Apple Closing Stores in Southern California, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Texas, Utah and More

[crawfish963]

And don't forget producing FAR more waste than any other country!

Given that the US is one of the most populous nations in the world, you are correct. What does that have to do with societal decline and COVID again?
[automerge]1593636064[/automerge]

Well, I don’t expect you to understand, but, legally, yes, you can require a mask be worn in public. There are a variety of existing laws, already challenged and upheld in the courts, that give governments power to mandate mask wearing in public. As a start, I suggest you study “strict scrutiny” in constitutional law.

Citations?

EDIT: I am aware of strict scrutiny. “Minimal invasiveness” is a key component of that and I believe that is how these mask laws will be judged. Also, there is no need for the snide “I don’t expect you to understand” comment.

 

[citysnaps]

I don't think that in most cases the issue is that Grocery Stores impose the mask; it's about counties and states making it mandatory which is under question.

I think most of the time, the result is the same. Also, in many of those other situations, mask imposition is by the government, mostly the federal government.

 

[newyorksole]

This is all so crazy Lol. I don’t have many words...

 

[yaxomoxay]

I think most of the time, the result is the same.

Possibly, but the legal implications are very different.

 

[nylon]

On a whim I watched the b-movie ‘Idiocracy’ a while back. Little did I know how prescient it would be especially given the US response to Covid. Unbelievable levels of ‘idiocracy’.

 

[NickName99]

Slow the spread of the virus, and business can start opening back up. Wear a mask folks, it beats being unemployed.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Given that the US is one of the most populous nations in the world, you are correct. What does that have to do with societal decline and COVID again?
[automerge]1593636064[/automerge]

Citations?

As I said, I suggest you invest some time studying strict scrutiny. Because I know you’ll do the usual slash and burn google search, I leave it to you to identify the laws in question.

But I will give you a hint: Thomas Jefferson once wrote that the care and protection of its people is the only legitimate function of good government.

Enjoy! We’ll see you in, oh, about 4 years.

 

[rwxx]

Given that the US is one of the most populous nations in the world, you are correct. What does that have to do with societal decline and COVID again?

It has about as much to do with COVID as your point about GDP, charitable giving, and tech.

Furthermore, it's per capita waste and the US blows the rest of world away. If you can't see what a culture that celebrates gluttony and wastes indiscriminately has to do with societal decline, I've got nothing else for you.

 

[Shirasaki]

The virus has a death rate of just 0.05%.

If this number is even remotely true, who wants a total lockdown at all? Or we just let enough people to either catch the virus and die for the sake of herd immunity?

It's almost like the country is doing the exact opposite of what science tells them.

• Warning in January - "No, it's just the flu."
• Wear masks - "No, it doesn't work. And it's my right to spread disease."
• Create testing kits - "No, we'll develop our own crappy ones."
• Develop contact tracing - "No, because privacy reasons."
• Banned from EU / Apple Stores close - "Nobody saw this coming!"
• Vaccine - "We won't use Chinese ones, even though they have 6 in Phase 3 trials. And vaccines cause autism."

Americans will eventually kill themselves with their own stupidity. It’s only a matter of when, sadly.

 

[yaxomoxay]

As I said, I suggest you invest some time studying strict scrutiny.

By forum rules, you have to provide a citation of what you said; to be honest, I am also interested.

But I will give you a hint: Thomas Jefferson once wrote that the care and protection of its people is the only legitimate function of good government.

And a quote by Jefferson means what? Should I quote Franklin on not deserving Safety and Liberty?

 

[masotime]

Yes and no. While I do not disagree with you in general, you also have to see where the positives are. For what we know, 1000 positive cases in the 50+yo bracket will cause less deaths than 10,000 in the 50yo or less bracket. Yours is a reasonable observation, but it's not enough to draw conclusions.

I am interested in these statistics. Can you link to them?

I agree that we can't extrapolate anything though. What should be interesting is that there are significantly more infections this time around for the <50yo bracket, and the numbers should give a better indicator of death rates for the younger populace.

EDIT: And I just realized how morbid / psychopathic I sound....

 

[crawfish963]

As I said, I suggest you invest some time studying strict scrutiny. Because I know you’ll do the usual slash and burn google search, I leave it to you to identify the laws in question.

But I will give you a hint: Thomas Jefferson once wrote that the care and protection of its people is the only legitimate function of good government.

Enjoy! We’ll see you in, oh, about 4 years.

Your wit and sarcasm are too much for me. I yield. You have won the internet today.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I am interested in these statistics. Can you link to them?

Sure.

Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Sex and Age | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

data.cdc.gov

As of today, 103,825 deaths of people 55+ over 112,226 total deaths; that is 92.5%
If we go 65+ (basically retirement age), it's 90,360 deaths over 112,226 total deaths; that is 80%.

(EDIT: Correction, I wrote 45+ instead of 55+)

Edit2, a quick Excel breakdown:

 

[Zen_Arcade]

By forum rules, you have to provide a citation of what you said; to be honest, I am also interested.



And a quote by Jefferson means what? Should I quote Franklin on not deserving Safety and Liberty?

I can’t believe the spoonfeeding, but fine: start here: United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

 

[sofila]

You are aware that deaths are a lagging indicator from cases right?

I am genuinely interested though, can you link to credible sources that "healthy people aren't at risk", "hospitals have plenty of capacity, ventilators"?

You should consider that this particular member, whose mission in life is to fight any news that could possibly damage mighty AAPL figures, started this in February. The topic was about Apple closing stores in China due to Covid-19 pandemic situation. Some of its early posts disappeared, but the plot is: flu is worse, Covid hits only elder or people with underlying condition, no need to worry. Since then it has been an embarrassing clutching at straws, while a small and simple admission of having made a mistake would have prevented the ranting that followed.
In the meantime, worldwide
Coronavirus Cases:
10,720,277

Deaths:
517,000
but these are details of secondary importance

 

[crawfish963]

I can’t believe the spoonfeeding, but fine: start here: United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

You’re using an 80 year old case involving private business across interstate lines to justify making it mandatory and presumably criminal for American citizens not to wear a mask in public? Where did you get your law degree? I would request a refund.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I can’t believe the spoonfeeding, but fine: start here: United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

Not about that. I am talking about mandating face masks.

(I truly don't get the snarky comments after someone asks for further info, which should be encouraged in any civil discourse).

 

[Zen_Arcade]

You’re using an 80 year old case involving private business across interstate lines to justify making it mandatory and presumably criminal for American citizens not to wear a mask in public? Where did you get your law degree? I would request a refund.

As I said, I know you'll do a slash and burn google search. And you did - you didn't take the time to read, reflect, explore, and understand. Hence the suggestion you STUDY strict scrutiny, with Carolene as a starting point, and with Jefferson's statement about "care and protection" in mind. As you're unwilling to make the effort to understand, and more to try to "win the internet," I wish you all the best.
[automerge]1593637953[/automerge]

Not about that. I am talking about mandating face masks.

(I truly don't get the snarky comments after someone asks for further info, which should be encouraged in any civil discourse).

Snarky? Not at all. I gave a very specific suggestion to begin study: strict scrutiny. Try wikipedia, which, for all its many faults, identifies (correctly) Carolene as the beginning of recognizing different levels of judicial review. It's far too nuanced a subject to understand from simply skimming a few articles you find on the interwebz, hence the suggestion about STUDY.

 

[yaxomoxay]

As I said, I know you'll do a slash and burn google search. And you did - you didn't take the time to read, reflect, explore, and understand. Hence the suggestion you STUDY strict scrutiny, with Carolene as a starting point, and with Jefferson's statement about "care and protection" in mind. As you're unwilling to make the effort to understand, and more to try to "win the internet," I wish you all the best.

Oh please. You're not the only one that knows what strict scrutiny is. Snarky comments are not useful.

I find hard to believe that any part of the US government could make a case and pass the test for something that killed 0.03% of the population (112,226 deaths over 375,000,000) in 6 to 8 months. This is even more true after Trump v. Hawaii. I am also pretty sure that all precedents on 1A rights in reference to clothing and the 1A would make your point even less credible.

 

[Adoniram]

But a lot of those 49,500,000 will still die after aug/sept, and the death rate is projected to start exponentially increasing again. So by the time every one of those 49,500,000 has the disease run its course, it will be a lot more than 200k dead.

The death count is likely to increase, not the death rate.

I've been following projections on healthdata.org, and if you integrate the estimated cases from February, the number of estimated infections as of June 24 (last time I integrated) was ~15.1 million in the US. That's about 4.6% of the population, so if the CDC/others are estimating 15% by summer's end, that's interesting. Looks like healthdata's projections are possibly over conservative.

Link:

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Explore forecasts of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital resource use.

covid19.healthdata.org

 

[Craptastic]

Apple isn’t closing these stores because of customers, these closures are happening to protect their employees.

Shop online. Call Apple Support. Initiate express services.

Stop complaining and wear your mask, thanks.

 

[cmaier]

The death count is likely to increase, not the death rate.

I've been following projections on healthdata.org, and if you integrate the estimated cases from February, the number of estimated infections as of June 24 (last time I integrated) was ~15.1 million in the US. That's about 4.6% of the population, so if the CDC/others are estimating 15% by summer's end, that's interesting. Looks like healthdata's projections are possibly over conservative.

Link:

IHME | COVID-19 Projections

Explore forecasts of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital resource use.

covid19.healthdata.org

You miss my point. death rate = deaths / cases. He wanted to stop counting cases on a certain date, and stop counting deaths on that same date. But a lot of those cases won’t have had “enough time to die.” If 1000 people catch the virus today, none of them will die today. If today is day 1, then by his argument the death rate is 0%.

You have to wait and see what happens do those 1000 people over the next month or so.

 

[crawfish963]

Oh please. You're not the only one that knows what strict scrutiny is. Snarky comments are not useful.

I find hard to believe that any part of the US government could make a case and pass the test for something that killed 0.03% of the population (112,226 deaths over 375,000,000) in 6 to 8 months. This is even more true after Trump v. Hawaii. I am also pretty sure that all precedents on 1A rights in reference to clothing and the 1A would make your point even less credible.

Not to mention that strict scrutiny would actually work against his argument as mask requirements would fail given that they are overly intrusive and, as you pointed out, unjustified given the low mortality rate posed by COVID.

 

[turbineseaplane]

To anyone who thinks it's "overblown" or the media is "fear mongering"..

Would you please just wear masks in the mean time and we can debate this endlessly?

It's not a big ask to just wear a mask.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Would you please just wear masks in the mean time and we can debate this endlessly?
It's not a big ask to just wear a mask.

Totally agree. Let's wear a mask, it is a small ask. (hey, it could be a slogan! "A small ask: wear a mask!").