Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Because they want to define when the masks come on or come off. It's not the governor's decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church was being lawless when they did that.

Masks will soon be optional. But Youngkin doesn't have the authority to do it by fiat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

I’m tired of wearing masks and expect that they will not be required very soon. I’m just so happy that this overreach was not vindicated.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Because voting for a R representative will change masking at your kid's school.

IRRATIONAL.

NP. No. But voting out the current school board will help. This is one of many reasons.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Because voting for a R representative will change masking at your kid's school.

IRRATIONAL.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

I hope you don't do anything you don't want to do.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

That’s pretty funny.

Horraay!!!!!

The judge basically said that since the legislature expressly gave the school districts the authority to determine which of the CDC mitigation measures were practicable, the Governor cannot simply over-ride what the legislature squarely put on the schools to decide.

“The single issue before the court is whether the Governor, via his emergency powers, can override the decision of local school boards delegated to then under SB 1303. The court concludes the Governor cannot," she continued.

Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

link?

The school districts have higher authority than the governor's EO on mask mandates.

Just decided.