Areas of Vermont could see a few inches of snow when a winter storm moves in Wednesday night into Thursday.

Most of Vermont is under a winter weather advisory as a widespread storm is expected to move into Vermont tonight. National Weather Service Meteorologist Robert Haynes noted that the exceptions were for St. Lawrence and the Champlain Valley.

The snow is expected to start this afternoon, and could impact the evening commute today and both the morning and evening commute on Thursday.

“The snow will persist through early Friday, with a few to several inches of snow accumulation expected. Winds will become gusty as well, likely producing areas of blowing and drifting snow. Unseasonably cold weather will follow for the first half of the weekend before moderating early next week,” the National Weather Service’s forecaster discussion said.

Here’s what to know about the looming winter storm.

How much snow if Vermont expected to get?

After “multiple rounds of snow” from Wednesday into Thursday, most of Vermont will see between 2-6 inches of snow, Haynes said.

“The higher elevations could see between 4-7 inches,” Haynes said, adding the summits on Vermont’s mountains could see 8-12 inches.

“The skiers will be happy,” Haynes said.

Burlington is expected to recieve about 2.7 inches of snow.

How cold will it be over the next couple of days?

During tomorrow’s storms, temperatures in the Green Mountain State will be in the 20s and 30s, but frigid temperatures will move in to the state on Friday.

“Apparent temperatures are anticipated to fall as low as 0-10 degrees (F) during the coldest part of (Thursday) night, potentially as low as -15 to -20 degrees on summits,” according to the National Weather Service.

The passage added that wind gusts on Friday could be “15-30 knots and high temperatures (will struggle) to hit the upper teens to mid 20s. At their warmest, apparent temperatures will be in the single digits to mid-teens.”

“The coldest night will be Friday into Saturday,” Haynes said.

Vermont basketball can point to key injuries as an easy reason for its lackluster performances in the nonconference season.

Longtime coach John Becker didn’t go that route after the Catamounts’ underwhelming, 60-53 defeat to Brown on Tuesday night in front of 2,111 at Patrick Gym.

The loss was Vermont’s first at home in 15 games, and just the third on Tom Brennan Court over the last four seasons (48-3).

“It’s another game we struggled to score the ball, struggled to rebound, struggled to take care of the ball. Credit to Brown, they played really hard, pressed us the whole game, got on the glass late when they needed to and had the best player on the court,” the 14th-year Catamount bench boss said. “Our injuries really aren’t an excuse because (Brown is) injured just as much as we are.

“We have to be better and that’s on me. Right now, it’s really difficult for us.”

Kino Lilly, Jr., whom Becker referenced as Tuesday night’s best player, drained four 3s and totaled a game-high 23 points, while Landon Lewis racked up a double-double of 19 points and 10 rebounds to power the Brown Bears (5-3).

Freshman guard Sean Blake scored a career-high 13 points and Shamir Bogues added 11 points and three steals for the Catamounts (5-5), who were without injured starters Nick Fiorillo and TJ Long for a third straight game. Transfer forward Shy Odom (concussion) also missed his second straight contest.

Fiorillo and Long are week to week with their injuries, according to a UVM athletic spokesperson.

The Catamounts made only 5 of 21 3-point attempts and shot 37.9% overall from the floor for the game. Their percentage worsened in the second half at just a 33.3% clip. And the Catamounts’ starting guards went 7 of 30 from field.

“The numbers are atrocious for us offensively. We are struggling to find consistency,” Becker said.

Ahead 31-28 at the break, Brown built a 12-point lead at 47-35 at the 15-minute mark of the second half. The Catamounts closed to within 53-50 on Ileri Ayo-Fale’s 3-pointer with 4:31 to play. Then Lilly responded with a driving layup, a step-back 3-point splash and a pair of foul shots to seal Brown’s road victory.

Redshirt freshman forward Noah Barnett (eight points on 4 of 5 shooting, six rebounds, two assists) was a bright spot, but scored all of his points in game’s first 5:08. The explosive Blake had flashes with strong takes to the rim, finishing 6 of 12 on his field-goal attempts.

Vermont’s inability to play out of the post, the graduation losses of Aaron Deloney and Matt Veretto and, yes, even the injuries have the America East Conference favorites searching to play cohesively on the offensive end.

“We’ve had these stretches early in the year when it looks discombobulated and we figure something out. But I think it’s really difficult when you can’t throw it into the post and play out of the post consistently,” Becker said.

“We have to continue to try and figure it out … but I don’t know what the answer is right now.”

Contact Alex Abrami at aabrami@freepressmedia.com. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter: @aabrami5.

BY MELISSA GOLDIN

Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling, claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent.

The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19.

But the ruling by Vermont’s high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits.

Here’s a closer look at the facts.

CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents’ wishes.

THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella’s suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion.

According to the lawsuit, the Politella’s son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school’s assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated.

Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued.

“We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.”

The PREP Act, enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct” that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington.

Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says.

“The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn’t want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’”

Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19.

Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.”

“Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email.

Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn’t say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended.

“The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.”

Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court’s mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.”

Originally Published: December 3, 2024 at 6:42 PM EST