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

[cocky jeremy]

and well worth a couple more months locked down.

Nope. Not at all.

 

[BvizioN]

Wear a damn mask!
[automerge]1592584294[/automerge]

That's not the point, people aren't wearing masks outside of the apple store which is making it more likely for the virus to enter the apple store.

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.

 

[cannono]

Flu seasons end in April, did we stop counting Covid deaths in April like we do with the flu?

Also the WHO lied about 3.4% death rate. What’s your explanation?

Flu season starts in autumn and can go as late as May, often 6-7 months for the whole season. Covid-19 deaths hit 80,000 in just over 4 months, but unlike flu, has kept going and has not disappeared in the summer heat for places like Florida and Texas. This has killed far more people in 2020 than the normal flu does annually, and we have no signs of stopping it.

 

[dannyyankou]

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.

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.

 

[rgbrock1]

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.

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

 

[BC2009]

That’s not the “way” you do it. You compare the rate of infection per test. We KNOW how many tests are being done. It’s easy to see from graphing it in each state that the number of new infections is greatly exceeding any increase in tests.

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.

 

[az431]

To be fair they are testing a lot more now, i have numerous friends who tested positive with zero symptoms. We have many drive through test sites here.

The increase in number of cases is not solely because of additional testing. In these states, the rate is positive tests has doubled or tripled, as has the number of people ending up in ICU each day.

 

[falainber]

...

You are forgetting the fact that people die from Covid-19 in the hospitals that are not overflown. In fact almost 120K people already died. Also, hospitalization rates are growing in several south states. They are not overflown yet and it look like you are suggesting that we need to wait until they get overflown before we do anything. This approach is good if you want to maximize the number of lethal outcomes.

 

[az431]

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

The underlined text is the part you overlooked.

 

[cmaier]

There isn’t any concrete scientific evidence that face masks will prevent the infection.

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

[automerge]1592594529[/automerge]

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.

That‘s no better, if the demographics of the infected are different (which seems likely, since the people who are out and about and thus more exposed are younger, and thus less likely to be hospitalized).

 

[cannono]

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.

Don't spread lies. Masks have absolutely been shown to be an effective component in reducing transmission from person to person:

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

Can face masks protect against COVID-19?

Face masks can help slow the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Learn about mask types, which masks to use and how to use them.

www.mayoclinic.org

Do Face Masks Actually Protect Me, Or Just Those Around Me?

We wear face masks as a gesture of caring for others, but did you know they also offer the wearer protection too?

health.clevelandclinic.org

Why we should all be wearing face masks

With some countries already emerging from lockdown, can wearing face masks in public help to keep coronavirus infection rates from rising again?

www.bbc.com

COVID-19 and Your Health

Symptoms, testing, what to do if sick, daily activities, and more.

www.cdc.gov

 

[A MacBook lover]

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

 

[nStyle]

I’m rolling my eyes a bit. As long as they check temperatures and require mask, why would they shut down?

You have thousands of people marching in cities around the US without masks...the hell does anyone expect?

The overall risk is over-exaggerated anyway. At worst you have a 1 in 100 chance (I’m probably being generous) of coming into contact with someone with the virus and that’s not even your odds of getting it since they’d have to be mask-less and you’d need to be in close contact with them. Not only that but 1/100 is just the national average and not down to your own local level.

In some states, over half of the deaths have been in nursing homes and the overall average for the country is 1 out of every 4 deaths is in a nursing home. Keep your elderly relatives at home and help them with groceries and go live your life.

 

[BC2009]

More testing means we are getting a more accurate view of how many people out there are really. The number is very high in several populous states like Florida and Texas and people should be concerned. It reaching record-breaking daily numbers is not inflated, it means we did not get past it in the first place and the reopening plans were based on denial and lies from the governors. The rate of recovery and the rate of infection among those tested has gotten worse in Florida. It's a problem.

If you test 100 people and get 70 infections in March and you test 1000 people and get 500 infections in June then that "increase" is purely be due to increased testing. In such a hypothetical scenario you could not have even had 500 infections in March because you did not test that many people with these example numbers. Increasing testing will increase the gross number of positives. And because tests were limited before a higher percentage of actually sick people got tests -- many went without if they did not have all the symptoms.

So using the percentage of those tested who are sick does not work well since it will be skewed. But if you look at hospitalizations you can know how many more people are getting sick.

 

[Gasu E.]

Many years ago..."scientists" insisted the world was flat!

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.

 

[Killbynumbers]

To be fair they are testing a lot more now, i have numerous friends who tested positive with zero symptoms. We have many drive through test sites here.

Colorado is the only state where cases are declining and testing is way up as well. The governor has stated that he is worried our cases will start heading back up due to these other states spiking.

 

[JosephAW]

I better schedule a battery replacement for my iPhone 6.

 

[Jimmy James]

I've changed nothing about my life since this started, so I'm not going to worry now. I'm more worried about getting attacked in the shower by an alligator than I am of this virus.

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.

 

[Gasu E.]

The overall risk is over-exaggerated anyway. At worst you have a 1 in 100 chance of coming into contact with someone with the virus

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.

 

[fairuz]

I have yet to hear a convincing alternative to ending lockdown from anybody who says "too early"...but I'm always open to ideas. So what do you suggest? Literally keep people locked down and businesses closed until a vaccine arrives...which may never happen? How do you think the global economy would be able to support that?

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.

 

[cmaier]

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.
Or you just keep the elderly at home and take the risk. Problem is we see these states taking neither approach.

Keeping the elderly at home is not much of a solution. Around 1/5th the fatalities in the U.S. are under 65. Hard to know the real mortality rate yet, but that could still end up being hundreds of thousands more dead if younger people go out and about without precautions.

 

[Gasu E.]

If you test 100 people and get 70 infections in March and you test 1000 people and get 500 infections in June then that "increase" is purely be due to increased testing. In such a hypothetical scenario you could not have even had 500 infections in March because you did not test that many people with these example numbers. Increasing testing will increase the gross number of positives. And because tests were limited before a higher percentage of actually sick people got tests -- many went without if they did not have all the symptoms.

So using the percentage of those tested who are sick does not work well since it will be skewed. But if you look at hospitalizations you can know how many more people are getting sick.

But, in some places the percentage of tests returning "positive" is increasing, counter to the assumption in your example. Here's JHU; I've pre-selected Florida, but you can look at any state for yourself.

Daily Testing Trends in Florida - Johns Hopkins

See daily changes in tests performed and positivity rates in Florida

coronavirus.jhu.edu

 

[usagora]

Amazing how a person on a fan-site focused around a company whose products only exist due to science has literally no understanding of science whatsoever.

While I don't agree with your evaluation of the member in question, I would think it quite obvious that simply using products that were developed using scientific principles doesn't give one an understanding of those principles. Thus, making it not so "amazing" after all Maybe ever so slightly "ironic," but definitely not amazing.

 

[compwiz1202]

You are forgetting the fact that people die from Covid-19 in the hospitals that are not overflown. In fact almost 120K people already died. Also, hospitalization rates are growing in several south states. They are not overflown yet and it look like you are suggesting that we need to wait until they get overflown before we do anything. This approach is good if you want to maximize the number of lethal outcomes.

And full hospitals don't only kill COVID patients. Car accident, heart attack, stroke...victims will die when they normally could have been saved.

 

[QCassidy352]

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.