 This program is brought to you by Cable Franchise Vs and generous donations from viewers like you. Good evening. I'm Claire Healy and you're watching the Amherst Weekly Report from Amherst Media. This past Tuesday, the first COVID-19 vaccine was administered to a 90-year-old woman in the UK, signifying the beginning of the end of this pandemic. As Americans prepare for the first wave of vaccines to be administered in the United States, we talk with two experts about the key elements of these vaccines and what they want you to know. Andrew Lover is an infectious disease epidemiologist and professor in epidemiology at UMass Amherst, where he is involved in the university's COVID-19 response as well as related studies and surveys across the state. Alvaro J. Castro Riva-Dunera is a medical doctor, former professor in immunology, and a current second-year PhD student in epidemiology at UMass Amherst. He is working for the right lab at UMass on projections of the COVID-19 death toll in Massachusetts. Both experts emphasize the safety of the vaccine first and foremost and said that it is crucial that we all take the vaccine when it is available. So this is a really unprecedented situation that so much money and research resources have been all directed at a really pretty difficult problem. And so we've seen incredible progress. So the fastest vaccine prior to this was about four years from start to finish. So the fact that it's been done in eight or nine months is incredible. And so there are a lot of different companies had different ideas about what they thought were worth. And the two that came up fastest are the two that have been announced and then the approval processes are underway right now. There's also a third one in the UK that will maybe come online a little bit later. And so the two that have been approved are similar in terms of their both MRNA, which is kind of a new technique to help. It basically just sends your body a message that says this is what you should try and make an immune response against. So there's no virus. It's just a message that helps your body mount an immune response. The trials have happened and run very well. And the FDA has very well organized systems to look for any safety signals in terms of side effects or adverse events. And so far, everything looks fantastic. So all in all, I think everyone has been very pleasantly surprised at how efficacious they were as well as the lack of any real side effects. So it's really as good a situation as we can hope for. The first thing I would like to say about vaccines is that I've received messages from family members and so forth who are often afraid, especially because some of these new vaccines are completely novel in the sense that it's technology that has not been used in any widespread fashion. And so there are reasonably some fears about it. But vaccines are monitored very carefully and there are many, many ways in which they're tested for efficacy and for safety. And so I think the first thing I'd like to say is that when the vaccines are released, we should trust that they are safe. I think the professionals who work on this and the teams all across the country and all across the world really are doing incredible work to make sure that these vaccines are safe and efficacious. So they really do have to test that they work and that they're safe for us. And trials are often stopped. You'll hear because there is one case and they might restart because they find that it may not have been related to the vaccine. Wednesday, Governor Baker announced that the vaccine rollout in the state will happen in three phases, with priority given to frontline workers and the most vulnerable populations before reaching the public as early as April. Professor Lover outlined what this may look like both in the short and long term and said that there will be a period when only some of the population has the vaccine and we will all need to continue to take protective measures. Once we get 70 to 80% of the population vaccinated, the number of cases per day and the mortality will drop dramatically. And we'll probably see some small little upticks occasionally. The two main questions we don't really understand is how long the immunity lasts. Everyone is hopeful that it is, you know, years to decades, but it's possible it'll be more similar to influenza where there'll be a new vaccine every year. We simply don't know at this point. So that's that's probably the biggest unknown. But that's kind of a problem we're looking forward to worrying about in terms of, you know, taking care of this immediate crisis and then we can start planning longer term. We're very lucky that it was developed as quickly as it was like actually truly unprecedented and the availability will be quite good. So that's an incredible time we're living to see that process that usually takes decades to be really fast. Until you reach a certain threshold of people that are vaccinated, there's always the risk. There's always the risk of getting sick. And I think with these precautions like wearing masks, primarily which is one of the main things that we're doing in social distancing. We should follow the public health guidelines about when and how long we should keep these norms in place. And because even if you are vaccinated, you still run the risk to give you an idea. And if you get one dose of a vaccine for the Pfizer vaccine, for instance, the efficacy is something like 56%. But that still means you can get sick from it. So not following these guidelines and just because you've got one dose of the vaccine is not only improving, but it's also dangerous for the people around you. And I think that's one important thing that's been highlighted. It's not just about whether you're sick, but about your community and how much you care about your community and their well-being. There's recently a survey done in Massachusetts and about one in three people in this survey, I think it was done by the Western New England University, would not be willing to take a vaccine right now. And I think that's another concern that people will be hesitant to take the vaccine and it's understandable given its novel and so forth. But it's important that if we can, we should all take the vaccine. It's an incredible measure for community health or protecting people and one of the few public health diseases where we've had a success in eradicating it completely from the world really is a smallpox. And that was done thanks to a vaccine. We have made incredible advances in polio also thanks to vaccines and there's some of the most important public health measures that we can take. And so it's important for people to do it, for people to vaccinate, to protect their community. UMass Amherst partnered with the State of Massachusetts to launch a major community asymptomatic testing program. Beginning December 14th, community members ages 10 or older can get tested with an appointment at the Public Health Promotion Center at the Mullen Center. The program will be operating four days a week with some holiday exceptions through January 21st. When the university spring semester commences, testing will still be offered to the general public but with limited hours. The new program is made possible by a $5 million grant from the Baker administration to protect public health. With the fall semester coming to a close, many are wondering what the spring holds for college students in the Amherst area. Both UMass Amherst and Amherst College released operating plans for their spring 2021 semesters. UMass Amherst will have some in-person face-to-face classes and labs for undergraduate and graduate students. First-year students will also have face-to-face classes, but the majority of spring classes will be remote. Those who can live on the UMass campus include students enrolled in mandatory face-to-face classes, students who depend on the university for housing and dining, as well as students with certain academic accommodations or those participating in athletics. First-year and entering transfer students enrolled in fall 2020 and spring 2021 are also welcome on campus. These groups of students represent approximately 60% of the typical on-campus population. Students living both on and off campus are required to get COVID tested twice a week, and students are asked to travel only for work or emergencies. Amherst College will bring 1200 students to campus in the spring, allowing one student per room in the residence halls. The college will be inviting back seniors, juniors, first-year students, transfer students, and sophomores who have unfavorable circumstances at home. They may invite other sophomores to come back if there is room. Although there is not a scheduled week-long spring break, the college is considering having days off throughout the semester. Students at Amherst College will not be allowed to leave campus unless for doctor's appointments, family emergencies, or other circumstances. They will also be required to get tested three times per week. No off-campus visitors will be allowed. Both UMass Amherst and Amherst College will be enforcing strict social distancing. $15,000, $10,000 in CARES Act funding from the town of Amherst, and $5,000 from the Downtown Amherst Foundation through the Amherst Business Improvement District and the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce have been put towards a pilot meals program this month for local families who are currently food insecure. Called December Dinner Delights, it not only addresses the needs of families facing food insecurity, but acts as a vital lifeline to local restaurants and retail amid COVID-19 business restrictions. AWR correspondent Chris McLaughlin reports. The holiday season is always a time to give back, and this year the holiday season is particularly hard, especially those who are food insecure. The town of Amherst, the Business Improvement District, and the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce have come together to provide a community meals program for those in need this holiday season. We have been aware and keenly aware of the rising need in the community, especially related around food insecurity, and so many new families facing food insecurity, and so we just felt like there was definitely a gap there. And we had heard about another program in a neighboring town and thought, can we adapt this? And, you know, we've been having regular meetings with the town, we've had regular meetings with some of the stakeholders in town, and somehow we pulled it together. For the families that are benefiting from it, it's really hard, especially as it gets darker and you're having limited resources. It's a nice little boost during the week to have a couple nice meals beyond what you're able to make at home. We definitely are not used to doing 100 individually boxed meals all at once. We usually do like the trays when we're doing the catering. So that was a bit of a learning curve to do that volume all individual, but I thought they provided us so much support and information ahead of time, and it was just well organized that it made it really easy on us. You know, these are another one of the small ways that we can all partner to develop creative programming to help our neighbors in need and to help our local businesses. In talking with folks today, it's clear that it's a win-win-win situation for all those involved. Those who are food insecure in need, local town government, and local businesses who need the extra money right now. For the Amherst Weekly Report, I'm Chris McLaughlin. Those interested in donating to the program so that it can continue into 2021 can do so at downtownamherstfoundation.org. The BID's executive director, Gabrielle Gold, also encourages individuals to buy gift certificates to support local businesses this holiday season and beyond. And to consider also donating them to organizations such as Family Outreach of Amherst and the Amherst Survival Center to benefit both local restaurants in retail and individuals in need. Within an hour, it is my understanding that family outreach of Amherst had 30 families and all 100 meals were taken. We have run two dinners so far this month. We'll do two this week, two next week, until the end of the month. And the dinners are gone within 20 minutes of opening at 4 p.m. So it's definitely successful. It's definitely needed. And I know that there are more families who would like to be on the list. So our hope is that this pilot is successful and that we can grow it and do more in January. We're feeding people who are food insecure due to COVID-19. We are supporting the restaurants and even some of our retail because we're doing a special Christmas Eve dinner gift. So supporting our restaurants locally and we're making sure that those restaurants maintain their orders to their suppliers and their farmers. So it's a really great win-win all around. And my hope is that 2021 brings in a lot of care funds from the federal government and that the town can continue to work with us. Being able to say twice a week, you're going to get Thai food. You're going to get gorgeous Italian food. You're going to get classic American food. You're going to get really great Mexican or Chinese. That is something that, you know, it sounds like kind of like a fun perk, you know, your takeout dinner. But that's a lifeline and a lifesaver. And so we're thrilled to be able to offer that to people. In East Springfield, community and environmental activists have been rallying against a proposed biomass incinerator by Palmer Renewable Energy that they say would pollute the air and pave the way for similar plants around the state. Biomass energy is a form of energy made from burning plant or animal material for energy production, or in this case, wood. The concern around this plant worsening living standards in Springfield through polluting the air is given extra urgency as Springfield is known as the asthma capital of the United States. Meaning that the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America rank it as the hardest place to live with asthma in the U.S. As such, activists are pointing to this project as part of a legacy of environmental injustice in the city. The project has been delayed for nearly 12 years, but Palmer Renewable Energy still holds a building permit despite the Springfield City Council coming to a majority opinion that the permit has since expired. Activists worry that wording on biomass in the House version of the state's climate bill could pave the way for the plant's construction. The bill, which is currently being considered by the state legislature, says that biomass is a non-carbon emitting source and allows the state to grant subsidies to biomass projects such as the one in Springfield. Activists point out, however, that biomass is now widely understood as not a viable renewable energy source. We talked with local House Representative Mindy Dom about the bill and her support for changing its section on biomass. I'm opposed to the biomass incinerator in Springfield. I think it's ridiculous that biomass by itself is a polluter and undermines our efforts around climate and responding to the crisis. Placing one and locating one and citing one in the nation's asthma capital to me is the ultimate in committing an environmental injustice. I saw the climate bills the first step to doing lots of big things because it didn't do a whole lot around electric vehicles. There was a lot of issues that I felt like we needed to come back to. Gas safety and gas pipelines completely not even in there, as well as biomass then being in there. So I thought this is a first step and it gives us a kind of momentum to bring back some things, carbon fees, for example. So I would definitely be supportive of changing the language, but I'm not hopeful that that's what will happen. I think we're going to have to address this as a separate issue and we're going to have to lock arms with the legislators who represent the Springfield area, who represent all those kids who have asthma and all those school buildings that need to be renovated because they may be triggers for asthma and all those housing units that may need to be renovated because they trigger asthma. We're going to have to lock hands. I feel very strongly that because it's located in that community that my role is not only to oppose biomass theoretically and also specifically there, but it's to lend support to the people who are there who are fighting that fight. We also spoke with Springfield City Councilor Jesse Letterman, who has been very active in opposing the Palmer Renewable Energy Project and the bill's stance on biomass. According to Letterman, the project was initially slated to be a construction and demolition debris incinerator, but following a statewide moratorium on the burning of such materials, it pivoted to what proponents would label a green-waste wood incinerator. And so the situation as it stands now is there's really two issues at hand that are being explored. One is relative to a piece of state legislation that's currently pending in the House and the Senate that is intended to be a climate bill to reduce emissions in the Commonwealth, but really honestly, because of poor drafting, is one that would incentivize the construction of incinerators like the one proposed in Springfield by labeling them as carbon neutral, as the opinion of the majority of the City Council, that that building permit has since expired. Building permits do need to be acted upon in order for them to stay current. Now there has to be some form of substantial construction. We've not seen evidence that there has been. And so, you know, at that point, the developer is required to apply for a new building permit and under the zoning ordinance as it stands today, which has changed because again, we're talking over a decade. The zoning ordinance now does require a special permit for a facility of this nature. And if they want to propose that, they are certainly entitled to apply for a building permit and come before the City Council for a special hearing. And that hearing is where these types of concerns that community members have brought forward would be taken up. And so, you know, that is why the City Council has requested the building commissioner to issue a cease and desist. We're waiting for his response on that. Letterman noted, a biomass does not fit in line with the state's renewable portfolio standard. This statewide governing document meant to give tax cuts for renewable energy despite efforts to have it classified as such. Letterman wants to see the conference committee in charge of ironing out differences between the House and Senate versions of the pending climate bill to fix the language of the House version so that biomass does not become a subsidized as a form of renewable energy. Because at the end of the day, you know, we know a few things. One, we know that the energy is not carbon neutral. It's not a renewable source of energy. We know that the level of pollution that it is emitting is a cause for concern. And we also know that the region does not face a shortage of energy. You know, this energy that the plant would produce is really a particularly miniscule amount. And so for the harm that we are concerned it would inflict, it certainly shouldn't be a part of our strategy as a commonwealth for energy production. The climate bill is meant to be a good piece of legislation for the environment. And so it would be really a shame and I think sort of a dismissal of communities that have for too long been ignored in the environmental movement to be quite honest with you for a climate bill that is supposed to improve the environment for the commonwealth to include a provision that would be so detrimental to the environment of the third largest city in that commonwealth. And I think that we are showing that the days of potential polluters being rubber stamped in communities like Springfield are over and we're going to continue to step up to make sure that all of our local zoning laws are followed to make sure that the environmental laws that are on the books are followed and that where environmental laws are not strong enough they are strengthened. Tuesday night from 5 to 6.30 p.m. Senator Joe Comerford representing the Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester district held a virtual town hall which he called a quote experiment in coming together. We spoke with Senator Comerford after the event on her takeaways and the messages that she hopes to convey to her constituents leading up to the 2021-2022 legislative session. In her past legislative session Senator Comerford filed 76 bills and served on a number of committees, councils, working groups and caucuses including serving as chair of the Senate Joint Committee on Public Health and the chair of the Senate COVID-19 working group. She said two events, the murder of George Floyd and the COVID-19 pandemic shaped this past session in her eyes. After briefings from different members of her staff on municipal and constituent services, legislation, budget work and constituent engagement she opened the session to questions and talked with constituents about bills such as the Family Work and Mobility Act and climate legislation. There are so many important bills that were actually gaining quite a lot of steam in the first part of the legislative session and got interrupted by COVID. You know, when we had to as a Senate in the House pivot to really do full-on COVID response. Among them are a suite of immigrant rights bills that I know constituents care a whole lot about like the Family Work and Mobility Act. So I did speak to that a little bit. It is one of the bills that I think could still pass and should still pass this session because I do think of it as a public health bill in addition to being a public safety and an economic development and an immigrant rights bill. I think it's a public health bill. I know that constituents also really wanted to talk much more in-depth about the climate legislation that's in the conference committee when the poll came out. We tried an experiment with polls. One of the things that we noticed was almost all the people on the call clicked climate as one of their major top issues. And that's true about our district is that there's just a fierce recognition of the importance of it work on our environment. And I don't think we got a chance to go in as great a depth both to the Senate bill which passed some time ago and the House bill which passed really in the wee hours of the end of July to be able to really go into depth about this conference committee process and what people could expect. So in terms of that if I can just do a couple of minutes on that. The conference committee process is now for the climate bill has now been going on for months. The conference committee on the Senate side has two Democrats in it. Senior members of leadership, Senator Mike Barrett and Senate Majority Leader Cindy Cream. I've been in contact with both of them. Constituents are absolutely completely active and have been. I get emails, calls, texts, Facebook messages. I get written letters sent to my home about the passion people feel for getting this right. I do think the stakes are very high. We did not go the distance as we could have in the last legislative session. I wasn't there, but I think we've been reckoning with that the whole time. I do think in the Senate we wanted to create something a bold blueprint that would green the home, green the fleet, green the Commonwealth, which is basically this trio of bills. And in the trio of bills was a bill that we called the Amherst bill. It was inspired by Amherst constituents. They said, hey, Joe, what do you know about net zero building construction? And I said, not a lot. And so I spent, I really did a deep dive with Amherst environmental leaders to understand the opportunities in changing our stretch building code, which is basically the code for green communities. And most of our communities out here in Western Massachusetts are green communities and allowing it to be a net zero. So buildings have to be built with environmental standards using better equipment for our environment and have net zero. And so that's in the, that's in the, that made it in. So it was passed into law, you know, in the first session, it was almost, you know, it just was unbelievable. The Amherst advocacy around that bill was unparalleled. And absolutely why, part of why it got passed. The reform shift in build act was when the Senate president appointed the racial equity task force, she said, okay guys, you're going in for a sprint and a marathon. And the sprint was embodied in the reform shift and build act. And that was, as you know, a police reform bill that was passed by the Senate. That was met with the house's version and that was married into a conference committee report that came out. And so that has been passed now by the legislature, not the whole reform shift and build act and not the whole house version, but there is a new version of a bill that takes components of each passed by the Senate, passed by the house. It's on the governor's desk. And we are adamant that the governor has to sign that bill. There are just, you know, numerous cases. Where we've needed to be able to discipline officers in a way that sticks and in a way that's fair and uniform. And this would also create a database so that, for example, if a police officer were to be disciplined and lose their license in Pelham, say, that person couldn't work again in Pittsfield. Right. You would lose the opportunity of working in the Commonwealth. That's a pretty big stick. And, you know, the hope would be again that this would actually benefit everybody. You know, the police who were there to do the work of public service and the police, you know, the people who have had difficult relationships with police officers who have not acted as they should. She talked with us about the uniqueness of Western Massachusetts, saying her district is, quote, unparalleled in advocacy and what she termed people power. And encourages her constituents to continue with their outreach to her office, which is what she says drives her work. You know, I meant what I said. I really, I feel this so intensely. I know it to be true. It's not just a hypothesis that, you know, the constituents out here are so important to the Commonwealth. We have a unique perspective in Western Massachusetts. She also commented on the aforementioned House climate bill stance on biomass, calling the incinerator an inclusion of biomass in the bill and abomination. It can't. I mean, you know what? I spoke very frankly to my colleagues. I just said this is a non-starter in my district. It cannot get into the final bill. It will be, for me, a heartbreaker out here and for my people, just an outrage that we in 2020, almost 2021 would consider large-scale biomass when we know what we know about needing to take carbon out of the air, you know, allowing that to be classified as a clean energy source. I mean, it's, the word nuts comes to mind, but there's a better, you know, an abomination, environmental abomination. So we just can't let that happen. And then the other thing I'll say is that we have a very poignant tie to this even in this region, right? The Springfield organizers that are telling us, hey, they could locate a plant right here in Springfield, in Hamden County, where Springfield is the asthma capital of the United States, right? And we talk a lot, right? In this racial justice apex moment, we talk a lot about wanting to do right or better by communities of color. And then, you know, so in one hand, you know, the budget that just passed has quite a lot of money that came from the Senate initiative to send money to communities that have been disproportionately affected by racism and marginalization. And I supported that. I was part of a racial justice. I was appointed to the racial justice task force by the Senate president. I totally have been behind this. So in one moment we send that money, and that's of course good and as it should be, but in another moment, we don't recognize environmental racism when we see it. We don't recognize that these biomass plants are located in poor communities or communities of color disproportionately and that, you know, asthma is a preventable, largely preventable illness, and it's caused but often by poor environmental conditions. So it's where policies collide in the most dangerous ways for people. In a development on a story from earlier this fall, the UMass RAPM union has reached an agreement with the university regarding employment in the spring semester. At the beginning of the fall term, the university rolled back its reopening plans and in the process rescinded employment offers to many student peer mentors and residential assistants who relied on that job for housing and income. In the new agreement, all of these students, formerly offered positions, will be given the opportunity to work in the spring and can do so remotely. Thank you for tuning in. This has been the Amherst Weekly Report from Amherst Media. I'm Claire Healy. While we will be taking a short break during the next three weeks to run highlights from throughout our first ever season as a new show, we look forward to bringing you more coverage in the new year. Thank you for your support. Stay safe and enjoy the holiday season.