Apple Again Closing Some Stores in Florida, Arizona, North Carolina and South Carolina Due to Coronavirus Spikes

[compwiz1202]

If 1% of the population has the virus, then the chance of any ONE specific person you run into having the virus is 1%. But, if you work in the Apple store, and serve 500 customers in a week, and the customers match the general population; then you have a 99% chance of coming into contact with someone who has the virus.

And once the employees get it, they can spread it before symptoms.

 

[Mosey Potter]

An effective short-term clWhy, 3 months wasn't enough in your

An effective short-term closure? Why, 3 months wasn't enough in your eyes? What would be better, a year?

One year lockdown done poorly give same result three month lockdown give. Worst on planet no end I. Sight. Three month done right starting March mean we go to ball game or concert now. America in nutshell for you Good luck with that for the certain!

 

[jimbobb24]

This is exactly what everyone said when some states started to reopen early despite rising cases: it would be even worse for the economy if reopening was a false start, with a steep rise in cases after reopening. It will shake consumer confidence and hurt the economy much more than an effective short-term closure would have been. By reopening too early many states are setting the stage for an even bigger economic catastrophe.

Cases were always going to rise after the lockdown. That was known. There are a lot of trade offs. But there will be no more lockdowns so we need to adapt with masks and contact tracing.
[automerge]1592597351[/automerge]

Was that what got them over the top of the curve though? Or was it just that it ripped through the city fast enough so that enough people got it to create a degree of "herd immunity" and the slowing down is a natural results of the virus following a normal viral trajectory, just at a very fast rate?

All the places opening did a phased approach and are testing like crazy. We need more people on board with contact tracing.

 

[cmaier]

Cases were always going to rise after the lockdown. That was known. There are a lot of trade offs. But there will be no more lockdowns so we need to adapt with masks and contact tracing.
[automerge]1592597351[/automerge]

All the places opening did a phased approach and are testing like crazy. We need more people on board with contact tracing.

There will be more lockdowns. Just not in places run by idiots.

 

[TVOR]

Not sure what is happening in your brain that makes you think linking to a page covered in recommendations to wear masks, distance, avoid going places, references to numerous articles, etc. will help you as you contradict their advice and desperately cling to variances that still don't undermine the medical consensus on the amount of behavioral action needed right now.

You are desperate to find imperfections in modeling and advice, when the modeling and advice you are posting still supports lockdowns, masks, distance, and emphasis on the incredible infection rates this has had.

Imagine thinking 120,000+ deaths since January WITH proven drops in infection for zones and work industries that were closed for lockdown, is just something you would sound credible dismissing on Macrumors...

Au contraire...I was simply asking why they were suggesting 2m social distancing when the WHO only recommends 1m...nothing more...nothing less.

I am not desperate for anything. People can think what they please, do what they please and act how they please. If you want to do all of the things you are told, that is absolutely your free will to do so. If another person wants to believe something different, surely they have the basic human right of freedom of thought? If laws exist governing the use of social distancing measures and PPE and somebody breaks those rules of law then they should absolutely be punished. I will openly admit that I don't know that the legislation is in the US, but in the UK is has never been a point of law that you have to stay 2m apart, it has only ever been "guidance". The government here has enacted some measures around COVID and has had them enacted into law. So why not the guidance on social distancing? If it was that crucial, why not enforce it through the law? Surely it would be in everybody's best interests to do so?

As for me, I will follow the rule of the law and I will take guidance as being exactly what it is, advisory and not compulsory. I have a business to run and a life to live.

 

[jimbobb24]

The demographics of who is being tested is changing considerably so the rate of infection per test is not a good measure. Many people before wanted tests but did not "qualify" for them and therefore the number infected per test would have been much higher since the ones being tested were much more likely to have it. A couple months ago folks were told "just stay at home and self-quarantine and if you get worse then call" -- only the really sick people were given a doctor's referral for a test.

So I still say that charting hospitalizations is a better way to do it -- the same percentage of sick people are going to be hospitalized regardless of test availability.

Sadly hospitalizations rising as well.

 

[usagora]

Oh my.

You literally posted this: "Many years ago..."scientists" insisted the world was flat! Scientists are not infallible, but they are being treated as much by many because the world seems to have lost the ability for independent, critical thought.".

You literally made a claim that science from hundreds of years ago was wrong so it is infallible today.

Emphasis is mine and I'm guessing that was a typo on your part? Because TVOR clearly seems to be saying the exact opposite - that science has always been fallible. And of course, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Even though you may disagree with his evaluation of the science surrounding COVID-19, it's still a valid point to make about science in general, because there are many people that will commit the argument from authority fallacy when it comes to scientists, doctors, professors, etc. and believe every word they say just because of their title - they don't actually look at the data themselves. Of course, the scientist may be right, but they might not be either. Obviously this is where things like peer review come into play.

 

[TVOR]

That isn't the explanation given by Fauci: https://thehill.com/changing-americ...fauci-why-the-public-wasnt-told-to-wear-masks

"He also acknowledged that masks were initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE.

He explained that public health experts "were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply.”

Bad articles do make it through the review process unfortunately; however, they eventually get discredited and redacted when their results cannot be repeated. I never claimed otherwise. That's actually the beauty if the scientific method (in the long-term). Unfortunately in certain cases those poor articles can directly lead to tragedy, as was witness here, and most notoriously from the discredited article that claimed vaccination causes autism.

For all of the mud-slinging that you have sent my way, I do actually agree with you on this last sentence!

 

[cmaier]

So many idiots who just won’t believe facts for political reasons, and we get this.

 

[NickName99]

Apple has been pretty right on about navigating this pandemic. I gotta say - it feels good to be able to proudly support an American company like Apple.

 

[cmaier]

Emphasis is mine and I'm guessing that was a typo on your part? Because TVOR clearly seems to be saying the exact opposite - that science has always been fallible. And of course, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Even though you may disagree with his evaluation of the science surrounding COVID-19, it's still a valid point to make about science in general, because there are many people that will commit the argument from authority fallacy when it comes to scientists, doctors, professors, etc. just based on their title vs. the actual research.

The problem isn’t the people who are committing the argument-from-authority fallacy. It’s the people who are committing the “argument-from-I-really-don’t-know-what-I’m-talking-about” fallacy.

 

[A MacBook lover]

Closing the stores all together is dumb. Requiring to wear masks? Not dumb

 

[TVOR]

As a scientist myself, this is how science works. It takes years for something to be generally agreed upon, with legitimate scientific opinion going either way, up until the end. I fully believe that most "experts" are making wild-ass guesses simply because there hasn't been enough time for science to do its work.

Oh my god...thank you! At least you got the point I was trying to make! I actually LOVE science, but the only point I have been trying to make here is that it isn't infallible...especially in the very short term! So thank you...and I am glad that at least one person bothered to try to understand my point rather than simply trying to "burn the witch"!!

 

[jimbobb24]

There will be more lockdowns. Just not in places run by idiots.

Ah yes, I always assume people who balance competing interests differently than me are idiots. That’s what makes life pleasant!

There may be more lockdowns but few are going to care after the leaders of most states participated in giant crowds. There lost credibility so the average person is going to decide there are no more lockdowns no matter what anyone says.

We have alternative tools. We need to use those. I should have said...no one will reverse the lockdowns In the states that have moved on.

 

[usagora]

Nobody said anything about a database (another straw man argument). And we had a lockdown for several months here in Northern California. It was fine. One more month, nationwide, would have done it. But instead we had a bunch of lunatics who demand the freedom to run around coughing on people.

Is that (what I bolded and underlined) not a straw man argument as well? Do you really think that's what people wanted to do?

I don't doubt there are some who want to put everyone in a database. I also don't doubt that there are some who couldn't care less about covering their cough when they're next to someone. But these are the extremes on either side, not the norm.

 

[cmaier]

Is that (what I bolded and underlined) not a straw man argument as well? Do you really think that's what people wanted to do?

Isn’t it? They certainly want the freedom to run around standing inches from people’s face and screaming at them - plenty of videos of that happening.
[automerge]1592598094[/automerge]

Ah yes, I always assume people who balance competing interests differently than me are idiots. That’s what makes life pleasant!

There may be more lockdowns but few are going to care after the leaders of most states participated in giant crowds. There lost credibility so the average person is going to decide there are no more lockdowns no matter what anyone says.

We have alternative tools. We need to use those. I should have said...no one will reverse the lockdowns In the states that have moved on.

Leaders of most states participated in giant crowds? What are you talking about? What governors participated in giant crowds.

As for the rest, yes there will be states or counties that stop, and if necessary reverse, course on lockdown relief. It’s already happened in a couple counties.

 

[TVOR]

Oh my.

You literally posted this: "Many years ago..."scientists" insisted the world was flat! Scientists are not infallible, but they are being treated as much by many because the world seems to have lost the ability for independent, critical thought.".

You literally made a claim that science from hundreds of years ago was wrong so it is infallible today. Don't even bother trying to defend that claim, we all read it, we all know what you are implying.

Currently doing my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering. Thanks for trying.

I don't even know where to start! What I posted says "Scientists are not infallible" (you even quoted me as saying that)...you then say - in the line below where you quoted me - "You literally made a claim that science from hundreds of years ago was wrong so it is infallible today".

As for you currently doing your Ph.D...good luck with that...genuinely! The world needs more scientists. No sarcasm intended. However, as I said before, Ph. D. or otherwise, it doesn't mean that you cannot be wrong! Or are you telling me that, as a scientist, there is ZERO possibility that you have been wrong about anything you have said or asserted here?

 

[usagora]

Isn’t it? They certainly want the freedom to run around standing inches from people’s face and screaming at them - plenty of videos of that happening.

For the vast majority of the population, absolutely not. Most people just want to go to a theme park or a restraurant or to a movie or a party, etc. not get into screaming matches with people inches from their face. Straw man arguments apply to both sides, not just the side you don't agree with

 

[TVOR]

Not really; not even close, actually. It took maybe 30 years to go from the foundational idea of science, that "natural phenomena are caused by physical processes, not the whims of the Gods" (Thales, 640–546 BC), to "the Earth is round" (Pythagoras, Thales' student). "The Earth is round" is pretty close to one of the earliest "scientific observations" once sciences was "invented". It's one of the easiest conclusions one (and I do mean, just about anybody) can make about nature that is not naively intuitive. You need to pick a better example if you want to prove scientific fallibility.

At least you bothered to back up your position with something other than "because I say so"...so bravo! Tell me one thing though, while I fully respect your position to say that I have to pick a better example if I want to prove scientific fallibility, do you believe that it is actually infallible then? That there is no situation where science (either by consensus or in the case of an individual) can be wrong? I am genuinely curious and not being argumentative for the sake of it.

 

[480951]

There isn’t any concrete scientific evidence that face masks will prevent the infection. It gives people false sense of security. It is like using basketball net to catch a fly. People wearing them in a middle of nowhere, or when all alone in their cars look pretty darn stupid. World has gone completely insane.

All of this is so wrong, and is backed up by actual evidence (which I’m sure you’re ignoring to make up your own reality). Do you actually think people need to wear them alone in their car? Are you serious?

 

[TVOR]

We don't need to wait for a vaccine but do need to wait for tests to be accessible, and the reopening has to be slow, if we're taking the non-risky route.

Or you just keep the elderly at home and take the risk while wearing masks and staying kinda apart, which I'm more than halfway convinced is good enough. Problem is we see these states taking neither approach. They reopen fully, people don't even wear masks for some reason (seriously wtf, just wear it), then they shut down again.

Well that I agree is stupid. The UK is starting to open up here, albeit at a much slower rate that its European counterparts, but I think that if there is a second wave here in the UK, in the short term or the medium term, there should be no second lockdown, no mass hysteria, just sensible precautions to protect the most vulnerable. To be perfectly honest, I think that was all that was really needed here as soon as the information started to be know about which groups were the most vulnerable.
[automerge]1592598760[/automerge]

All of this is so wrong, and is backed up by actual evidence (which I’m sure you’re ignoring to make up your own reality). Do you actually think people need to wear them alone in their car? Are you serious?

I'm pretty sure he agrees with you dude!!! He outright says that it is ridiculous that people wear them alone in their cars...and yet they still do it.
[automerge]1592599199[/automerge]

Isn’t it? They certainly want the freedom to run around standing inches from people’s face and screaming at them - plenty of videos of that happening.

Only people I have seen doing that lately have been another certain group that seems to be on a crusade to eradicate those that dare to question the narrative! As another poster pointed out, most people just want to get on with their lives...to go about their business. I give people that are wearing masks a wide berth so that they feel secure that, mask aside, I am respecting their space. If I need to cough or sneeze then I make sure I do so into something covering my face.

But for those that aren't wearing masks, and who I see as I approach them (from their interactions with those around them) aren't particularly worried about the social distancing, then we pass more closely and confidently. I have no intention to intentionally terrorise somebody (we have a global media more than up to that task), but at the same time, if I respect their right to wear a mask and to have the 2m zone they want, then I am sure as hell not going to be dictated to by "mob rule" that I have to agree with somebody else's theory. If it gets enough traction that it is written into law, then I will - of course - comply.

 

[CarlJ]

This is exactly what everyone said when some states started to reopen early despite rising cases: it would be even worse for the economy if reopening was a false start, with a steep rise in cases after reopening.

“But I want an Oompa Loopa NOW, daddy!” This is what happens when you let wish fulfillment overrule science.

 

[TVOR]

So many idiots who just won’t believe facts for political reasons, and we get this.

View attachment 925283

I don't think people are disputing the facts of how many cases there have been, or the different shape of the "curve" (at least I'm not!), I think the debate has been over what the cause of that is and what the best way (or ways) to manage the situation both in the short term and in the long term are.

I can't speak for others but there is no political motivation for my comments, I have no horse in the race of US politics.

 

[sofila]

Was that what got them over the top of the curve though? Or was it just that it ripped through the city fast enough so that enough people got it to create a degree of "herd immunity" and the slowing down is a natural results of the virus following a normal viral trajectory, just at a very fast rate?

No herd immunity. Infected numbers are far from being enough for this

 

[TVOR]

Emphasis is mine and I'm guessing that was a typo on your part? Because TVOR clearly seems to be saying the exact opposite - that science has always been fallible. And of course, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Even though you may disagree with his evaluation of the science surrounding COVID-19, it's still a valid point to make about science in general, because there are many people that will commit the argument from authority fallacy when it comes to scientists, doctors, professors, etc. and believe every word they say just because of their title - they don't actually look at the data themselves. Of course, the scientist may be right, but they might not be either. Obviously this is where things like peer review come into play.

Thank you good sir! And might I point out that I have never said that the scientists in this case WERE wrong, I have never said that my views WERE right, I was simply saying that I prefer to look into things a little more myself. This has always been the case but even more so for me personally given the world we live in where people are so quick to believe things they are told or read online.

I may not be a scientist, but I am no idiot!! If the sciences says A, then I will look at a few different sources and, a substantial majority of the time, I either end up agreeing or, at worse, I am undecided. However, there are occasions when there are other credible sources which cause me to question the validity of the first point. The argument point forward that I am anti-science because I like to actually do my own "research" is quite preposterous. I am quite prepared to accept that the epidemiologists are right on this one, but it is simply too soon to tell and things like the WHO flip-flopping on their guidance certainly doesn't help. Nor does the fact that the guidance (in the UK at least) is highly contradictory...and then there are the protests....of which I shall say no more!

But thank you, you saw the point I was trying to make, not the point that he thought I was trying to make...so I appreciate that!
[automerge]1592600480[/automerge]

No herd immunity. Infected numbers are far from being enough for this

Quite possibly...I have never said it absolutely WAS herd immunity. I simply said that there is no definitive measured number of infected cases so, without that, it is impossible to tell whether there is anything like herd immunity. Plus, the actual percentage required for herd immunity varies from disease to disease with anything from 20% (I am sure I read that somewhere) to 95% infection being required...depending on the disease.

And with the WHO suggesting that 80% of cases seem to be asymptomatic, well then the actual number of infections in NYC could be closer to 2 million...or about 11%...so not outside of the realms of possibility that it is approaching herd immunity levels city-wide and could, in "closed-system" communities have already played a part. But, again, TO BE CLEAR, I am not suggesting that it is definitely that. I am not suggesting that the science is all wrong. I am not even saying that herd immunity has played ANY part...just exploring ideas and possibilities.