image description

Pittsfield Health Board Talks Nationwide Effort to End the COVID Emergency

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
PITTSFIELD, Mass. With Pittsfield still in the highest incidence rate for COVID-19 transmission, the Board of Health addressed a possible nationwide decision that the virus is no longer an emergency.
 
In late January, President Joseph Biden announced an intent to end national and public health emergency declarations in May.  This could reportedly affect insurance coverage of tests, vaccines, and treatments.
 
Public Health Nurse Patricia Tremblay said that there is an expectation to hear a verdict in April and the city will continue to follow guidance from the Center for Disease Control and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
 
"There is a lot of changes, I think, that are coming," she said to the board on Wednesday.
 
She also reported nationwide conversations around vaccination that shift it to a regular yearly shot, similar to the flu vaccine.
 
"I know that the vaccine organizations, the (Food and Drug Administration) and the CDC, are all looking at the option of doing one booster a year but none of that has been voted or settled," Tremblay reported.
 
Berkshire County Head Start was notified by the state that they should put in their spring order for COVID test kits that are used for mitigation and were told that the free kits would no longer be provided after that time.
 
Board member Steve Smith asked "if and when" health facilities will no longer require masks and Tremblay said that there have already been efforts to remove that requirement in New York state.
 
Smith wondered what the declaration would mean for the BOH and the city.
 
"For a long time, we every month revisited our mask directive, which was never a mandate, but we talked about when to dismiss or get rid of the directive and when to reapply the directive," he said.
 
"And I just don't know, in this discussion about COVID I'm just wondering where we are."
 
He pointed to some peoples' view that the virus is here to stay and will have to be managed like the flu.
 
"I just wonder where we are with that," Smith added.  "By the federal government if it's no longer an urgent type of health issue maybe it won't be back?"
 
On Wednesday there were 19.7 cases per 100,000 people, 12 new cases, and 55 estimated actively contagious cases.  The positivity rate was around 10 percent.
 
Sewage concentration has been identified as the truest way to judge the virus's impact on the community, as other metrics don't include at-home tests.  There were 1.5 million copies per liter on Wednesday, compared to about 650,000 copies per liter in mid-Feburary.
 
There are around 7 hospitalizations for the virus at Berkshire Medical Center.
 
"We've had a little uptick but it was school vacation week last week and it had gotten to the point where we had relatively small numbers of cases every day, a couple of days we didn't have any cases," Tremblay explained.
 
"Typically the two high-risk populations we look at are children under 18 and adults 65 and over.  We were getting anywhere from two to six adults in that risk population and the children were not as frequent."
 
The city remains in the "red zone" for transmission, having more than 10 cases per 100,000 and a positivity rate above 5 percent. It has essentially remained in this category since last year with some reprieve in the spring that put the city in the lesser "yellow zone."
 
Late last year, there was a death, bringing the city's count to 92.
 
Tremblay said it is "sort of sad" that only 77 percent of residents are fully vaccinated and 89 percent have received one dose, a metric that has been consistent for some time.
 
She also reported seeing two kinds of families when it comes to testing, those who test regularly and utilize the health department's free kits that are available to the public and those who are "pretty religious" about not testing for a variety of reasons.
 
 
 

Tags: COVID-19,   


More Coronavirus Updates

Keep up to date on the latest COVID-19 news:


If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Peru Selectman Pays $3K Penalty for Conflict of Interest

PERU, Mass. — A Select Board member has been fined $3,000 for helping create a paid town job he intended to apply for, and then worked in.
 
Edward Munch has paid a $3,000 civil penalty for violating the conflict of interest law by participating in creating the paid maintenance position he intended to apply for and then working in the new job while still on the Select Board. The State Ethics Commission approved a Disposition Agreement in which Munch admitted to the violations, paid the civil penalty, and waived his right to a public hearing.
 
During a December 2024 Select Board meeting, Munch asserted the need for a maintenance person at Town Hall. The need for the position was discussed at the following meeting and Munch said he would like to apply for it. During subsequent Select Board meetings, Munch continued to participate in discussions relating to the position, including its job description, schedule, and pay rate. The Select Board ultimately approved the position, with Munch abstaining from the vote.
 
After the maintenance position was publicly posted in the summer of 2025, Munch applied for it. He and another candidate were interviewed by the two other Select Board members, who subsequently voted to appoint Munch to the position. 
 
Munch worked in the position, which remained under the supervision of the Select Board, until March 2026, when he left the position after being notified the State Ethics Commission was investigating the matter. He earned just over $3,000 in the position.
 
The conflict of interest law prohibits municipal employees from participating in their official capacity in matters in which they have a reasonably foreseeable financial interest. Although Munch abstained from voting on the maintenance position, he violated this prohibition each time he discussed the position substantively as a Select Board member. Munch also violated the law's prohibitions against municipal board members serving in positions appointed by and under the supervision of their own board and its prohibition against municipal employees holding a financial interest in a contract made by the municipality.
 
"When an elected public official encourages and takes part in government actions they know will create an economic opportunity for themself, the public has cause to ask whether those actions served the official's personal financial interest rather than the public interest," said State Ethics Commission Executive Director David A. Wilson. "Not engaging in such self-serving conduct is essential if elected officials are to build and maintain public confidence in the integrity of their public service and avoid the serious negative consequences of violating the conflict of interest law."   
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories