What is interesting is that they made reference to the ESHB 1551 ruling form 2020 regarding STD's- naming mostly HIV. If they can push the argument that CVD!9 is an STD then they may apply the same ruling, but thats a stretch and hardly as believable as Prince Andrew's sweat.
I have not found the discussion of the above mentioned WAC however their CVD19 presentation is still pending.
Of course they try to get ahead of the dissent, by posting a clarification. you can read that here https://sboh.wa.gov/News/Articles/ID/3050/Clarifying-Online-Misinformation-about-the-Jan-12-State-Board-of-Health-Public-Meeting
What is interesting is that they made reference to the ESHB 1551 ruling form 2020 regarding STD's- naming mostly HIV. If they can push the argument that CVD!9 is an STD then they may apply the same ruling, but thats a stretch and hardly as believable as Prince Andrew's sweat.