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

[jerryk]

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?

Latest results show herd immunity may not occur, or is short lived. They are seeing patients that were positive for antibodies 2 months ago show none or low numbers now.

You May Have Antibodies After Coronavirus Infection. But Not for Long. (Published 2020)

Antibodies to the virus faded quickly in asymptomatic people, scientists reported. That does not mean immunity disappears.

www.nytimes.com

 

[TVOR]

You don‘t have to avoid all of them. Just this one. Because this one is everywhere, and it is deadly. And even if it doesn’t kill you, it can cause lasting medical problems, and cause you a lot of pain in the mean time.

Think of it this way: if every single person in the United States stayed home for 2 weeks, there would be these buckets of people at the end of the two weeks:

1) people with no symptoms. They don’t have the disease, because scientists tell us that 2 weeks with no symptoms means you’re fine. If you don’t trust that, make it a month.

2) people with some sort of symptoms. They MIGHT have the disease.

Now imagine you let group 1 out and about to do their business.

For group 2, you test them all. Now you know who has the disease. You isolate those people until they are no longer contagious.

Now you are done, and you only have to worry about new people arriving and bringing the disease with them. So you quarantine all of them for 2 weeks. And if anyone else does show ANY symptoms, you isolate them immediately, test them, contact trace and isolate them, etc.

In a couple months we’d be done with this.

But we never got testing up high enough, and we never took isolation seriously enough in certain parts of the country.

We don’t have to quarantine until a vaccine - just until we get it under control. But so many people are so selfish that they won’t do it.

With respect, it depends on what the individual considers to be "deadly". I mean, yes, it has killed people so technically it is deadly! But everybody has different standards. I would not jump out of a plane with a wing suit on and fly within metres of mountains! To me, that risk is too high. But others consider it acceptable. So if the annual flu has an IFR of 0.1% and COVID has an IFR of between 0.5% and 1% (seems to be the area where studies are settling now) then it is somewhere between 5 and 10 times more deadly than flu. But there has been no time for people to build up immunity. The annual flu season is somewhat dampened by some levels of immunity. There was no immunity for COVID so the figures will be higher. If there is some immunity following infection, and if it lasts a decent amount of time, then the second wave will probably be less impactful and the IFR will probably drift downward over time.

I think this difference levels of risk-aversion is what underlies the difference of opinion on this, and I am not sure how you deal with that. For somebody that doesn't feel this presents an unacceptable risk then these measures are infringing upon their liberty. And for those who are afraid of the risk...well then the actions of the other group seem insensitive and risky at best and malicious at worst! The truth is often somewhere in between the two extremes...but the two groups in this case (and in many cases recently it seems) are deeply entrenched in their views and are unlikely to meet in the middle.

 

[Fatboy71]

There is too many places getting reopened too quickly, people congregating in large numbers, and this is the result.

 

[TVOR]

Ah, good ol’ whataboutism. The last refuge of the wrong.

Ah, good ol' whataboutism. A word/phrase that most people who use it never even knew existed until they became Cause Crusaders. Please tell me, apart from being one of a handful of logical fallacy Top Trump cards that people like to pull out because they think it is an automatic win in a debate of any kind, why you deem it an argument losing position to draw parallels with other situations and question why rules that you are proposing in one situation aren't universally applied in all situations?

Perhaps his statement was phrased sarcastically...which may not have helped...but had it been worded differently, would it still have been countered with "whataboutism"? For example, if he had said "OK, if you are right about this, then why is it OK for one group of people in situation A to not follow these rules but another group in situation B do have to follow them?" Is that still "whataboutism"? Or was my question just another case of whataboutism triggering and endless recurring logical fallacy loop?

 

[chucker23n1]

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.

Some leaders are making fools of themselves; therefore, people's health doesn't matter?

So if the annual flu has an IFR of 0.1% and COVID has an IFR of between 0.5% and 1% (seems to be the area where studies are settling now) then it is somewhere between 5 and 10 times more deadly than flu. But there has been no time for people to build up immunity.

There is no evidence that people will build up lasting immunity, nor is there a vaccine, so the comparisons to the flu are silly.

 

[TVOR]

Did COVID deaths stop occurring in significant rates in April like flu deaths did?

In many places around the world...ummm...yeah!! Well...not stop...but significantly decrease. But of course, that could only have been due to lockdown...right? The trouble it, saying that lockdown slowed the deaths is impossible to prove. You would need a "control group" to compare to. This is what happened when we did A, and this is what happened when we did B. And you can't really have a control group with something like an epidemic, so for all I know, the lockdown could have saved thousands of lives, but I don't see any way to prove beyond doubt that the progression of the virus wouldn't have taken the same course without lockdown.

I think this is especially relevant if, as now seems to be the case, the virus was circulating in many countries as earlier as November last year!

 

[chucker23n1]

Cause Crusaders

🤣

"Cause Crusaders" must be the newest invention from the dude who brought us "Social Justice Warriors" and "virtue signaling".
[automerge]1592602737[/automerge]

In many places around the world...ummm...yeah!!

Um, yes, because there was a lockdown. But COVID doesn't appear to be seasonal, unlike the flu. Did you willfully misunderstand my point there?

The trouble it, saying that lockdown slowed the deaths is impossible to prove.

Frigging gravity is impossible to prove. Provability is for math nerds.

You would need a "control group" to compare to.

Oh, plenty of Americans are clearly volunteering as a control group.

This is what happened when we did A, and this is what happened when we did B. And you can't really have a control group with something like an epidemic,

Well, you could, but we kind of re-discovered in the mid-20th century that having ethics in medicine was a good idea. Sweden apparently didn't get the message, but most countries did.

 

[TVOR]

Some leaders are making fools of themselves; therefore, people's health doesn't matter?



There is no evidence that people will build up lasting immunity, nor is there a vaccine, so the comparisons to the flu are silly.

I never said there was any evidence, but equally, there is no evidence yet that they won't because we simply haven't had enough time pass to determine yet. In any case, the comparison is still valid. I was comparing flu (with some immunity) to COVID (without any immunity). If there is no long term (or any) immunity to COVID then the initial comparison I made remains perfectly valid; COVID is between 5 and 10 times more likely to result in death. Those are the conclusions that can be drawn from the current data.

As for my idea that, IF there is some immunity from COVID (as I stated...people need to quote what I actually said!!) then the IFR may drift down, well that is still a possibility...IF there is some immunity...as I said...IF...
[automerge]1592603088[/automerge]

🤣

"Cause Crusaders" must be the newest invention from the dude who brought us "Social Justice Warriors" and "virtue signaling".
[automerge]1592602737[/automerge]


Um, yes, because there was a lockdown. But COVID doesn't appear to be seasonal, unlike the flu. Did you willfully misunderstand my point there?



Frigging gravity is impossible to prove. Provability is for math nerds.



Oh, plenty of Americans are clearly volunteering as a control group.



Well, you could, but we kind of re-discovered in the mid-20th century that having ethics in medicine was a good idea. Sweden apparently didn't get the message, but most countries did.

Cause Crusaders is - at least as far as I am aware - completely my own. I can take no credit for SJW or virtue signalling sadly.

I disagree with most of what you wrote, but that's fine...different opinions and all that. As for proving gravity...pick something up...now drop it...you're welcome!!

But what I actually find quite disturbing is the fact that you seem to feel that proof is an unnecessary notion. Are you suggesting that we as a species should simply accept what we are told? That we shouldn't question the veracity of the things that people tell us to be true? If so, then I fully respect your choice to believe that, but I think that way of thinking is far more dangerous than any virus! Just my two cents of course!
[automerge]1592603158[/automerge]

Then why are states that are enforcing masks aren't seeing a spike (Newsom just started enforcing it yesterday) and states that aren't are? Maybe it's a coincidence.

If I may paraphrase Lisa Simpson "There is correlation...but is there causality?"

 

[konqerror]

But COVID doesn't appear to be seasonal, unlike the flu.

Known human coronaviruses that cause respiratory infections are seasonal, including those that cause colds, flu and MERS. Animal coronaviruses are often seasonal as well, increasing the effect.

 

[lunarworks]

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

View attachment 925283

"Gub'mint can't tell ME what to do!"

 

[TVOR]

False.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

Face masks critical in preventing spread of COVID-19

A study has found that not wearing a face mask dramatically increases a person's chances of being infected by the COVID-19 virus.

www.sciencedaily.com

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

I see your "False"...and raise you a WHO:

WHO says there is no need for healthy people to wear face masks, days after the CDC told all Americans to cover their faces

Until June 5, the WHO maintained that face masks weren't a solid defense for healthy people and could lead to user error that heightens their risk.

www.businessinsider.com

Just teasing! As I was saying earlier to the other person...science isn't necessarily definitive. Look at the fact that the opinion on masks (which are now being touted as "essential") has essential completely changed in just two months. What's to say that new evidence won't come out in another couple of months stating that, actually, the masks make only a negligible difference!

All we can do is act upon what we feel is the most accurate information at the time. But completely opposing previous "factual" information does undermine the credibility of both the original and the new information...and that isn't helpful in a situation like this!
[automerge]1592603766[/automerge]

This sums it up. You only care to the point it affects you personally.

Those affected are dismissed as insignificant due to age, pre-existing health, or a statistical anomaly.

Interesting fact which I haven't divulged thus far, I lost a grandfather to this virus just over a month ago. He had pre-existing conditions so we did what we could to shield him, but he got it anyway. The funniest thing though...is when it started to become clear what he had, his words to me, which I will never forget, were "Obviously I don't want to die, but I have had my time, and it is better that I have a few years less than for my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to suffer for god knows how long because the world got shut down and the economy got utterly ruined" (Emphasis mine).

That is a noble man, that is a courageous man and I miss him every day. But at least he went out without fear, without cowering...
[automerge]1592603869[/automerge]

Ahhhh...and here we come to the interesting part...died WITH COVID vs. died BECAUSE OF COVID...that's a contentious issue...you had better be sure you want to poke this particular hornet's nest!

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

There’s no vaccine available in New Zealand, but they did the lockdown the right way and now they’re basically back to normal operations.

New Zealand is also still rolling out 5G

 

[TVOR]

I’m not sure what you think this proves. That’s just another way of saying that it mostly kills people with co-morbidities, which we all know and agree on. But there are a lot of people with co-morbidities.

I think (and I could be wrong) what he is saying this proves is in the actual quote where is says that anybody HAD COVID, it is being put down as the cause of death. So, and yes, I realise this is a slightly absurd example, but if somebody had COVID and was shot and bled out, the death would be attributed to COVID. Or, as a more realistic example, if somebody was six months into Stage 4 cancer and six months into the six months they had been given to live, got infected with COVID one day and died the next, it would be a COVID death.

The upshot of which is that the actual number of deaths that COVID caused is probably way less than it is attributed to. That in turn affects the mortality rate calculations. Coupled with other factors such as the asymptomatic infection numbers that I mentioned earlier, well, this changes a great deal.

Asymptomatic infections are estimated to be 80% of all infections which would mean around 11.5 million infections in total in the USA. If the posted graphic is accurate and only 7% of deaths are attributable only to COVID, then that would mean only 8000 deaths only due to COVID (as the graphic says), which puts that particular rate at a paltry 0.1%!!

Now, as for the co-morbidities, yes I appreciate that those probably make up a large part of the rest, but there is a much higher risk of dying if you have "morbidities", let along the 2.5 average quoted in the article! I don't know how to break it to you, but as you get older, and as you get more sick, you are more likely to die!!

I am not making light of it, but people who are older (over 70) and have 2.5 additional conditions were, in all likelihood, probably not going to be hitting the 100 years old mark! As sad as it is, ill people are more likely to die!

 

[Karma*Police]

So silly. Might as well keep all the stores AND the HQ closed until a vaccine is found. Apple stores in no way will have a material impact on the spread and doesn’t put its employees in any more danger. This is clearly an overreaction by Tim because the closures make no sense whatsoever.

Also, there is no connection between re-opening the economy and rise in cases even though the media loves pushing that narrative. If that were the case, GA wouldn’t have seen a 4 week decline in cases after re-opening its economy. It’s now seeing small spikes here and there but hospitalization and death rates are still declining. The spread has more to do with individual behavior... not wearing masks, not washing hands, etc. People are clearly getting too comfortable.

 

[TVOR]

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.

Contact tracing will help, but with 80% of cases being asymptomatic then they may nullify a lot of the usefulness of it. However, if it turns out (as has been suggested) that asymptomatic people aren't especially infectious then that will help! Trouble is, unless it is legally mandated, many people won't sign up for privacy concerns. And before you say that privacy isn't an issue, the UK government was trying to set up its own app which would retain personal user information for 20 years and information on all of the users contacts and where they had been/who they had met for 5 years. I am no tin foil hat wearer, but I really struggle to understand the justification there and understand why people might be reticent to sign up for that!

 

[parkds]

This just reinforces the silliness of Florida requiring only people traveling from NY / NJ / CT to quarantine for 2 weeks if they visit. NY state saw about 600 new cases in the same day that Florida saw over 3,000 new cases.

 

[darkslide29]

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.

The lockdown has given you way too much time on your hands, my dude. I've only skimmed a few pages, but it seems every other post is yours.

 

[TVOR]

Latest results show herd immunity may not occur, or is short lived. They are seeing patients that were positive for antibodies 2 months ago show none or low numbers now.

You May Have Antibodies After Coronavirus Infection. But Not for Long. (Published 2020)

Antibodies to the virus faded quickly in asymptomatic people, scientists reported. That does not mean immunity disappears.

www.nytimes.com

Unless I'm missing something substantial in that article, it starts off by saying that low levels of antibodies doesn't necessarily mean that somebody can be re-infected. It talks about T-cells and Memory B cells which store the information about the antibodies and can fire up and produce more quickly as needed. So that seems to suggest that immunity might be lasting even if antibodies aren't present. Which seems to suggest that immunity may NOT be short-lived...or was I reading a different article?

And the report states that it was a small sample size so there is a huge margin of error...in either direction.

 

[lunarworks]

The lockdown has given you way too much time on your hands, my dude. I've only skimmed a few pages, but it seems every other post is yours.

He's a cause crusader.

 

[TVOR]

New Zealand is also still rolling out 5G

Oh lord!!! hahahaha
[automerge]1592605517[/automerge]

The lockdown has given you way too much time on your hands, my dude. I've only skimmed a few pages, but it seems every other post is yours.

If only!! I have actually been just as busy with work as I was before! I just type really quickly!
[automerge]1592605607[/automerge]

He's a cause crusader.

Oooooh...looks like it's catching on...nice!!

 

[szw-mapple fan]

People have been coming out of lockdown the world over and very few places are showing increases nationally. Why do you think the US is different at this point?

Because a lot of states hurried to reopen widely weeks before the cases started dropping properly and without proper procedure to distance people after reopening.

New Zealand is a far less populated country. You can't compare one to the other. There will be a degree of overlap but that is such a flawed statement to say "It worked there so it would have worked here"...there are far too many variables.

What about Korea? Or Japan? They are far more densely populated and their cases are in the two digits or single digits. The difference lies in people’s ability to identify and collaborate on a common threat. People stayed at home, wore masks, and the governments tested early and widely, and provided proper unemployment/furlough aid.

 

[konqerror]

What about Korea? Or Japan? They are far more densely populated and their cases are in the two digits or single digits. The difference lies in people’s ability to identify and collaborate on a common threat. People stayed at home, wore masks, and the governments tested early and widely, and provided proper unemployment/furlough aid.

As I mentioned, those are islands (or essentially islands for South Korea) where entry can be strictly controlled and limited. Similarly, very low COVID rates were seen for Alaska and Hawaii. It's a matter of geography.

Also, Japan largely stayed open, so your argument is flawed. Japan did not have a mandatory shutdown, and did not ask people to stay home late in the game. Japan didn't test either, they have a lower test rate than Western countries. You remember the whole controversy with the Olympics? They did mail everybody a free mask.

 

[lunarworks]

As I mentioned, those are islands (or essentially islands for South Korea) where entry can be strictly controlled and limited. Similarly, very low COVID rates were seen for Alaska and Hawaii. It's a matter of geography.

Also, Japan largely stayed open, so your argument is flawed. Japan did not have a mandatory shutdown, and did not ask people to stay home late in the game. You remember the whole controversy with the Olympics? They did mail everybody a free mask.

Canada only had 367 new cases yesterday. The US had 27,924.

You have 10x the population than we do, but 75x new cases.

 

[Act3]

Canada only had 367 new cases yesterday. The US had 27,924.

You have 10x the population than we do, but 75x new cases.

maybe the legal weed is the cure

 

[konqerror]

Canada only had 367 new cases yesterday. The US had 27,924.

You have 10x the population than we do, but 75x new cases.

First, you can't use "yesterday" because of the different reporting rates and delays. This is a known fact. You have to use a rolling average over about a week. So that's a case of lying by data.

Second, different countries are in different states of reopening. Reopening has to happen, and it's unclear whether one can reopen without increased cases. China is seeing a resurgence of cases now.

It's way to early to draw conclusions, but ultimately you have to look at cost to society, where cost is a combination of economic cost and health. Looking at one measure, cases (and not even deaths), is flawed.

We could shut down every year for the flu, but we don't.