Loudoun judge rules masks optional IMMEDIATELY!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if you are in favor of masks, Isn’t it sort of sad that more kids didn’t take their mask off? I feel terrible for this generation.

I teach high school and I’m going to suggest you learn to think critically. There’s lots of reasons why:

1. Transmission is still high. They don’t think it’s safe.
2. The news came at 930 at night. They were caught off guard and just figured they’d mask since they whole situation was weird and confusing
3. Nobody wants to be the first kid to unmask if everyone else still is because then you stand out
4. They’re just used to wearing them and aren’t bothered
5. Some of them have active virus symptoms and are doing their part
6. They didn’t actually know if a teacher could individually stop require them and if they’d get in trouble taking it off
7. Kids as a rule don’t do well with sudden changes without time to prepare so they just maintained their usual routine

Hope this helps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at my child's high school, I imagine the kids who don't wear masks will be the two dozen or so phuck-ups, the kind you might have found in the smoking lounges 30 years ago. These are the kids who aren't college-bound, etc.

The rest will continue. The peer pressure will be to wear masks. The losers who don't will continue to be ostracized.

Sounds like bullying. You are awful. This should be brought to the administration's attention - that bullying will NOT be tolerated.

I'm good with it. In fact, I told my kid to do it.

I tell my kids their risk is so low from covid that they don't have to live in fear - we swim and drive in cars and those are statistically riskier. That's what normal people do.

I told my kids it isn’t about their personal risk. It’s the risk they pose to others, which is why we were wearing masks in the first place.

You expect your surgeon to wear a mask, right? They don’t do that to protect themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at my child's high school, I imagine the kids who don't wear masks will be the two dozen or so phuck-ups, the kind you might have found in the smoking lounges 30 years ago. These are the kids who aren't college-bound, etc.

The rest will continue. The peer pressure will be to wear masks. The losers who don't will continue to be ostracized.

Sounds like bullying. You are awful. This should be brought to the administration's attention - that bullying will NOT be tolerated.

I'm good with it. In fact, I told my kid to do it.

Please be advised that LCPS policy against bullying includes cyber bullying by adults - like by you.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/loudoun/Board.nsf/files/BJQMDU5A424C/$file/8250.pdf

That’s fine. I am still going to do it. These people need to be called out and ostracized. If anything, this entire saga and just demonstrated the schools have no authority. We choose to opt out of the bullying rules. Nothing they can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at my child's high school, I imagine the kids who don't wear masks will be the two dozen or so phuck-ups, the kind you might have found in the smoking lounges 30 years ago. These are the kids who aren't college-bound, etc.

The rest will continue. The peer pressure will be to wear masks. The losers who don't will continue to be ostracized.

Sounds like bullying. You are awful. This should be brought to the administration's attention - that bullying will NOT be tolerated.

I'm good with it. In fact, I told my kid to do it.

sounds like your kids are the phuck ups....and didn't fall far from the phuck up tree

No, love. My child has a 4.6 and was admitted to a T20. The ones who won’t wear masks aren’t college bound and will be flipping burgers next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if you are in favor of masks, Isn’t it sort of sad that more kids didn’t take their mask off? I feel terrible for this generation.

Not sad at all. They have a better sense of duty to others than many adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at my child's high school, I imagine the kids who don't wear masks will be the two dozen or so phuck-ups, the kind you might have found in the smoking lounges 30 years ago. These are the kids who aren't college-bound, etc.

The rest will continue. The peer pressure will be to wear masks. The losers who don't will continue to be ostracized.

You are delusional. Clearly lost one too many brain cells hanging out in the "smoking lounges" 30 years ago with fellow "phuck-ups."

Please, shut the "phuck" up.

Based on reports I got last night, my prediction was 100% accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at my child's high school, I imagine the kids who don't wear masks will be the two dozen or so phuck-ups, the kind you might have found in the smoking lounges 30 years ago. These are the kids who aren't college-bound, etc.

The rest will continue. The peer pressure will be to wear masks. The losers who don't will continue to be ostracized.

Sounds like bullying. You are awful. This should be brought to the administration's attention - that bullying will NOT be tolerated.

I'm good with it. In fact, I told my kid to do it.

sounds like your kids are the phuck ups....and didn't fall far from the phuck up tree

No, love. My child has a 4.6 and was admitted to a T20. The ones who won’t wear masks aren’t college bound and will be flipping burgers next year.

Only losers flex their kids stats like this and dog children. Get some self esteem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have a link to the actual opinion? I cannot understand the basis for this ruling from the news link.

In state court it’s common for a judge to state his or her reasoning from the bench and then enter an order, with no written opinion. That’s what seems to have happened in this case (since the order was the same day as the hearing).

I can only assume he concluded differently than the Arlington judge on the question of which took precedence — EO2 or SB1303. To my mind it’s a close call, and I’m not amazed that different judges viewed it differently. The fact that SB1303 now has a shelf life that’s measured in days could have played in — “the General Assembly has spoken” etc. — but I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if you are in favor of masks, Isn’t it sort of sad that more kids didn’t take their mask off? I feel terrible for this generation.

But why? Maybe a lot of them aren't bothered by them? Maybe they don't see them as a sign of anything? Maybe they consider them part of fashion these days. Maybe they use them as a security blanket. I don't know there are a million reasons. But I don't see why it as sad. Face covers are not a default sign of oppression or wrongness.

My kids told me they don't want to take off masks because they consider them part of what they wear now (like they would not go to school without a shirt either). Plus they consider it a small thing that they can do to help protect people ( my kids wear KN95s) and that makes them feel like they are doing their part (Both of them have close friends who have family members who are immunocompromised). Finally, bother of them have covid and wore masks and none of their friends got covid. So in their small personal "study" they feel that masks worked to protect the people they care about.

I guess what I am saying is that they don't find it sad. I don't find it sad. There is no reason for you to find someone else' choice sad either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have a link to the actual opinion? I cannot understand the basis for this ruling from the news link.

In state court it’s common for a judge to state his or her reasoning from the bench and then enter an order, with no written opinion. That’s what seems to have happened in this case (since the order was the same day as the hearing).

I can only assume he concluded differently than the Arlington judge on the question of which took precedence — EO2 or SB1303. To my mind it’s a close call, and I’m not amazed that different judges viewed it differently. The fact that SB1303 now has a shelf life that’s measured in days could have played in — “the General Assembly has spoken” etc. — but I doubt it.

No - the judge didn’t have to consider the EO anymore - now they had the new signed law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at my child's high school, I imagine the kids who don't wear masks will be the two dozen or so phuck-ups, the kind you might have found in the smoking lounges 30 years ago. These are the kids who aren't college-bound, etc.

The rest will continue. The peer pressure will be to wear masks. The losers who don't will continue to be ostracized.

Sounds like bullying. You are awful. This should be brought to the administration's attention - that bullying will NOT be tolerated.

I'm good with it. In fact, I told my kid to do it.

sounds like your kids are the phuck ups....and didn't fall far from the phuck up tree

No, love. My child has a 4.6 and was admitted to a T20. The ones who won’t wear masks aren’t college bound and will be flipping burgers next year.

Only losers flex their kids stats like this and dog children. Get some self esteem.

I've got plenty of that, sweetie. But go on teaching your kid how to be a freeloading drag on society who thinks only of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have a link to the actual opinion? I cannot understand the basis for this ruling from the news link.

In state court it’s common for a judge to state his or her reasoning from the bench and then enter an order, with no written opinion. That’s what seems to have happened in this case (since the order was the same day as the hearing).

I can only assume he concluded differently than the Arlington judge on the question of which took precedence — EO2 or SB1303. To my mind it’s a close call, and I’m not amazed that different judges viewed it differently. The fact that SB1303 now has a shelf life that’s measured in days could have played in — “the General Assembly has spoken” etc. — but I doubt it.

No - the judge didn’t have to consider the EO anymore - now they had the new signed law.

The new law doesn’t go into effect until March 1. To order masks-optional immediately the judge had to base it on EO2, and his order refers to EO2.

[Anonymous]

It is pretty unsurprising the Judge ruled the way he did. Isn't he also the Judge who jailed a domestic violence victim in Sept for smoking marijuana (and let her abuser go free) and he ordered a hospital let an outside doctor provide Ivermectin to a patient in the ICU (the hospital refused to administer, they were forced to let an outside doctor in to administer the drug and she unfortunately passed a few days later, not linked to the drug, but from covid).

Anyway, not surprising he ruled the way he did. They were lucky to get him. Judges all have their biases (both liberal and conservative)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is pretty unsurprising the Judge ruled the way he did. Isn't he also the Judge who jailed a domestic violence victim in Sept for smoking marijuana (and let her abuser go free) and he ordered a hospital let an outside doctor provide Ivermectin to a patient in the ICU (the hospital refused to administer, they were forced to let an outside doctor in to administer the drug and she unfortunately passed a few days later, not linked to the drug, but from covid).

Anyway, not surprising he ruled the way he did. They were lucky to get him. Judges all have their biases (both liberal and conservative)

Assuming that the local news accounts are correct (often a dangerous assumption, I admit), that could be expanded to read "for smoking marijuana before coming to court to testify as a witness, where she appeared to be intoxicated while on the witness stand." I don't know if that justified jailing her for civil contempt, but it's definitely not going to endear you to any judge regardless of whether you're a victim of a crime.

I haven't seen anything about the Ivermectin case -- not saying it hasn't been covered, I just haven't seen it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is pretty unsurprising the Judge ruled the way he did. Isn't he also the Judge who jailed a domestic violence victim in Sept for smoking marijuana (and let her abuser go free) and he ordered a hospital let an outside doctor provide Ivermectin to a patient in the ICU (the hospital refused to administer, they were forced to let an outside doctor in to administer the drug and she unfortunately passed a few days later, not linked to the drug, but from covid).

Anyway, not surprising he ruled the way he did. They were lucky to get him. Judges all have their biases (both liberal and conservative)

Assuming that the local news accounts are correct (often a dangerous assumption, I admit), that could be expanded to read "for smoking marijuana before coming to court to testify as a witness, where she appeared to be intoxicated while on the witness stand." I don't know if that justified jailing her for civil contempt, but it's definitely not going to endear you to any judge regardless of whether you're a victim of a crime.

I haven't seen anything about the Ivermectin case -- not saying it hasn't been covered, I just haven't seen it.

I think the Judge said she appeared intoxicated and everyone else said she didn't (her attorneys and the detectives that interacted with her at trial) . https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/judge-jail-contempt-domestic-violence-fisher/2021/09/22/6d24fae8-1bd6-11ec-bcb8-0cb135811007_story.html and https://loudounnow.com/2021/09/23/fisher-faces-calls-for-consequences-after-jailing-alleged-domestic-violence-victim-over-pot/

Anyway, I don't know if he wound up facing consequences for it (and it wasn't that long ago, so it might not be resolved yet). But it doesn't seem as clear cut as she was intoxicated. I don't imagine detectives would lie in this circumstance, but who knows. She said she smoked marijuana in the morning hours before her testimony (it doesn't last that long does it?). It seems like she was just terrified to be testifying and acted as such.

This is the other case:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-in-virginia/judge-rules-hospital-cant-block-treatment-of-covid-19-with-ivermectin/2909936/#:~:text=A%20Virginia%20hospital%20can%E2%80%99t%20stand%20in%20the%20way,Fauquier%20Hospital%20Oct.%209%20suffering%20serious%20COVID-19%20symptoms.


Anyway, I am not saying he was 100% wrong in either of these cases because I don't know any of the facts, but he does have a reputation (and again I think Judges are pretty much always biased in some way or another).