Snohomish County Sheriff faces recall campaign after judge says that signature gathering can begin

Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney

Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney faces two potential recall campaigns, but he says he is not running from a fight to keep his job.

The drive to oust Fortney was sparked when he made comments on his Facebook page April 21 critical of Gov. Jay Inslee’s COVID-19 restrictions, adding that “the impacts of COVID-19 no longer warrant the suspension of our constitutional rights.”

Forney reiterated his stand that the sheriff’s department “will not be enforcing an order preventing religious freedoms or constitutional rights.”

On Friday, a judge ruled that two charges in the first recall petition submitted meet the legal threshold to move forward to gather signatures. Judge Stephen Warning of Cowlitz County is handling the case on the recall drives to avoid any conflict of interest with Snohomish County judges.

Monroe resident Lori Shavlik filed the first recall petition, arguing that Fortney “used his position as an elected official to encourage citizens to defy the law and violate the Governor’s Emergency Proclamations.”

During the Friday hearing, conducted by phone, Judge Warning told both sides that “the sheriff’s oath of office requires him to uphold the Constitution and laws of the state, and certainly the statements that are at issue here could be read and heard to say, ‘I will not enforce a law that I disagree with, or that I think runs afoul of the Constitution.’”

Fortney responded on his Facebook page that “although I did not ask for this fight, I will not shrink from it.”

“I stand by my statement that the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office is not going to arrest people for a gross misdemeanor when they pray, go to church or express their views under the First Amendment”, he added.

Fortney promised that he would announce a campaign on Facebook “to protect the Sheriff’s Office from political assault.” Nothing had been posted as of Monday evening.

The Snohomish County Deputy Sheriff’s Executive Board has come to Fortney’s defense. In an April 13th letter, Association President Matt Boice wrote that “we vehemently oppose the recall effort.” The letter goes on to assure the sheriff that he is “conducting himself (and representing our agency) with dignity, respect and the highest considerations for the safety of the community.”

However, Snohomish County Prosecutor Adam Cornell says the county will not pay for Fortney’s legal defense. In a letter to the sheriff, Cornell says he views the Facebook post as a call to disobey the governor and health officials.

Also on Friday, a second group — comprised of four lawyers — filed to recall Fortney. They argue that the sheriff has violated his oath of office and cite — among their reasons — the way he has handled the county jail during the COVID-19 outbreak as well as his decision to reinstate three deputies fired by a previous sheriff. This petition still faces a court hearing to determine if it qualifies to go to voters.

It is possible that both recalls could be presented to voters this fall. However, the prosecutor’s chief of staff, Michael Held, says: “Courts tend to be loath to burden citizens with confusing instructions,” and that a judge could “encourage” the recall campaigns to streamline the process.

Petitioner Lori Shavlik asked Judge Warning to allow signature gathering online because of the coronavirus pandemic. Warning refused, saying it is up to the state Legislature to change the laws on getting signatures.

Either petition would need 44,000 signatures to make the ballot. State law requires that the signatures gathered must be 25% of the total vote for the office facing recall; that was nearly 176,000 votes in the 2019 sheriff’s election.

— By Bob Throndsen

  1. What does LOri Shavlik do for a job? Does she work for the state or Democrat party? Since she started this waste of tax payer $$?

    1. Just Google Lori Shavlik, it will let you know who/what she is. Everyone can draw their own conclusion as to her motives.

  2. Why this concern over Lori Shavlik’s motives? This sheriff has said he won’t perform his duties. That’s motive enough. I’ll certainly sign the petition.

  3. It is unfortunate that Adam Fortney made such a broad political statement implying that he would be determining what constitutes a religious freedom and constitutional right. Or, perhaps, it is good we know where he stands and have an opportunity to determine if we want to grant this kind of power to our County Sheriff. He is being open about his personal belief but voters deserved to know this before the election.

  4. The constitution guarantees life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to all Americans. Fortney along with many other military and law enforcement take an oath to defend it. It’s reassuring to see him and many other sheriffs across the U.S. take their oath seriously and come to the same conclusion in regards to the egregious overreach of tyrannical governors and their stay at home orders. Fortney won at least partly because he promised to actually arrest and prosecute true criminals like drug dealers and thieves. Encouraging to see him not making criminals out of tax-paying, law-abiding small businesses and individuals who’s only “crime” is trying to feed their families without offending overzealous bully tyrants Sheriff’s office is the will of the people, one way or another, we’ll get what we deserve.

    They say that your enemies define your virtues and your friends your vices. I’m happy to count Shavlik as the former and Fortney as the latter,

    1. Roger, you speak for those of us who mirror your thoughts, sentiments, and have a passion for our freedoms and the constitution. Thank you for expressing your opinions in such a clear and concise manner.

    2. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not words that come from the Constitution. Part of my problem with Fortney is that he also quotes this and says he is upholding the Constitution, but that means he is not actually familiar with the Constitution.
      I do not have a problem with his deputies applying discretion with application of the Governor’s legal orders. That is certainly OK. My problem is him getting on his soapbox to proclaim he is in disagreement and so would not follow those orders. Very bad precedent. Constitutionality is for courts, not local sheriffs, to decide.

      1. “My problem is him getting on his soapbox to proclaim he is in disagreement and so would not follow those orders.”

        Like Inslee and Durkan declaring Washington/Seattle a sanctuary state/city in defiance of Federal law?

        1. So let me get this straight, Mr. Gray.

          You either support Inslee/Durkan shirking their duty because you support Fortney doing same, or you oppose Fortney shirking his duty because you oppose Inslee/Durkan doing same.

          Which is it?

        2. Mr. Gill, I am merely calling out the double standard. Inslee and Durkan’s actions have basically invited illegal alien criminals to our region with open arms. Wondering why you won’t be able to use a Washington drivers license at the airport? Thank Inslee and Durkan. Strangely, no recall petition has been initiated by Ms. Shavlik (who appears to be too busy suing half of Snohomish county) or anyone else in regards to that action. This doesn’t surprise me, however, as anyone daring to challenge the entrenched leftists around here would immediately be labeled RACIST or whatever the latest dog whistle is.

      2. As I suspect you know, your comment’s a fair bit disingenuous, misleadingly accurate in letter only, not at all in spirit. Founding fathers specifically outlined life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to be self-evident unalienable rights guarantying them specifically in the Declaration, and then spelling them out in the constitution generally and the bill of rights specifically. Understanding this doesn’t require a constitutional scholar, it’s not rocket science for me or any honest observer to have fundamental problems with Inslee’s blatant disregard of a number of civil rights issues in this lockdown. There’s obvious problems with the 3rd Article and 1st Amendment, and probable infringements of the 6th Article and 2nd Amendment as well. Rightfully, the states’ rights are broad and fairly insulatory as they should be, but founding federal rights docs trump them all.

        Our state’s a perfect example of Ben Franklin’s observation that.. “Democracy is Two Wolves and a Sheep Voting on What’s for Dinner”, and highlights the brilliance of our founding fathers. Jackals like Inslee and his leftist cronies rule WA with an iron fist, unfettered with concern for balance or fairness. His position here is particularly “blessed”, that the WA governor’s emergency powers are very strong with nearly no oversight, not that there’d be any balanced oversight to be had with our leftist legislature. He’s ignorantly eviscerating livelihoods, and with his cronies like Sideshow Bob Ferguson, criminalizing businesses and individuals whose only ”crime” is to “dare” disobey our “dear leader” and to try to pay their mortgages and feed their families.

        Many feel we’re in a very bad time now, having nothing to do with the biology of the virus. Fortney a bad precedent or just openly defiant? Nope. First, the office of sheriff is the only law-enforcement officer recognized and authorized by the U.S. Constitution. There’s much precedent for what he’s doing already, the courts have spoken often about sheriffs discretion, it’s just kind of a bitch huh when a leftist tyrant is rightfully called out and appropriately ignored. Hypocritical? That’s your analysis, nothing to do with relevancy or correctness. I appreciate and respect the oath taken by law enforcement and military, and we should ALL be thankful it’s not just words to most of them.

        Our founding fathers are smiling down on and cheering for Fortney and his ilk, and have put Inslee in the same tyrannical pile as his British cousins of yore.

  5. Mr. Gray.

    Yes, it is a double standard, so where do you stand?

    Either you are opposed to elected officials flouting the law in their official capacity, or you are not. It’s one or the other. You cannot be critical of one example, and yet give a pass or throw roses at the other.

    This applies to people on both sides of the political fence, because hypocrites come in all shapes, sizes and colours.

    1. I don’t believe I got an answer the last time I asked this… is a sheriff of a county the same as a chief of police of a city or the head of the state troopers? A sheriff is an elected position not appointed, I believe that they have more room on what they will and will not do than the other two.

      For my own answer to Paul’s question its a little apples and oranges in that when a sheriff refuses an ICE retainer I do see them failing to enforce a law. When they refuse to enforce a state law they feel infringes on the 2nd amendment it gets grayer. With the stay at home order since it really isn’t a law is there technically anything they are breaking the law by not enforcing? That said he WAS totally grandstanding by going public since all the other county sheriffs were choosing to not enforce it as well, in silence.

      1. “With the stay at home order since it really isn’t a law …”

        An executive order of the governor of a state has the force of law. 42 USCS 14616.

        *Reality Check* It is a law, enforceable as same. When the governor issued that executive order, he wasn’t asking us to comply, he was telling us to comply. You might not like it (many don’t), but it is what it is.

        Honestly, we are getting into Alice Through the Looking Glass territory here. You are engaging in sophistry, in order to excuse hypocrisy.

        1. Fundamentally, Inslee and other governors are acting in accordance to and insulated by the 12th Article and 10th Amendment of the constitution. Constitutionally defined rights trump all states powers, the states’ rights being those not specifically defined by the constitution. To the long-term detriment of all Washingtonians, our governor has particularly strongly defined emergency powers without balance of legislative oversight (not that would mean much here) and little legal vulnerability. Making Inslee the envy and poster child of despots everywhere, the very definition of what myopic leftists accuse President Trump of being. Funny that huh?

          Also irritating for tyrannical leftists through time and place; the courts have recognized and validated the office of sheriff’s constitutional authority and confirmed their discretion over state power many times. Fortney’s oath and responsibility is rightly to the Constitution, not to Inslee; and he’s got a number of constitutionally granted articles/amendments that Inslee is playing fast and loose with here.

          *Reality Check*?? if your measure of “law” is enforceability, then Inslee’s decrees certainly qualify, much less if correct legislative origin are important. But leftists often value a “win” over honesty and fairness, so I’m sure that makes it acceptable. And with apologies to Socrates, sophistry is a relatively defined term used as defense by those often very familiar with the concept. Hypocrisy’s also just an opinion, without any logical validity in and of itself to any relevance or correctness. In other words, anyone can be hypocritical and still correct.

          And you’re talking to traditionals here about the “Looking Glass”?? We shake our heads at it every day here in the Soviet of Washington, but just didn’t realize we’d get 1984 and the Twilight Zone thrown in for good measure.

          Inslee “rules” by will of the people, not vis-versa. As he fecklessly continues to crush all of us, he’s in hot water with limited awareness and capacity to climb out of the pot.

  6. Per double standards, Baseball great Yogi Berra said it succinctly: If you come to a fork in the road, take it!!!

    Don’t spend too much time pondering that great saying….

  7. I am having a little difficulty understanding your desired outcome, Roger. The world is at war with a virus that is killing a lot of people. Instead of rationing and other World War restrictions, we have stay-at-home and lock-down which (metaphorically) represent our bomb-shelters. Is it draconian for a governor to implement strategies in an attempt to save lives? There is a road-map for WA counties to move toward easing restrictions based on facts and figures and not on a sheriff interpreting the Declaration of Independence. A person needs to be living in order to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately there are now over 90K individuals who will not have that opportunity.

    1. I realize that it’s not your responsibility to read all of my comments, I’ve covered all of this elsewhere where MEN hasn’t censored it.

      -More than any time in memory, we need standards and logic with compassion, not just emotion.
      -Win-win important, simply protect both the vulnerable/fearful and healthy/unafraid. Regardless of road map, Inslee’s killing his economy without oversight, glad you trust, I see smoke and mirrors.
      -Perspective. US deaths: 2.8M/yr. Pre-covid. Avg citizen 99.17% chance of survival. Now.. 99.15% Near nothing..
      -In past pandemics, onus on protecting vulnerable/afraid without tyrannically shutting down healthy/unafraid
      -Hyperbole.. Not at world war or anything like it. Not truly dangerous like black death or historical smallpox. It’s a Flu. Morphology, symptoms, transmissions, death. Healthy humans under 70, nearly no danger. Possible more dangerous above it. Flu kills 30-80k/yr. Covid NOT going to wipe out the world.
      -Microbes with us since time immemorial. Do we shut down every winter?
      -Initial models ridiculous, off by orders of magnitude. But with the media’s help, we’ve obviously kept the Fear.
      -Lockdowns don’t make us safer, same #’s, but delay herd immunity and eviscerate the economy. Compare Sweden, Belarus, Nicaragua, even South Dakota with their neighbors.
      -Herd immunity is the ONLY long-term answer. Covid perfect for it. Young are safe from covid, are the prime vectors, socials, clerks, retail, tellers etc.. When they have antibodies, virus nearly stopped in its tracks.
      -There will be many times more misery and death due to economy than covid. Watch & learn .

      It’s simple to me. Read and make up your own mind..

  8. Bravo Anthony..this is not laws either, that’s the point. In order for it to be a law it has to go to the legislation. If you listen or read the phraseology you won’t see “law.” They can claim the first 30 days as emergency, then ends. If you arrest someone i.e. A business reopening up. you have to code a number in the book. Each crime has a number..what number this gonna be?? That’s why Oregon Govenor just lost her case. They got to reopen immediately with no rules..Judge told the Govenor no can’t be done..

    1. If Inslee’s order was taken to court there is a 99% chance he would win. Unlike other states there is no forced 30 day review by the legislature in our constitution. In fact under current rules he can simply choose to continually re-issue until he leaves office unless the state congress makes changes. Since both branches are held by the democrats not likely to happen on this one, certainly not before the end of the year.

      As I said back in early April I didn’t see him fully opening up until at least August/September, no matter what any numbers say, unless there is huge political pushback. So when they set phase benchmarks that are impossible to meet (10 new positives per 100,000 as they ramp up testing) that “force” them to keep things closed it does not surprise me at all.

  9. The Oregon Governor has not lost yet and businesses are not reopening until the Oregon Supreme Court rules on the case. However, by the time the ruling is made the majority of businesses restaurants will be open under “phase-in” guidelines. Capitalism is resilient but this may take a little time (but save some lives). Many lessons are being learned and, hopefully, we will be better prepared for the next pandemic at all levels of government. At the moment we are fighting a war on our home-turf and national leadership and coordination was slow and ill-prepared.

    1. I am not faulting any of our governments for being ill-prepared; how do you adequately prepare for something that happens every 100 years!

      1. I agree with you. My dear late mother had a saying – “Let’s just be here right now”. The saying meant that it didn’t nearly matter as much as to how we got here and that pointing fingers on past events serves no useful purpose, but far more importantly we need to learn from our errors, and use those lessons to determine how to move forward.

        Errors have been made, and lots of fingers are being pointed, but right now we need to put aside the criticisms, focus on the here and now, and collectively figure out how to help our beloved community go forward in a thoughtful, careful, and intelligent manner. We are learning some very hard lessons, but we will be stronger for it. We have to be.

      2. There was a 2015 pandemic report, it recommended purchase levels of equipment, few states followed the guidelines. NY for instance didn’t just ignore the recommendation on number of ventilators it came up with a rationing plan to be used in its place, so they planned to have a problem. The national stockpile was depleted after H1N1 and congress kicked the can down the road.

        States focused spending on things important to them right now with plan B being the Feds will bail us out. Basically like government does with most issues. How many states when there is a budgetary problem say “don’t worry we will cut funding to the sand-dodger studies and reduce middle management” versus “give us more money or we have to lay off police, firefighters and teachers.”

  10. Should we shut-down and stay at home to fight the COVID-19 pandemic? To those that feel the current pandemic is no worse than seasonal flu, I refer you to a study in the Journal of American Medical Association for a comparison:
    The article points out the difficulty in making valid data comparisons but found “… statistics on counted deaths suggest that the number of COVID-19 deaths for the week ending April 21 was 9.5-fold to 44.1-fold greater than the peak week of counted influenza deaths during the past 7 influenza seasons in the US …” “Although officials may say that SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] is “just another flu,” this is not true.” It is true the demand on hospital resources during the COVID-19 crisis has not occurred before in the US, even during the worst of influenza seasons. Ventilators have been in short supply and many hospitals have been stretched beyond their limits. Perhaps lessons are being learned at many levels by private equity companies that own and run hospitals for a profit and state/federal government officials. Until then, deaths in the US are approaching 100K and that’s not hyperbole.

  11. Don’t recall anyone saying 100k is hyperbole, who has? Most thinkers care deeply, but it IS hyperbole and false equivalence to try and equate that number to push panic and fear in any sane comparison with things that will kill a significant number of us (Black Death, historical smallpox, Spanish Flu). Life isn’t fundamentally safe, like I’ve said before, US looses 2.8 million/year.
    For the “party of science”, there seems to be a significant partisan inability to come to terms with the critical, fundamental importance that antibodies and immunity play historically. Those who haven’t developed immunities aren’t alive today, it’s THE way we’ve fought ubiquitous microbes since the dawn of humanity. Your article academically nit-picks flu numbers and is a red herring. Covid’s not the flu, but flu-like for most observers. Factually, it’s MUCH less dangerous than the flu for the healthy under 50, and probably so for the healthy under 70. But it’s really unimportant except for future academic debate, for those honestly paying attention, it’s crystal this virus won’t kill the world, it’s the FEAR & Dem-Panic that’s the biggest danger.
    The difference between partisanship and honesty is when different information is input, the honest will give you a different answer, the partisan the same. In this situation, good governance would be a win-win for both the healthy/unafraid and the vulnerable/afraid. This is where Inslee and his ilk are utter failures; he’s NOT preventing cases, just crushing the healthy. He continues the case counting lockdown lunacy, while ignoring the radically different models and scientific conclusions from when he began.

    Life is for living, don’t know about anyone else, but I’ll take responsibility for my own life, and continue living it without undue influence from those I consider dim, tyrannical idiots.

  12. Inslee is phrasing it as stay home so that people don’t die (due to COVID-19). I have not heard him state that he has weighed the risk of people dying from COVID-19 as compared to deaths from increases in suicide, undiagnosed or late diagnosed cancer, domestic violence, or child abuse. I heard on the radio (so I don’t have the link), that for every 1% increase in unemployment, there is a 1% increase in suicides and a 3% increase in opioid deaths. The doctor they spoke to said that he has seen as many suicide deaths through May as he expected to see all of 2020. The number of people getting cancer diagnoses is down by 80-90%, partially because people are afraid that they will get COVID-19, and partially because we’ve been told that the hospitals are too busy with COVID-19 patients, so don’t go in. Has anyone seen Inslee or anyone else do a comparison of the number of other deaths that have increased during this same time frame while we are staying home?

  13. This is a big concern of myself as well, in 2-5 years we are likley to look back at the numbers and see more deaths related to the shutdown than Covid. Hard sell to those that truly believe people are only alive because of the shutdown and that Covid numbers (which will be adjusted down by probably 40% in the future) are the most important thing in their lives.

    1. Yes, that is going to be a hard sell. You want people to believe that the numbers of “shelter-in-place” related suicides are going to eclipse those related to the virus itself, while you concurrently argue that the number of virus-related deaths are going to be “adjusted down by probably 40% in the future”.

      I personally think that is patent nonsense (just my opinion), and you are going to have to cite some credible figures to support those assertions. While it is statistically true that suicides increase during economic distress, at this point I have not read a single, credible, legitimate source that supports a claim that the numbers of deaths related to “shutdown” are greater – or will be greater – than those related to the virus itself. In fact, every legitimate source indicates otherwise.

      I’ve expressed this before, you guys are entitled to your personal opinions but you are not entitled to your own personal set of facts.

      1. According to Toby Rogers, PhD, a political economist, “There is a large volume of academic literature on ‘the social determinants of health’ and ‘deaths of despair’ caused by increases in the unemployment rate. The pioneering work in this field was conducted by Harvey Brenner (then at Johns Hopkins University) on behalf of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress in the mid 1970s.”

        In a March 23 article for Robert Kennedy Jr.’s organization, Dr. Rogers forecasted deaths from the economic shut-down to range from just under 300,000 deaths to over 1.8 Million on the high end. Source:

        And our DOH admitted on May 21 that Washington State’s COVID-19 death statistics are inflated.

        1. Ya, these are the guys that are at the forefront of the “anti-vaccer” movement, still think that hydroxychloroquine is a COVID 19 treatment, and Dr. Rogers is referencing the Brenner study that is 45 years old, and has since been thoroughly debunked.

          Look, here’s the deal. Take away the numbers of “deaths of despair” that are non COVID 19 related (i.e. the “deaths of despair” that have occurred each and every year before COVID 19 ever showed up), and then assume that any additional “deaths of despair” beyond that number are all COVID 19 related (a very generous assumption in support of your argument). That resulting number (i.e. the “delta” between the pre-COVID 19 “deaths of despair” and the additional “deaths of despair” after the onset of COVID 19) do not remotely add up to the numbers dying from COVID 19, even assuming a (ridiculous) 40% reduction in the current COVID 19 fatalities. Furthermore, if we hadn’t responded to the pandemic we would have lost hundreds of thousands of citizens (and millions, the world over).

          Trying to force an argument that somehow fewer people would have died if we had not responded as we did is (1) deeply flawed; (2) contrary to the science; and (3) risking the lives of people who buy into that nonsense. It is irresponsible, and you need to stop.

      2. The UN is warning of a global increase in starvation numbers linked to the shutdown that will increase global deaths in the millions. This impact alone would make the shutdown numbers higher than Covid. Do you find the UN to be a legitimate or not legitimate source?

        Please show me any reporting that says suicides are down or flat, same for drug deaths, same for domestic violence deaths. DeBlasio said himself that much of the increase of death at home numbers were people failing to seek medical attention. Every state that has done a full review of their Covid numbers has seen them revised down, none have revised them up unless they at the same time first time included probables like NY, but even they have been slowly removing numbers. This holds true for countries around the world, look at both Spain and Italy pre and post review. Look at any country that “handled the pandemic well” like say South Korea, they are NOT counting deaths the same way we are, if they did their numbers would climb.

        In future data the CDC will adjust the probables, this is going to reduce numbers. Right now Johns Hopkins and CDC report all positives plus probables as Covid deaths to get us to the close to 100,000 mark. The current argument is do you look only at the deaths caused by Covid numbers or the deaths where Covid was a contributing factor or even include where Covid might have been a contributing factor? Right now we are all the way in the last category, in the future it will almost assuredly switch to somewhere closer to the first.

        If someone had Covid in Feb, recovered without even knowing it, dies today of a heart problem they have been struggling with for a couple of years, they then are tested finding out they have antibodies, do you count it as Covid? Heck how about if you even throw in the wrinkle of they stopped taking their medication because of a fear of going out to get more. Right now they are being counted as Covid in Washington State and many others.

        Colorado had a guy that was almost 7 times the legal limit listed as Covid before they revised after a legal challenge forced them to examine their states numbers, which then dropped by about a quarter. They also confirmed cases of coroners changing the cause of death to Covid on death certificates. That is a blue state with a Democrat governor, can hardly blow it off as a Fox News conspiracy.

        NYC still has people that died in car crashes included in their numbers, heck for that matter Cuomo said NY has people that have tested negative in their numbers. Chicago two weeks ago was reporting 11 of their under 30 died of Covid numbers that just happened to also have gun shot injuries at the same time.

        The CDC in Oct put out an extreme flu season warning with projections of 80-100,000 deaths… few people paid much attention at the time, right now they estimate 24-62,000 died of the flu, where did the rest go, why have they still only confirmed 24,000 and how many of the rest are being counted as Covid related symptoms deaths? In a couple of years we will likely know.

        There are many people that died but were not tested so we don’t know to count them, we also don’t know they were Covid positive and to a large degree they ARE being counted in the probables. If they died without seeking treatment they could just as reasonably also counted in deaths caused by the shutdown. How many of this unknown number would not have died if they had of seen a doctor instead of staying at home?

        How many of the people that did die of Covid and were tested positive would have survived if they had of sought treatment sooner, should they not be counted in the shutdown numbers?

        As I said before it is almost a certainty that more people will die of the effects of the shutdown than of Covid, the worse Covid gets the worse the secondary effects across the globe. At this point it can never reasonably catch up. The only way for Covid deaths to have been higher than the secondary is if there were fewer Covid deaths AND the response impacted at a lower level. We are already past that point.

        1. “The UN is warning of a global increase in starvation numbers linked to the shutdown that will increase global deaths in the millions. This impact alone would make the shutdown numbers higher than Covid. Do you find the UN to be a legitimate or not legitimate source?”

          David Beasley (Executive Director of the UN’s “World Food Program”) was reporting to the UN prior to the COVID-19 pandemic taking hold that “2020 would be facing the worst humanitarian crisis (famine) since World War II.” (his words). He blamed various factors, including civil conflicts in Yemen, Syria and North Africa, collapsing oil export prices in developing nations, unusually large locust swarms in Central Africa, natural disasters, and economic/crop failures in Sudan, Ethiopia, Lebanon and D.R. of Congo. This is the “UN warning” that you are referring to, but you failed to mention the true nature of the warning.

          To be sure, Beasley subsequently explained that the COVID-19 pandemic could certainly aggravate the pre-existing conditions for the anticipated famine (that being mainly a disruption in supply chains), and that as a result the famine could in toto kill more people than will COVID-19, but the famine threatening millions is already there.

          You keep emphasizing that we should not count “indirect” contribution of COVID-19 to overall predictions/recording of death rates, but that is exactly what you have done with your post immediately above.

          It is improper, intellectually dishonest, and wholly irresponsible.

        2. Paul, when you throw around statements like legitimate sources, try to read peoples minds and start name calling it makes it hard for people to take you seriously. Its the same as believe the science but only the science that says what I want it to say.

          Never have I said we should not have reacted, I said previously even with hindsight we should have reacted the same way we did. Even though the data turned out so badly wrong we couldn’t just dismiss it at the time. I also though don’t jump on the should have acted sooner because hindsight says so bandwagon. Where I had the problem was that we needed to correct paths when we found out that the modeling was so far off base, and that some continue to ignore the science they don’t like in favor of doing what they want to do while using “science” as their shield and hammer.

          Trump and the CDC were the ones that started the count every positive, not the democrats, are you defending Trump? I felt it was wrong then, said so at the time. Then it predicatively went on to counting the probables and further to the maybe’s and even further by some to the prove it did nots. This is not opinion it is stated plainly by the pertinent people.

          Counting secondaries as they truly fall should be done and sometimes in multiple categories. Using them to show the cost of the shutdown is clearly legitimate. Stretching deaths to include them as Covid should be a problem to anyone looking for accuracy.

          Even with your twisting to find the true meaning of what I really meant about the UN study numbers, you still say you see it shows millions more deaths because of the shutdown than if there was no shutdown, so what are you arguing about?

          “We can expect more global deaths due to secondary impacts of COVID-19 than the virus itself — the World Food Program currently estimates that 265 million will be on the brink of starvation by the end of the year.”
          “At the beginning of 2020, some 130 million were already facing dire levels of hunger. That figure could now more than double the number of people facing acute hunger to 265 million by the end of this year.”

          At the same time that you have gotten triggered by if Covid is 100,000 or 60,000 you try to ignore the impact on 135 million… what was that you were saying about intellectual honesty?

        3. Anthony, in your response to Paul you accused him of “name calling” and “trying to read peoples minds” but I don’t see any evidence of him doing so. Have I missed something? To what were you referring?

        4. Paul when you end your comments with a scolding ……“you need to stop”, or “it is improper, intellectually dishonest, and wholly irresponsible”, I agree with Roger, “there’s no interest or time for a scolding or shaming…..”. . Roger and Anthony have given very good arguments for their positions. Why the shaming? Because they don’t agree with you? You destroy your own differing opinion with these scolding comments.

        5. Annon, that comment is not locked into only one specific response, do you not think calling someone intellectually dishonest simply because you have a difference of opinion is calling names?

          As to reading minds look back at his interpretation of my comment on the UN study. When I said…

          “The UN is warning of a global increase in starvation numbers linked to the shutdown that will increase global deaths in the millions. This impact alone would make the shutdown numbers higher than Covid.”

          …he decided that I unfairly didn’t mention that things were already bad…

          “This is the “UN warning” that you are referring to, but you failed to mention the true nature of the warning.”

          …implies that the reason I didn’t mention it is that it would have changed the accuracy of my point, since it doesn’t what is the point? I asked him this in the same response.

        6. Thanks Anthony. I didn’t read his comments that way at all. What I read in your posts and Paul’s is passionate frustration, what many of us are feeling at the moment. Clearly you have a difference of opinion.

  14. Right on the money Tina, and really just the tip of the iceberg.. Your first statement is probably the crux of the issue, addressing Inslee’s moving goalposts. His emergency lockdown declaration and subsequent civil rights violations were based on “flattening the curve” and “protecting our health care from being overwhelmed” and was initially defensible. The gross errors of the initial UW & UK models drove the initial draconian predictions, panic, and fear, but have been rectified with many iterations of real, empirical data. With increasingly accurate input, the adjusted output data now’s along the lines of the seasonal flu. But not surprisingly, this adjustment’s not been made with Inslee and his echo-chamber partisans and dishonest media allies, trying to hold the initial Dem-Panic frame.

    In the past eight weeks it’s become pretty obvious that we’ve a) flattened the curve and b) that hospital resources aren’t being over-run. So the legal reason for the lockdown is over! Right? Not so fast, he just changes it to “It’s Saving Lives”, which sounds “sciencey” and emotionally good, but is demonstrably false, and NOT his reason for lockdown. Can’t have it both ways in most places, but we’re in the Soviet of Washington. It now looks like as much as anything, Inslee’s picking his “winners” and “losers” as we go forward.

    Encouragingly, I see many signs of this lockdown insanity turning on Inslee including much common-sense behavior and disobedience to his decrees. The lawsuits may have some effect. Unfortunately it won’t be soon enough to save many. As for myself, I’ve never seen so much BS in all my life, and I’ll be making changes to my business configuration to never pay Inslee another dime.

  15. Inslee needs to retire along with his Chief of Staff…the real culprit in all of this!!!

  16. Tina, one of the reasons cancer shows down is definitely because many of the tests to find cancer are elected and they just opened it back up. You couldn’t even get a mastectomy because it was elected. People were also afraid of coming to a doctor or hospital because they were more afraid of getting Covid than cancer, as you stated.. Incredible. No cancer tests were given. In fact people with cancer apptments were cancelled and rescheduled. (This is an area I know about.)
    The more I listen to Inslee the less trust I have with anything he says. AFter watching the interview with a woman reporter Brandy something (I think channel 13) this last week I thought she asked valid questions and he was indignant and frankly acted like a jerk.
    Take a watch and see what you think.
    Why is t he telling us about the millions/billion money he lost with unemployment???

  17. @Paul.
    Anti-vaccer movement? I’d guess if distrust of Bill Gate’s motivations is required for membership, you’ll find me and many other logical members of that club. HQ Debunked? Science is never “settled”; output changes as fact and input change. This is evident to open minded thinkers, less so to a Politically Correct “Party of Science” pushing a political frame and punishing any “wrongthink” while trying to sound “sciencey”… Looks like at the worst, HQ is unsettled and does no harm. Easy to find studies (not 1945) indicating antagonism against COVID-19 and shown to be generally effective. That qualifies as debunked? Shall we just deny it to people it may help because it’s “debunked”, and tell all the people who’ve taken it and gotten well that it’s just an anecdotal placebo and not important.

    Like most things covid, enough data will be out eventually for academia to discuss rationally. For honest thinkers it’s obvious that the delta for deaths of despair will be significantly higher than for normal. Who knows how much it will be? But this is just the tip of the iceberg for the total misery in the dem-painc, predictable for a socialist trial run, as misery and socialists are joined at the hip. We’ll never know the specific woulda shloulda coulda’s of alternate decisions. But we can certainly compare apples to apples, and come to crystal clarity that lockdowns crush society, with negligible benefits, and that Fear, not covid poses the real danger to the vast majority of the world.

    As for breakdowns.. 1 & 3 don’t even meet the bar of an opinion, self-evident without backing?? As for 2, “science” is presented as a self-evident monolith, personally at your assertion’s service, without requirement of fact or logic. Please bring logic to the table, there’s no interest or time for a scolding or shaming schoolmarm or Karen, like most folks, we’ve passed that reasoning bar in the 2nd or 3rd grade.

    And I’d sure like to believe the earlier conciliatory cumbaya sharing blame; all of us were wrong, finger pointing, moving forward.. etc.. But it feels a lot more like leftist “I’ve been exposed”, called to the carpet, and can’t figure a way to blame someone else this time, more than honest reconciliation. And this problem isn’t situational to this event, it is and will continue as a recurring systemic leftist phenomena.

    Perhaps our county’s most important right and beneficial attribute is physical and intellectual liberty. Unfortunately, the left abhors and is rightly fearful of, and has little use for, this mental or physical freedom. They’ve become bully (often violent) tyrants in word and deed in denying this freedom. The fearfully emotional “Chicken Little Party” lacks grit, is logically crippled, and timid. It’s the epitome of Politically Correct, “don’t judge“, “participation trophy” celebrating philosophy weakening our society daily. All of these things abetted us getting in to this deep s!*%^, slowed our recovery, and unfortunately will be on repeat for any future crisis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.