× Welcome to The Methow's community forum!

Please review our site intent and posting guidelines.
We welcome our new members and hope to see you around some more!

The Okanogan County Snitch List – Inslee’s Informant Herd

  • Court
  • Court's Avatar Topic Author
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
3 years 5 months ago #66 by Court
Hi Bruce,
I don't know which person you are on the list, but this is public transparency data obtained from the state. This data is complete and no one will be removed from it.

If, in the future, you would like to NOT appear on such lists, then please do not report local businesses to the state.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Brucefreman
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
3 years 5 months ago - 3 years 5 months ago #65 by Brucefreman
Replied by Brucefreman on topic The Snitch List – Inslee’s Informant Herd
Hi Court, my name is Bruce and I have noticed that my name is on this list. I am unaware of how my name was acquired, it is Not on cop blasters report. I have taken initiative to carefully read through both dumps part 1 or 2 there is not one story with this info on there . Please remove my good name from your list.
Last edit: 3 years 5 months ago by Brucefreman.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Court
  • Court's Avatar Topic Author
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
3 years 5 months ago #64 by Court
Psoare, thanks for your comments.

>IN A SETTING WHERE MASKS WERE UNCOMMON

But it's pretty apparent by this one that you don't understand how or why that observational study is first of all, a scientific study.

>The Cochrane Reviews study where the authors' conclusions were...

Yes, and now you also know the scientific issues with the studies that were previously cited by OKPROUD. This is because this is biological science, attempting a control group, on humans, in a free country, that respects medical ethics, etc. Now go back to that 40 year old English RCT. Do you understand just a little better what it did and WHY it's important?


>The "liberty loving" self-proclaimed patriots that are worsening and prolonging this pandemic, that are in fact helping to deepen this tragic event and push us into ever deepening economic peril.

"Worsening AND prolonging"? It can't be both. In fact, OKPROUD was saying there that the Governor's policies, including mask mandates, were to "slow the spread", and indeed that was the initial justification for them earlier last year. If you slow the spread, then you prolong the entire process of people being infected with the virus before sufficient numbers have immunity to it so the spread is not increasing. So it certainly can't be the non-maskers that are prolonging this pandemic. The non-maskers would absolutely like to open everything up and return to normal... but it's the one-size-fits-all mandates and restrictions by the Governor that are pushing us all into ever-deepening economic peril.

I'm old enough to remember back to spring of last year, when everyone that didn't wear masks was supposed to be long dead by now. In fact, if "magic masks" are truly such a shield and protection, then by now - after a full year - everyone who hasn't habitually worn a mask has already long-gotten the virus and recovered. They're all pretty much immune by this point. Now we're just waiting on all you maskers as you SLOOOOOWWWWLLY but inevitably get it and pass it on amongst yourselves. So hurry it up, we have small businesses that need to open and finances to rebuild. Take your mask off and breathe deep.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Psoare
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
3 years 5 months ago #63 by Psoare
Court - I think OKVALLEYSTRONG makes some valid points, which you seem to summarily dismiss. The research that is linked to is sound. Your citations, on the other hand, are a bit dubious. Your link to the Danish mask study specific to Covid-19, which you characterize as having been heroically published after multiple evil medical journals tried to suppress it: The study's own stated Objective: "To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures". IN A SETTING WHERE MASKS WERE UNCOMMON. Hey, here's an idea: require EVERYONE to wear masks in, like, I don't know, BUSINESSES. News flash: Masks don't protect you from getting the virus all that much. But they do work to keep the infected from spreading it to others.

You cite two other publications, which apparently meet your standard of "real science":

A 40 year old limited study in an English Hospital, which over all these years has only garnered 120-odd citations in other literature, and

The Cochrane Reviews study where the authors' conclusions were "The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID‐19 pandemic."

And yet you accuse others of cherry picking the literature.

You ask "if masks worked near as well as you say, then why are we still in this now fully a year afterwards?" It's simple. Because of people like you. People who refuse to wear masks in public. The "liberty loving" self-proclaimed patriots that are worsening and prolonging this pandemic, that are in fact helping to deepen this tragic event and push us into ever deepening economic peril. They're patriotically helping to bring about the demise of America. But God forbid we think of others rather than spouting individualistic rhetoric.

One other point that overly civil OKVALLEYPROUD made and that I agree with: "I know I can't change your opinions". Because I suspect you get off on inciting conflict and hatred through your vitriolic, divisive, opinionated language.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Court
  • Court's Avatar Topic Author
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
3 years 5 months ago #61 by Court
OKVALLEYPROUD,
>Masks and distancing strongly effect risk of transmission. This is a fact.

Well, mask studies for the past 40 years have found that they don't do anything positive for source control and may even be harmful. Isn't it weird that suddenly halfway into 2020 everything we knew about the effectiveness of masks suddenly reversed - with no time to actually do any real science on the subject - and now we can just ignore everything that came before, and even certain ones that came after?

Your "strongly [a]ffect" opinion is straight up false. The seminal study on “source control” for masks is Neil Orr’s from 1981 ; it stands uncontroverted despite 40 years of attempts. This was a random controlled trial in Operating Rooms where everyone involved was a trained professional. There is no better evidence available than the removal of confounding factors such as compliance with wearing and procedural factors. In addition Cochrane Review, arguably the best medical minds in the world when it comes to meta-reviews , the highest form of evidence available, found weak to no evidence of efficacy for masks. What’s worse is that they found weak to no evidence even when the mask in question was an N95 and the wearer was a medical worker.

Then there’s the Danish mask study specific to Covid-19 which multiple medical journals tried to suppress. Annals finally published it, trying to gloss over the results. The results were damning; there was no statistically significant improvement in outcomes. Even worse, when the researchers applied retrospective analysis to limit the examination to only those who were allegedly “highly compliant” with protocol the relative risk ratio got worse rather than better, strongly implying that mask use might be harmful rather than protective.

My cites here are all RCT's or meta reviews, which provide high bars for scientific evidence - and actual science being done. Your linked paper appears to be a "narrative review" of certain cherry-picked papers that support the author's foregone conclusions. And the study that you cited is a type of observational study that provides a lesser standard of scientific evidence - and the general rule in any scientific field is that observational studies can never prove anything, but they can disprove your hypothesis.

Then there's the obvious question: if masks worked near as well as you say, then why are we still in this now fully a year afterwards?

>Thank you for responding, though, and providing your rationale. I still don't agree with you, however. This article should be removed.

That's fine, and we can certainly disagree. But the article won't be removed.

>I have no connection or affiliation with Governor Inslee, and I don't agree with every decision he has made. However, I see the overall process of introducing policies intended to slow the spread of a virus (that for some people, is deadly) as a harsh necessity.

There were many deaths caused by deadly viruses present with us pre-2020 with influenza and ILI. Why didn't you see this "harsh necessity" in 2018, which was a higher flu death year, or any year previous? Why do you only worry about people dying in 2020, and not the many decades previous?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • alicesmith
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
3 years 5 months ago #58 by alicesmith
Bravo for writing this article. We need more liberty loving, reporters like you in every county in this nation. I see these snitches absolutely no different than the brownshirts that terrorized and helped implement tyranny and murder under Hitler. The brownshirts happily helping to install tyranny will be viewed in the future just like the brownshirts of old.
"Silence in the face of evil, is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak, is to speak. Not to act, is to act." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
The following user(s) said Thank You: Court

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.317 seconds