now. Now, a big part of why the virus is spreading more easily is certainly due to the variants, which have been detected in residents of five Vermont counties now. B117 in Chittenden, Franklin, Rutland, Caledonia, and Wyndham, and B1429 in Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle. This information, by the way, is now available in a table on our COVID-19 website. An important point, though, sequencing is done only on select samples, so even if your county is not among those I just named, you should still assume that these more highly contagious variants are probably circulating in your areas as well. Our older populations, who we know are at high risk of serious illness, now are largely protected by vaccine, which is great. This has been our goal. But many people aren't yet vaccinated, and they are still susceptible to the virus's spread. The good news is that vaccinated people have strong immunity to the variants we are seeing, and they may have a good response to variants we have not seen in the state and variants that we hope not to see like those originally identified from South Africa and Brazil, though that is still under active investigation. But keep in mind, it's not just the variant strains that are responsible for what we are seeing. It is also our behaviors, and the risks we either choose or not choose to assume at a time when these more transmissible variants are becoming the dominant strains. It's the choices we make every day and how we live our lives that will have some of the greatest impact on the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths we will see over the coming weeks. I know you're tired of the pandemic, we're all tired, and seeing these numbers go up can be demoralizing for us all. But here's my message, it is not too late, we can still stop this rise in cases if we act now. We really only have about three more weeks before that future that I'm so optimistic for becomes the present. At that time, we project enough for monitors will have been vaccinated so that we can live our lives with much lower risk of the virus easily finding its way from person to person. We're learning from the experience of countries like Israel and the United Kingdom, which found that reaching the 50 percent mark in portion of the population fully vaccinated can be a major milestone, not the final milestone, but a clear turning point. This is a slide you may recall that's now been updated that shows how well we're doing with full vaccination in the oldest age bands that have had the most time to get fully vaccinated from 65 on to 75 plus. We're approaching 90 percent in many of those populations. In more recently opened bands, obviously we have a little ways to go, but just imagine where we will be in three weeks with these numbers of people ages 50 on up getting to that fully vaccinated point in time. Really critical to understand and even more impressive to really see in context of the fact that the cases as you've heard from Commissioner Petschak in those older age bands have really dropped precipitously as have the other adverse outcomes like hospitalizations and deaths. Now you can help us get to that place. You could even be starting this weekend, especially if you happen to be celebrating Easter and the other holidays that are being observed. I know you're eager to be with family or friends, but please know that with this much virus around any gathering is riskier. Staying with your own household is still going to be safest. But if you do gather with people that you don't live with, try to keep it outside as much as possible, wear masks, even double mask if you want to, and keep the six foot distance. For example, consider an outdoor Easter egg hunt instead of all eating in a closed space together. I know this is difficult, but again, we've been added for over a year. We just need to hang tough for a few more weeks. Travel is still not advised by the CDC, though the director is now coming out talking about vaccinated people being able to more freely travel, which seems like a very rational conclusion. If you do travel and are not vaccinated, including your children, make sure to quarantine afterward and certainly get tested, whether it's after travel, a possible exposure, a large gathering, or if you have symptoms of COVID. There are plenty of tests and testing locations near you getting a same day test as a piece of cake and the result will be turned around fast. All the information you need is on the website. Just like you're sick of the pandemic, you're probably sick of hearing all of the guidance we give as well. Same here, I wish I didn't have to say it anymore, but we do really need to hear it. No one wants to go backwards. Despite all our hard work and sacrifices and painful losses, we don't want to get back to the starting line again. Now, by far, most of our monitors are doing just what they need to, and I thank you all for that. A lot of people are asking me, what else can we do? Or even, why aren't we doing even more restricting? Well, in an era where we have more testing and contact tracing and containment, we don't need full lockdowns. We can be far more strategic. Isolated cases or even an occasional outbreak in the schools does not mean closing schools is the answer. Isolated cases in a workplace or business does not mean closing all stores and restaurants, but we are aware of the inherent danger at this stage in our vaccination efforts of larger gatherings and travel. Do make the conscious effort to avoid crowded indoor spaces. So, fellow Vermonters, please listen up. Let's stop and think hard about the actions we take right now. Gathering together and travel outside the guidance we provided may be hazardous right now. Look at that hospitalization data that you saw in the age distribution of cases. Though individual risk to a person under 50 does seem small compared with that for an older Vermonter, before they could have been vaccinated, the more cases in an age range there are, the more likelihood somebody will have an adverse consequence. Hopefully not you. We are already seeing that start to happen. I would hate to see it progress further. Don't let the virus get the best of us. I also want to mention something I haven't mentioned in a while, a reminder about how this virus spreads so easily through the air that we all breathe. I'm making this point because especially when cases are up and the virus spreads in our communities, schools, teams, businesses, we need to work to stop any blaming, shaming, violating a person's privacy and other negative behaviors toward people who test positive for COVID-19. With so much virus around, it really is harder to avoid it. Stigma hurts everyone by creating more fear or anger instead of focusing on the disease that is causing the problem. It can also make people more likely hide symptoms or illness and keep them from seeking healthcare immediately, which can lead to more opportunities for the virus to spread, a truly vicious cycle. And as more Vermonters may be needing to isolate in quarantine, it's critical we really support one another so we can keep each other safe. Blame the virus, not the victims. Finally, to end on another note with vaccine, some of you may have heard about the manufacturing error in one of Johnson and Johnson's plants. It was discovered it may have affected millions of doses. This was unfortunate news, but I want to reassure Vermonters who have gotten or may be scheduled to get the J&J vaccine that this problem did not affect any doses already shipped or administered. This was picked up as it should in a quality control process that worked. The vaccine remained safe and effective and I'm heartened by the fact that the quality control tests did what they're designed to do and discovered this early. What this means is we can continue to be able to ensure all Vermonters are vaccinated as soon as they are eligible. And that day will come so soon as the Governor has emphasized. So when it is your turn, in addition to strictly following our prevention guidance, go to healthvermont.gov slash my vaccine and make your appointment to get vaccinated. Together we can bring this pandemic to an end all the sooner. Governor? Thank you, Dr. Levine. We'll now open it up to questions. Thank you, Governor. So I guess given the rise in cases among young people and the manufacturing error that Commissioner Levine mentioned with Johnson and Johnson, and you mentioned that we are supposed to announce the blueprint for reopening today, is this giving you pause or making you rethink the pace of our reopening? Well, again, as I said over the last month, we are going to roll out this detail plan, first week of April, and I said I think Tuesday that I wasn't sure whether it was going to be today or Tuesday. I just think I just want to see what's going on, making sure that we're not missing something, but I don't believe we are. We expect it to see more cases, but I just want to make sure that they are at our expected levels and not escalating beyond what we expected. So so far we're not and we're watching the data, you know, the hospitalizations, the deaths, everything looks as though it's staying fairly stable. We did see as Dr. Levine and said a little bit of an uptake from even Wednesday to today of about five more in the hospital. So I just wanted to give a couple more days to make sure that we're solid on on the data and then we'll move forward. This plan will be a blueprint for the next three months and it's going to rely on different benchmarks, milestones and so forth. So I still feel it's a viable plan and will take us to the fourth of July when I truly believe we'll be back to a much more normal summer that we've experienced in the past. Even though we're seeing cases among younger Vermonters now, you know, is anything rethink potentially, you know, getting or moving away from the age banding approach? I know there's been some calls for, you know, states open up vaccinations for younger Vermonters. So should we switch again? Just let's put this all into context here. Our strategy from the beginning has been hospitalizations and deaths. We're not seeing an increased number concerning increased number of hospitalizations and deaths in those younger age groups. In three weeks, three weeks, everyone's going to be able to sign up 16 and over. So we're going to get there. If we decide to change our approach today, we wouldn't get there any sooner. So for those other states, as I said, when you look at New Hampshire, for instance, has decided to open up 16 and over, I believe that's because their demand has diminished. Their supply is say the same, you know, just like us, but their demand has diminished. So they wanted to open up to make sure that they were getting shots and arms as quickly as possible. We don't, we're not experiencing that in Vermont. Demand is still high. And if we get to people, if we get through the age band in a quicker fashion, you know, if their if demand does diminish here in Vermont, we'll just move up and get people vaccinated all that much quicker. So the approach we've taken has served us well. And we'll see it through. And I believe that in the end, we'll be shown as one that got to those the quickest and we'll still be able to be able to tell a good story about the number of deaths and hospitalizations in Vermont. One last question. I'm sorry, Governor, but the, as you may have seen this morning, House Speaker Jill Krowinski announced that they're going to be temporarily shelving the pension plan for state employees and teachers. Instead, you know, just just this session moving along with the governance proposals. But she said that, you know, this summer, they need you at the table. They need your opinion and what you'll be willing to accept. I guess how do you, with that plan off the table now, how do you envision, you know, these discussions going this summer? Yeah, well, first of all, I didn't realize she was having a press conference this morning. So I was just updated briefed before I came down. So I don't have all the specifics. But from my perspective, I'm disappointed, obviously. This is a huge problem for our state. It's going to affect everyone in years to come. It's a 5.7 billion dollar unfunded liability that has to be dealt with. Because if we don't, it's going to be, we're going to be facing insolvency. And that's something that we can't let happen. In terms of being at the table, I've been at the table for the last four years. I've talked about this publicly. I've talked about it with the leadership in the house in the Senate. I'm a willing partner. I'll be at the table. I don't want to be the main course, but I'll be at the table. This is their moment to shine. This is their responsibility as a majority party to get something done. Something I advocate for is probably not going to be accepted first out of hand. So it's going to take them to lead. But I'm willing, and I've given them great credit for bringing this up, Treasurer Pierce, the legislative leadership. And that's what it's going to take. They have to lead on this. They are the majority party. They're in control of the legislature. But I am there to give them ideas, my perspective, and be able to solve this in the future. So while I'm disappointed, I'm encouraged to hear they are still willing to have the discussion because it has to be dealt with. And as someone who knows better than most what it's like to take up a controversial issue that is that when it upsets your own base and your own supporters, I appreciate what they've been going through. But this is the time to have some courage and stand up and do what you know is right for our state. Governor, given the situation with the response to vaccination here in Vermont, doesn't surprise you that the Democrats, the Democratic spokesman put out a press release yesterday that said it was highly critical of you and the administration's take on how to distribute the vaccine? I didn't see the statement. I guess it doesn't surprise me that the Democratic party sent out something that was critical of me. I think I'm quite accustomed to that at this point. But I don't do things in a vacuum. We have a great team of advisors, health experts, and everyone working together to do what we think is right for Vermont. And when we're wrong, if we think we should be taking a different approach, we do so. It's not based on ego. So I'm quite confident that what we're doing is the right approach based on the hospitalizations and deaths and the data and the science. And again, just to remind everyone, three more weeks, less than three weeks, will be opening up to all Vermont or 16 and over. So this is just one more month. Just hold on and do things right, follow the guidance, and make sure that we're protecting others. And we'll get through this, and we'll have, again, a good story to tell after this is over, I believe. But we're on this course. I think it's the most efficient and effective way of vaccinating the population of Vermont, and we'll continue in this regard. Are you worried at all that with that message getting out, and if does it truly reflect what you're seeing from members of the opposing party, and are you worried that perhaps it sends the wrong message as you're trying to get this thing done? Well, I still think that the vast majority of Vermonters at this point in time still have an interest in getting vaccinated. I think that's what we're seeing. That's what we're hearing. And even what the opposition party is saying. So that's good news. I mean, we want there to be demand, and we just need the supply to go along with it. So we're dealing with, you know, a finite amount of vaccine coming into the state, and we're distributing it in a way that we think is the most efficient and the most effective. And we'll continue to do so, regardless of politics. We just want to do what's right. Dr. Levine, Dr. Kelso, entire team that we've had working on this feels this is the right approach, and this has nothing, nothing to do with party or partisanship. Are you worried that politics are being used? I'm not surprised that politics are being used, but no. I think we'll see, hopefully, the demand. I am concerned about the youth, the younger, the age group. I think that we're seeing that throughout the country. And that's why other states have had to open up to a broader group, because they're not seeing the demand, the uptake, especially amongst the younger population. So I want to encourage everyone, when it's your turn, sign up, because this is, again, a way to protect yourself, protect your family, and gives you more mobility. So we'll get back to normal that much quicker. Governor, if I can follow up on Calvin's question, in which you expressed disappointment in the Democratic leadership decision to delay another year anyway, would you still support or would you support a significant one-time pay-down or pay-in for the pension fund this year? Not without structural changes, Stuart. No. Okay. The House yesterday approved a charter change requested by the voters of Winnowski to allow those not-yet-U.S. citizens to vote in local Winnowski elections. Do you have a problem with that? Again, was this the committee that approved it? No, this is the House. The House. I hadn't been following that, to be honest with you. Yeah, I have some concerns with it, but we'll see how it goes through the legislative process. Finally, a viewer asked, she's got some adult kids, and she asked whether you would consider drive-through vaccine clinics. She said her young adult children are hesitant to go into indoor back sites because of the uptick, and they don't want to wait inside somewhere for 45 minutes. What do you think about drive-through vaccine clinics? Contemplating that, at this point in time, we haven't needed them because we're keeping up, so to speak, but we'll be looking at different approaches because we want there to be more demand. We want to make it as easy as possible, so that could be part of our strategy in the weeks to come, but right now we're going to continue with the vaccination sites that we have, but it could happen. Thanks a lot. Hi, everybody. Follow up to this jump in cases. You say how there's not much that could be done in the next three weeks before everyone is eligible, but it seems like a lot of transmission could take place in the next three weeks. Is there anything that can be done, and are you considering anything for those younger age groups? I don't know what it could be, but the ones where the spread seems to be happening the most? Well, again, following the health guidance would be very helpful. I'm not saying that that's causing this, but it is suspicious in some respects that we just need to continue to do what we've been doing well over the last 12 to 14 months when we didn't have, you know, there was a period of time when we didn't have any vaccine available and we were able to mitigate and contain. So we need to just do what we've done in the past. I know that there's a lot of COVID fatigue. I know each and every one of us feels it in some way and want this to be over, but I think about this in terms of racing. You know, I've been involved in racing my entire life thus far, been in some long races, and when there's a tend to go, and if I'm doing fairly well or leading the race and there's a caution, I don't take those caution laps and take off my helmet and release my five-point harness. I buckle up. I actually get back into control. I pay attention focus on the last 10 laps, and that's where I feel like we are right now. I mean, as tired as you are and as tired as you are of going through this and all the restrictions and everything that comes along with it, now's not the time to let up. Now's the time to really, you know, buckle in and make sure you pay attention, hit your marks and lead the race. So I feel the same way here. But doesn't it seem that people are taking off their five-point harnesses and taking a breath? And it's not, they're not keeping their, what I don't know, follow your metaphor. I don't know, but you know, is there more that can be done than just urging them to do it? May I ask Dr. Levine, you know, I just am trying to encourage people to do the right thing and to remember what we've done so well over the last 14 months. So Dr. Levine? Certainly, the age range we're talking about is regarded by most as much more socially active, if you will. So one can be socially active in some ways that are not going to be conducive to spreading the virus and in other ways that could be conducive in increasing the transmission of the virus. And so it all really again comes down to gatherings and avoiding the sizable gatherings and avoiding those gatherings in the indoor locations. So that is sort of one thing to focus on. And even within our executive order gathering guidelines, those are pretty well laid out in safe ways as opposed to getting carried away with the concept of a gathering. The other part is, and I don't say this to be an alarmist, but so many people for so long of emphasizing the benign nature of having COVID. And if your friends only got a headache and somebody else tested positive but had no symptoms, it's easy to sort of look at that and go whatever. If I get it, I get it. It's not a problem. But the reality is, you know, we know from a health standpoint, it can be a significant problem. And it doesn't mean it will affect a large percentage of people in that age group in a bad way. But there are going to be some that are not going to do as well. They're going to possibly be hospitalized because we've seen that they're going to possibly get a sequela that could be the long haul type syndrome. Or they might just get ill during the time they have it worse than the worst flu that they've ever had. So we shouldn't just assume that it's a benign condition for everyone. And I think that needs to be emphasized more broadly. Others are saying, and the governors I think covered this pretty well today, that we'll just start vaccinating them now and that will take care of everything. But the reality is, you know, that kind of immediate vaccination is not a strategy to suddenly stem what's going on. It doesn't work that way. And the vaccine won't be effective quickly enough to make it work that way. It's really hanging in there with the behaviors and just becoming again conscious you're in those last few laps and we need to do as much as we can. Hi, thanks. I'm going to continue, excuse me, what Wilson was asking and ask Dr. Levine, have you seen evidence that the young are behaving any differently now that they are letting up their guard? That they're behaving any differently that they're what? Letting up their guard and being less cautious about gathering and following the guidelines. I mean, I'm just wondering if you've seen, you've laid out what people should be doing to prevent the spread. And we talked about how it's really happening with the 18 to 24 year old. Is there any evidence that they really are acting differently? I would hate to use they as the entire population of that age group. So yes, in some instances absolutely. But I don't want to stereotype them in that way because there are plenty that are acting responsibly. You know, certainly if you're going to just talk 18, I would spread it to 18 to 30 because that covers a lot of population. And some of those are college students. Some of those are young adults who are out of college or never went to college but are in the workforce either way. And it's a socially more active time of life for all of them. So it's not like they're all misbehaving and I don't want to let that impression go too far. But clearly we do have evidence that not everyone is perfect just like throughout the pandemic. That's been true. So, you know, if we look at the college population specifically, you know, the colleges have been doing a really great job with not only providing the appropriate guidance and limitations, trying to provide alternates in terms of activities for students, opportunities for them to be more socially active but outdoors in more controlled circumstances. And they've been very strict with sanctions processes. Most of us don't live on a college campus. And even if we're in the 18 to 30 demographic, we don't live in a college campus. So we're not subject to all of that structure and those regulations, if you will. So it's really everyone has to pitch in no matter where you are located in that age range knowing that because this is a so much more transmissible strain of virus and because you are going to be in circumstances more often socially than perhaps other age groups that just need to be extra careful. And use the data to guide yourself. The data in your own age demographic tells you a lot and should actually encourage you to be more careful knowing what the caseloads are by age by age. Thank you. I don't really see a clear reason why Vermont's positivity rate is so high. Given that, you know, so many people are vaccinated now. It's just kind of surprising that Vermont's positivity rate is so high right now. And I'm wondering if you guys can see any clear reasons. I guess I would start with the thesis that the positivity rate is so high. It's the highest it's been in a long, long time, which is 2.2 percent, which I haven't looked at all 50 states to see if we're still one of the top or one of the bottom three states with regard to positivity rate. But I suspect we are states that are even close to us in southern New England are getting their positivity rates up in the high single digits. And there are reports from Michigan the positivity rates are in the 30 plus percent range. So we're doing very well with our positivity rates still, but it's a metric we follow very closely and we don't like the fact it's going up, even though it hasn't gone up to an astronomical level at this point. Right. And I was wondering if you can think of any reasons why this is happening. Oh, yeah, absolutely. It's specifically tied in with the fact that there's more virus out there infecting more people. And we feel very comfortable knowing that because we're testing adequately so that that positivity rate probably reflects reality as much as it can. Because unlike in other parts of the country where they're reporting less uptake of testing, we're actually still having pretty exuberant testing with the surveillance populations like colleges and schools. And without those, we're having enough people step up to the plate, so to speak. So we feel that 2.2 percent does reflect reality. All right. Thanks. So my other question is also about vaccines. Are the Johnson and Johnson errors, are they going to affect Vermont at all over the next few weeks? I know we were affecting a lot of vaccines from Johnson and Johnson. It's not going to affect our doses at all. It was never factored into the numbers that the governor received on Tuesday regarding this next week's allotment. So that's all coming. Great. First question is for the governor. Earlier this year during the budget address, you had mentioned $1 million that would go towards an infrastructure project in Highgate. There's been a lot of discussion at the local level about that. Is that funding still on the table? As far as I'm concerned, it is. We had it in the budget, and I'm not sure what the house has done with that, to be honest with you. And we'll have to see. I mean, it's in the legislature at this point. I'm not sure who this next question would be best for, but is there any guidance in place for going, coming down the pipe about reopening of the state courthouses? Well, they're an independent branch, obviously. When we put out our guidance, our blueprint, they will have to react to that. So I think it will be up to them. So it's probably more of a judiciary question than anything else. Okay. So there isn't any, but there isn't any guidance in place from the health department perspective of sort of the safest way to do that? I am not aware of anything specific to the courts, but yeah, again, I don't know if anyone, Secretary Curley or others have any information on this or not. Go ahead, Suzanne. This is Secretary Young. Thank you. I do know that the judiciary has been working to reopen some courthouses for jury trials, and they did have some jury trials scheduled, I believe, in Wyndham County last week, but those apparently all settled. So they have been working with their own expert and closely with BGS that maintains those buildings to create a safe environment for jury trials. It's unclear to me whether they've actually held one yet, but they are working towards reopening some of their courthouses in order to do so. Great. Thank you so much. Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon. Questions for Secretary Smith about the mobile clinics he mentioned coming to Essex County. What vaccine variety is being administered and how many doses will be available, I guess, total over those two days? Yeah, Andrew, I don't know the vaccine. We'll get back to you on the vaccine distribution on that. It's about 300, I think, doses over those two days that would be at the mobile clinics. I think we're looking over a course of some time through the healthcare facility of about 1,000 doses at some point, and that would be in Colbrook is what we're looking at. Oh, this is the partner in New Hampshire that you referenced? That's right. Okay. And you also mentioned that there would be some limited capacity for walk-ins, although obviously you encourage people to sign up. What does that walk-in capacity look like? And is that at all of the mobile spots you'll be making or just at the end of the day? No, it'll be in all the mobile spots, but it's going to be very limited. I don't have a number for you. I would encourage people not to rely on that because there's only going to be a limited amount in terms of walk-ins, but we wanted to make sure that if we had one or a few walk-ins that we could accommodate that. And if this is successful, do you have any anticipation of future mobile clinics when the final age bracket opens up, or are you going to rely on that partnership over in New Hampshire? I think it's going to be two-fold. I really do. As you know, we've been concerned about Essex County in terms of its uptake rate, and we are looking at it all the time, so we'll continue to look at Essex County as it's compared to other counties. And if we need other interventions, we'll do it, and we'll see how these mobile units work in that county. And lastly, are you restricting these appointments to only Essex County residents in any way, or are you just counting on distance and proximity to do that all on its own? I think distance and proximity will be our key here. I understand. Thank you. Thanks, Rebecca. Governor, referencing state pension problems, I mean, it was well known by both the state and the labor unions themselves that the state pension plan has been continuously underfunded. Everybody was kicking the can down the road as far as paying the Piper. You see a similar parallel with all the money that Washington is passing out to every town and city and county and state and every school in the 50 states with no real serious plan to pay for all this free money. They're just kicking the can down the road again. I mean, is this good government kicking the can down the road all the time for children and grandchildren to pay the Piper? Well, again, nothing's free. Somebody has to pay at some point, and we know that there will be a bill or an invoice due. I think some of what we've seen, obviously, some of the packages that we've been able, the CARES package and ARPA will have a beneficial impact on Vermont to work our way out of this pandemic and get back to normalcy. But I think it is, I think that both sides of the aisle need to be at the table on the federal level and trying to determine how we're going to pay for whatever we need. I think the infrastructure package in particular is something that's important to our country. We've seen the dilapidated roads and bridges and so forth, water systems and the like that have gone beyond their life expectancy. So trying to focus money on that I think is prudent, but we also have to have the conversation on both sides of the aisle. It shouldn't be a partisan issue about how we pay for it. But obviously needs to be paid. I've heard a couple of different numbers. I'm wondering what you've heard as to what the annual cost would be of doing nothing this year and just again taking attention and down the road for another year. I don't have the number, but it's hundreds of millions of dollars that we will have to be paid and that just keeps increasing as time goes on. So that's the point we're at now. I mean obviously we've already budgeted the amount of money for fiscal year 22, but again this just keeps growing and it's going to get to a point where we're just plain not going to have the money to do so, to backfill this hole that we find ourselves in. Does somebody have the number of of doing nothing so that if people second them next year, you and I were talking, we'd know how much more was bagged on for this bill. Yeah, I'm sure we have the details. It's probably the secretary young can get with you on that or she can point someone in your direction and get that to you if that works. Yeah, yeah, I'm just wondering what the taxpayers would say that to fund. Great. Thank you very much. That'll be my question. Thank you. Pat, WCAS? Hi. The Johnson and Johnson shot is now being given out more broadly than just teachers and I know a few people were kind of taken by surprise when they got it because the messaging here at the briefing says that that vaccine was being set aside for teachers. If there are folks out there who for medical reasons want or don't want that shot, how can they make sure that they know? Because right now it seems like people when they're being signed up, they don't find out until after they've made the appointment, which shot they might have and even then it only said single dose, you know, so they it doesn't directly say on there. Yes, this is Johnson and Johnson, although you could do some math in your head on the fact that we only have one. But I know you said your goals for people to be able to choose the shot. So how close are we to making that happen? I think we're very close as we get a consistent supply of Johnson and Johnson. I think that we do make it known as to who is receiving it. But I'm going to ask Secretary Smith to comment on this. Cat, that's a very good question. We are going to put onto the registration site if we haven't already. And I'm just not sure yet, but we are going to put on the registration site, whether a vaccination site is one dose or two dose. Okay. And for those people say, I really don't want a specific shot. Are they going to have multiple options, do you think within their community to find a site that works for them? Yeah, I mean, there may be, you know, within their community is going to be like 30 minutes, but there may be, you may have to hunt a little bit. I mean, our federal pharmacy partners are getting Johnson and Johnson as well. We're getting Johnson and Johnson. It's limited, but we're getting Johnson and Johnson as we move forward. We've opened up Johnson and Johnson to community vaccination sites. I think last week, which is this, because we start on a Tuesday, I, which is this week, we had about 5000 that were for teachers, 1A's and community vaccination sites. So we have started opening up those Johnson and Johnson to more venues than just teachers. Great. Thanks. Last question here's a quick one for Dr. Levine. It looks like the numbers for cases for March 31st were revised up to 263, which I believe would be a new record for us. With this jumping cases, is it because young people might be more likely to be asymptomatic and does not know they have it? Do you think that accounts for any of this increased spread and rising cases? So setting records is not something we're really interested in right now. But when you see a jump like that in the count, it's an update because of the fact that there are so many tests being done right now that some of those tests aren't coming back as timely and they come back after hours, but they still count for the day that they came back on. So we accurately attribute them to the appropriate day. But nonetheless, it's still a larger number of tests. And yes, there are more people that will be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic in the younger age groups for sure. Though certainly people in their middle ages are not immune from being potentially asymptomatic as well. But we are going to see at a time of higher viral transmission, more asymptomatic individuals who are tested and may only have been a contact, but then find out they are positive. Thank you. Thank you, Rebecca. Good afternoon, Governor. Let's start with a quick follow up here. Have anyone, have any towns reached out to be trans for help with mud season and are you still under the emergency? It's a typical year. Well, I think it is, first of all, I think it is a typical year for mud season in Vermont when you look back historically. In some parts of Vermont, it might be more extreme than others, as is typical of a mud season in Vermont as well. Some areas aren't as impacted. I did check in with the Secretary of Transportation on Wednesday, I believe. And at that point, no one had reached out, but they had proactively reached out to Montgomery. I think that might be where you had heard from. And they've had some problems, but they said that they didn't need our assistance at this point, but appreciated the call. Thank you. And my other follow up here, I think it's going to be it for today. I did get all back from when I helped implement services about the question I brought up, pertaining to the kinds of inconsistent numbers on the vaccination rate, vaccination data. I'm told that the reason the state initially showed a vaccination rate of 102% for the 75 plus age group in Grand Isles was because the state is using estimated 2019 census data. Additionally, I'm told that the reason that the state is now only reporting 95% is to protect patient confidentiality for people who become vaccinated. And then I'm wondering why 95% is that threshold? Because if that's going to be used throughout the entire state, that means that for the 18 to 29 year old age group in Chittenden County, for instance, it could be a murky enough number to not even be able to narrow it down with the 5,500 people. In the past, the state has been using a threshold of six patients for town by town COVID number. And so 5,500 people in Chittenden County is literally 900 times less accurate. I'm wondering who's making these policies if it's somebody high up in the administration or if it's somebody in a back room somewhere trying to do their best and not thinking through everything. And why is six not a valid enough number anymore? And we got to go with a percent, especially since the number we're working off of the estimated census data is already murky enough. It's not going to give any member of the general public enough information to say so and so did or didn't get their vaccine. Yeah, you've lost me. So I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Levine. Governor, he's lost me too, but I will do what I can do here. And certainly dispel any transparency, questions, conspiracy issues, things happening at either high levels of government or in back rooms with some bureaucrat or what have you. But the bottom line is in some of our counties, the populations within a specific age band or sex are very small. And if you use a higher percentage than 95%, at least very few people in the unvaccinated category and means that the risk of re identification based on vaccination status will be higher than very small. Some of this is in consistency, not inconsistent in consistency with HIPAA and its guidelines. A lot of it is in the statistician world using knowledge of statistics and how that behaves when referring to population data. Others of it is in the epidemiologic world with standard standardization of reporting across all states and all municipalities. So it's a very complicated topic, to be honest. But the goal that's in mind is always to protect the ability to not identify individuals, especially in states like ours that tend to be rural, have pockets of people where their population is much smaller and these issues can actually become real for those people living there. With regard to the numbers of six and 25 and what have you, I would not be able to do that topic justice here at the podium because it is quite complex and it's actually been honed over a number of years of experience. Never came to the forefront before we had a pandemic, but actually we're not departing from anything that has been more conventional over time. I hope I've done some justice to your question. It wasn't like this initially. Initially the state was actually publishing the actual information. That's why we were, you know, even though it was on an estimated basis, we got to 102 percent and it just seems odd that the state would publish a number that, like I said, in some age groups could be murky enough to only narrow it down to 5,500 people and not even put a greater than sign before the 95 percent, just listing it as 95 percent and hoping that people, you know, read all the way through the multi-pages of notes on the website to be able to see that once you get to 95 percent, it may actually be more than that. It seems a little short-sighted at best, but it's not a bit deceptive. So that's why I was trying to get down to a little bit more than that. I understand. Just publicly I'll say nothing nefarious going on here. If you want to submit your questions with much more specificity to me again, I will actually work with our branch that handles all of health data and try to get you an answer that is comprehensible. Okay, I will do that. I appreciate that. Thank you. I think that's for me. Governor, I think there are a few people from Montgomery that would love to have you up to see the road. Thank you. Can you hear me? Go ahead, Erin. I have a question about this blueprint. I know that you may not be able to discuss it in detail, but one thing that I wanted to mention is that last year, last spring, when the state was reopening, you guys created these benchmarks to kind of demonstrate that it was safe to reopen, and that included percent positivity, the tape growth rate, ICU capacity, and syndromic surveillance, and eventually testing as well. Some of those might still be applicable. Some of them might kind of have a different impression when the most vulnerable Vermonters in the state are vaccinated. Are you thinking more along the lines of kind of using those benchmarks to guide reopening decisions? Or are you going to revise them with kind of this new normal in mind, or is it kind of going to be just based on the vaccination progress, you know, proceeding at a regular date, you know, as we reach more, you know, the state opening up in different eligibility categories? Yeah, our strategy always continues to remain the same, protect the most vulnerable, reduce the number of hospitalizations and deaths, but the game has changed admittedly. We didn't have, back in March a year ago, we didn't have the vaccine available to us, and now we do. We've seen the beneficial effects of that in our data. I mean, it just shows clearly because we've used the age banding approach that we've been able to reduce the number of deaths, the number of hospitalizations in that population 65 and over. So without going into further detail, you can expect that vaccinations will play a role in this blueprint. Okay, so let's say, you know, just hypothetically speaking, you know, the percent positivity benchmark that's been satisfied by the state is 5%. Obviously, we're still far away from that. But, you know, if the state were to hit above a 5% positivity rate, but remain low in, you know, cases among the most vulnerable populations, you know, would you still consider ending the reopening process or would that have an effect on your decision-making? Yeah, anything we do, whether it's the dates we put forth in terms of the vaccinations and when an age band opens up or anything of that nature, anything we do, we reserve the right to utilize some common sense and reserve the right to reflect on the data and what we're seeing on the ground. So this is a blueprint. This is a plan. And I believe that it's a solid plan and that if we adhere to it, we'll be much back, we'll be back to normal by the 4th of July. But again, we'll reserve the right to change course if needed to protect Vermonters. Okay, thank you. I have a question about young people and the variant. Oh, sorry. Did you have any comments on that first question? Okay. Yeah, I think the one line the governor said that's most important is the game has changed. And I just invite you to look at the state of California. And it was a few months ago, they were debating if they should let an ambulance park at the hospital and discharge the patient to the emergency room and get into the ICU because they were completely out of capacity. Ambulances would literally be driving around the city of Los Angeles. Their surge occurred too soon for vaccine to play a big role in any of the decision making they could make. I don't want to say we're fortunate now, but one thing that's true of this time is we're having a surge at a time when the most vulnerable are vaccinated already, which is fantastic. We're not seeing them dying. We're not seeing them get hospitalized. We may see hospitalizations bump up a little, but I would seriously doubt that we'll see any challenge to the capacity of our healthcare system right now with predominantly younger people becoming infected. So it's all about timing in some regards as well. So everything the governor said is true that we can use all of our metrics that we use every day, but we have to use them understanding that a new metric has entered the game and the new metric is how fast and how efficiently are we vaccinating and what size population are we getting to take the vaccine. So all of that has to be factored in at the same time. And even if one of the older metrics starts to look less good than we're accustomed to it looking, it doesn't mean it's the game changer anymore because we have vaccine and we know that that will have an eventual influence on that metric over a shorter period of time. You had another question though. Yeah, I think this might be a quick one. You know, with our understanding of the variant, you know, kind of changing as we go along, but I do know that one recommendation that has kind of a reason with concern to the variant is double masking. And I was curious, you know, how much do we understand about young people following double masking guidance or even being aware that it's a requirement because obviously people are very much used to the recommendations for the old strain of the virus. Yeah, so don't have a good handle on what percentage of our younger people are actually using double masks or using some of the new tucking in mechanisms for the mask. Keep in mind that is a recent piece of data that the CDC has put on its website from experiments, not from actually experience with people, but the experiments are pretty compelling showing that the amount of leakage on the side of the mask is really markedly reduced when you adopt one of these newer strategies. So at a time when we have a virus that seems even more transmissible, it really does seem like the prudent thing we should do and probably shouldn't wait for some study to come out three months from now. This is one of those that isn't such a major inconvenience to someone that they could actually do on their own pretty easily. I don't have a good handle on though what the uptake of that has been on any age population in Vermont at this point except just personally observing and noticing because people actually make a point of saying, see I'm double masked. And I'm like, okay sounds great. Thank you. Are there any other recommendations that we should be following now relative to the variants? Just double checking. Yeah, no, there's really no super new guidance except to really pay attention, as I said in my opening comments, to the issues of crowds, indoor spaces, and travel. Okay, thank you. That skipped earlier and two to three questions. Joe Barton Chronicle. Thank you. Briefing. Secretary Smith mentioned that both for inpatient and outpatient visitors, and I'm talking about I guess people seeking treatment, are now to ask to see proof of vaccination. I received a message from a reader who is very concerned about the purpose of this. The reader, either for medical reasons or personal reasons, isn't vaccinated and is concerned that the purpose of looking for proof of vaccination is to deny people coverage if they are not vaccinated. Joe, the purpose of this was you got to remember we have had in place very strict visitation policies in hospitals. And what we were trying to do is to loosen those up a little bit. I mean, we talked about isolation in senior centers. We talked about isolation in long-term care facilities. You can actually have some sort of isolation in as an inpatient or you know, in a hospital. So what we're trying to do is loosen it up. The way we felt comfortable about loosening up some of these restrictions to come in and visit somebody into the hospital was your vaccination status. Now, we do have certain exemptions that have been in place for quite a while, but they're pretty strict in terms of your visitation. All we were trying to do was give the patient some relief for visitors coming into the facility. And vaccination seemed to be the logical choice in terms of using some sort of criteria. So just to be clear, a person coming to the hospital seeking treatment would not be restricted in any way because they didn't have a card showing they had been vaccinated. Yeah, that is absolutely right. Okay. That's all this person wanted to know. Thank you very much. Okay. All right. The SEC press conference talked about making sure that you cancel your appointment at a state clinic if you get one at the pharmacy. Is the state tracking if people are not doing that? And do we know are we losing vaccines? How has that been going as more vaccines have been rolling out? Secretary Smith. Yeah, we there may, Howard, there may be a an instance or a few where that happens. I'm just making sure that it doesn't happen. But we've had very few sort of very few or no, well, very few wasted doses. So I don't I don't see that as an issue. I'm just trying to make sure that we avoid any issues as we move forward, because you got to remember we're opening in three weeks. This is going to be everybody. And I just want to make sure that everybody understands that, you know, we want to make sure there's slots available. But we have not seen a high percentage of wasted doses. We have seen and I've mentioned it at a couple of times where, you know, some have been dropped and wasted, but not from and we've seen where some some institutions didn't have proper procedures in place to handle sort of doses at the end of the day. All that's been corrected. But you know, it's a highly intensive human endeavor that we're doing in terms of the vaccination. There are going to be instances where there are sort of dropped vials or something like that. But in terms of not, you know, not showing up in that that dose being wasted, I haven't seen it because of that. Okay. One question maybe for Secretary French, Massachusetts today recommended that schools not hold proms this year. Are we going to be hearing anything about proms soon? Yeah, thanks for the question. We will be issuing some guidance and direction for end of year activities in April, but not at this moment. And problems will be included in that. Yeah, we'll address all kinds of end of year activities, including prompts. Okay, great. That's it for me. Thanks. Well, this Dr. Levine, I just wanted to add data from the last week in March shows that our wasted rate actually dropped from 0.2% to one tenth of 1%. So even in this concern about appointments being canceled and what have you, our wasted rate is actually diminishing. Hi, Governor, just to be clear on Stuart's question on the pensions, you would veto a pension plan that was only one time money? I don't believe that was the question. And maybe I misunderstood. I think what Stuart's, Stuart's question was whether I would support using one time money right now, this $150 million that they have reserved without having a plan, moving forward with that this year, and then moving on to the structural issues next year. I believe that was the question. And my response is I would not support that. I think they have to be tied together. Yeah, that was basically what I was wondering. Yeah, I wanted to clarify that. Also, if Commissioner Harrington is on board today, I noticed that the weekly unemployment claim doubled. And they doubled and they went up more than they had in several months. And I was wondering if there was a reason why, if there was a reason why? When you're talking about weekly claims, I believe you're talking about initial claims or new claims. Yeah, exactly. So in that number are also individuals who whose prior benefit year has exhausted and now are reapplying for a new benefit year. So it doesn't necessarily mean it's a new individual completely. It could be somebody who had filed last March for benefit and came up on their one year anniversary and resubmitted an application for a new benefit year. So it's a sort of a technical issue there more than anything else? Yeah, it's a program requirement that individuals must reapply every 12 months and that we must redetermine their eligibility based on prior wages and various compliance within the program. So it's a standard course that happens every year regardless of whether we're in a pandemic or not. Just so happens that the population obviously is much larger. We still are continuing to see a certain number of claims each week that are also fraudulent and identified as suspected fraud. And it's usually somewhere between 25 and 35% of initial claims that are suspected of fraud. But the large increase is directly related to the number of people opening new benefit years because they reached their one year anniversary. All right, great. Thanks, Michael. Sure. Thank you. David, Local 22? Yeah, a question for Governor Scott. So one of the goals now for the legislature when it comes to pensions is creating that task force over the summer and fall to take a closer look at the benefit structure. As someone who has been kind of sounding the alarm on this for a while, what do you think realistically a task force might be able to do here when it comes to, you know, trying to think of outside of the box solution? And is there anything in particular that you think this task force should really kind of hone in on that you've noted? Well, I don't know any of the details about the task force and the makeup of the task force and who it will represent. But anytime we can get people together to educate them on what the problem is and how it started where we are today and what this means in the future, I think is is essential and and will be helpful in the discussions as we go into the future. So I again, I don't know what they are looking at, but but I think they just need, you know, some more education because when you start talking about pensions and OPEBs and, you know, you start losing people fairly quick because it's it's tough to understand how we got to where we are today and and how do we prevent it from happening in the future and how do we rectify it today? So we'll see what the makeup is. I haven't had any opportunity to look at what they're proposing and I don't know if it's just the the House is proposing this or whether the Senate has a say in this or whether it's a bill they're trying to pass. I just I just don't know any of those specifics at this point. And then a quick question for Secretary Smith. So 40 plus opening up on Monday. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would assume that one of the largest is not the largest group. And with the other ones coming in short order, is there anything being done as far as getting the website prepared for all that traffic, the call center? Is it pretty much the same process? And are you confident that it will go pretty smoothly? Or is there anything changing now that we're going to have all of these age bands in pretty short order coming up? I think we're confident in what we're doing at this point. I don't believe it's the largest age band. I think the largest might have been the 60 to 70 or 50 to 60. But let Secretary Smith answer. Devin, it was the only press conference. I didn't bring the age band breakdowns on but with the population in each. But it certainly is not going to be the largest age band. The largest age band is going to be a 16 plus. That will be the largest age band. We're confident that we can handle the traffic with our website and we're confident as the population gets younger. We're starting to see everybody starting to register on the website unless traffic on the call center. That doesn't mean that it's not busy in those first few hours of opening up. It is busy in those first few hours. But we're confident that our systems are going to be able to handle this, especially as people get younger and are more accustomed to using the website. And the website can handle a lot. So we're fairly confident. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Rebecca. Vermont has gotten a fair amount of national prep since it announced that the state would open up vaccine registration to all college on April 30th. But the reality is that it will be virtually impossible for any out-of-state student in Vermont to complete that two-dose regimen, maybe even not the single-dose before the school year and making them either have to return to the state for the summer for a second dose or full-dote getting it off here. What was the thinking behind the announcement given when you do them an actionable date for people to take advantage? Well, again, I think I described that earlier. But we wanted to open up 16 to 30 Vermont first. Those who are in college, for instance, that are planning to spend the summer here, we wanted them to have the opportunity, as well as those in high school, so that they could participate in somewhat of a milestone, their graduation and so forth. So we wanted to give them the opportunity to have their vaccinations. So we'll see. We want to just get through that, give them the opportunity, everyone an opportunity to sign up and then open it up to college students that aren't planning on staying in Vermont, as well as those from out-of-state who have second homes here, who may have wintered in other areas of the country, and that we have an ability for them to get vaccinated as well. So that date could is flexible in some respects, as I said before. It all depends on supply and demand. And if we have more supply and if we have fewer people signing up, that could be moved forward. We just don't know at this point. But we thought it was important that we describe what we meant by, you know, there was some confusion about who would be able to get their vaccinations. Those who are in college, we wanted to make sure that we had that definition so they could determine themselves, whether they would be able to get into the first band, but then have a date that they could look forward to and make their plans. Now, I don't know. This might be more of a question for others. But if you have one dose, it does get you 80% there. And I'm not sure what the other states would do, whether they would give you the second dose or not. I would suspect there would be an opportunity to do so. Dr. Levine. Yeah, I think it's a common misconception to think that people will be left kind of stranded. One thing you should know is that there were some college students this semester who actually were qualified to be 1A because they were EMTs and they'd gotten their first dose of vaccine in the state they lived in and then came here for their semester. And we weren't going to force them to go back and travel and all the dangers incurred in that with regard to the virus so they became part of our 1A group because in fact that's the function they were holding in society. There's going to be enough supply for every state by the time the second dose would come around for these college students that they'll be readily available to them in the other states. And I think that kind of reciprocal arrangement that we had with these students will hold at that time. So your belief is that you would tell students who decided to get a first dose if they could get one in before having to leave for the end of the semester that it will be incumbent upon them to find the second dose where they live. Otherwise, how do the travel restrictions impact them if they can't and they have to come back to the state for the second dose? Yeah, I just sincerely don't believe they're going to be forced to come back to the state to get their second dose. It's going to be a departure from reality. There's, like I say, states will have abundant vaccine. Many of them will already be transitioning from mass vaccination sites to private offices and practices. So it's not going to become a big issue for that group. And it's the same, and the vaccines, there's no new vaccine available that I'm aware of yet. So it's the same two mRNA vaccines that we're talking about that these students might be getting. So they'll be getting the same dose at the right interval. So it won't be complicated. I really don't think so. Okay, thanks. So one last question. A significant amount of time in this conference and previous one has aptly focused on the population living in front who have health conditions with them at greater risk. Given the outbreak, particularly among younger people and certainly on college campuses, has or will the administration consider allowing any students, college students, with health risks to register for a vaccine earlier? That's happened already. Because those who had health risks were out of state college students were able to get a vaccination. They have not been included at this time. Is there consideration given the outbreak among younger people to allow out of state students with health risks to register earlier? It's not something that we have discussed. I think we could take that under advisement, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to call it an outbreak amongst younger students. It's part of a surge in cases across the state that 50% of cases are under age 40. It's not all students by any means. And in fact, our students are so heavily tested that we know the percentage of the students is not that high because they're under a once and sometimes twice a week testing protocol. So it's kind of like something you're really thinking. Yes. Okay. Thanks very much. We received a question from a school nurse just asking how the new three-foot distancing guidelines would affect who is considered a close contact within schools. Secretary French, are you still on? Yes, I am, Governor. Yes, thanks. Currently, it does not affect the contact tracing definitions, but we are working on that. So that could potentially change? It could, but it's not something that'll be enacted initially with a change in our distancing guidance. Okay. Thank you. Hello. This is either for Dr. Levine or Secretary Smith. This is regarding the session you held with employees at Vermont Veterans Home. I was just wondering if you could characterize the tenor of this session because I'm trying to understand why that group of employees is still resistant to accepting the vaccine, if there was any indication of what's going on there. I have to answer that because I was present, along with some other members of my health department staff who specifically work on outbreaks in long-term care facilities. The tenor was actually polite and fine. It was actually quite quiet. There was no major bringing up of, you know, major resistance to vaccine. Questions were asked and answered. The session was recorded because not everyone who works in a direct patient-facing position there could be there. Some of them were working, some of them weren't on site and weren't hooked into the meeting. So it was intentionally recorded so that they would at least get to see it. The reason we want to go back is because, while that's wonderful, that they could view a recorded session. The real goal of this is to get at each person's concerns and make sure that we have a frank discussion about those concerns and issues so we understand better and they can hear our responses better and to really have them understand it's a safe environment to talk with us about this in so that we're not there to coerce them or twist their arm or just lecture them about how wonderful the vaccine is but we really want to get an idea of where we can help them make inroads if they've been hesitant, why, and can through education and responding to their specific needs, can we move them forward? So that's sort of how that went and we're looking forward to being able to have the opportunity to do that again. Were you able to, for lack of a better metaphor, make any converts there? Yes. Yes, we were told by the leadership there that I believe the number was 10 to 12 people subsequently did get vaccinated. We thought that was great. We thought that was great but as Secretary Smith said earlier, their still overall rate is below 50% for the patient facing people so we want to do better. Okay, thank you very much. H172, excuse me, with ban trapping, except by licensed nuisance trappers, who's discussed this week and how it's going to resort to this, what do you think about it legislated ban on trapping? Again, this is a bill that is being discussed in one committee. In all probability, it won't get out of committee and it won't get any action in the Senate. My personal preference is that we continue to adhere to some of our traditions. We do so in a safe manner and make sure that we adhere to all the guidelines within the program. Hopefully, guys, okay. Thanks, Rebecca. Some local parents and teams who are 16-17 years old want to know how the state will ensure that they have adequate access to the Pfizer vaccine, the only one they can get, especially since they'll be jockeying for appointments with the 18 to 29 year olds who are eligible for all three vaccines. How will the state manage this? And does the state intend to hold school-based vaccine clinics? Yeah, we've been contemplating all of those because we again wanted to make sure that we allowed for an opportunity for those 16 to 18 year olds to get the only one manufacturer that is available to them, and that being Pfizer. So we've been discussing what we'll do, but Secretary Smith might have more details on that. Yeah, we've just discussed a number of options from school-based to sort of megapods along the way. I think where we're going to come down, Lisa, at some point here is probably a community-based vaccination sites and making sure that there's enough Pfizer for these 16 year olds at these various regional sites. So we're trying to make sure that we have enough Pfizer for this group and 16 to 18, making sure that there is enough Pfizer for this group, and that's what we're doing right now. We're putting the plans together for that. I think we'll probably have more in the next seven days or so. Great, thank you. And just a quick follow-up question, actually not a tax question. Will Vermont follow the IRS on unemployment, on the unemployment exclusion, even though the tax returns are now due May 17th, the due date for first quarter estimates is still April 15th for the IRS. And readers want to know what Vermont's going to do related to the unemployment exclusion or to complete their taxes and also to be able to pay their first quarter estimates by April 15th to avoid penalties. Yeah, I believe so, but I also believe it's tied to a bill. Secretary Young, do you have the details on that? I'm sorry, Governor, I didn't hear the question very well. It was a tax question. Do you want me to repeat it? Yes, if you could. It's about the due date for the uninsulated, even though tax returns are now due May 17th, the due date for the first quarter estimates remains April 15th for the IRS. And our readers want to know if Vermont's going to match that. I'm sorry, if Vermont's going to do, wait, there comes a sentence. Readers want to know what Vermont's going to do related to the unemployment exclusion in order to complete their taxes and pay the first quarter estimate to avoid penalties. Is that the exclusion for the unemployment? Yes. Okay, so our tax code does not automatically link up to the federal code. So the tax commissioner has been in the legislature since that exemption became a federal law just a few weeks ago after tax season had opened. And he is working with legislators in an attempt to get our two codes linked so that that exemption will be treated to state as it is by the federal government. I'm not sure today if that has made any progress. I think they were hoping to attach it to a bill that that may be passed out next week. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. That's it. All right. Thank you very much for tuning in. We'll see you again on Tuesday. Have a happy Easter for those who celebrate.