As if anyone would have closed his business If the government had not required them to. If you were really afraid of the Virus you would condemn them for keeping open while praising those who closed down and took heavy losses.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Not Expecting U.S. Offices to Return to Normal in 2020, Encourages Retail Staff at Closed Stores to Work Remotely
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Took my iphone 11 to the Apple store in Covent Garden today for a screen replacement. Seem to have loads of staff around Temp check on the way in and they provide masks if you do not have one. Social distancing being practiced. However, they were almost an hour late on the pick up time they gave me.
The cases are spiking because the tests are spiking, and majority of news outlets do not discern between those who test positive and those who fell ill. Thousands of supposed corona-infections are asymptomatic and only tested positive.
That is a very important distinction, and if it would have been made from day 1 there would have been No lockdowns anywhere.
From my standpoint, [which is completely anecdotal], I see this pandemic pushing some retailers to force online sales only, this closing any physical locations. And if the user requires certain repairs/services, They have to mail them directly through a carrier. I understand some may disagree with this, but that transition is actually happening right now with some retailers experiencing in my region on a local level.
We are so far past that pretzel logic, try to keep up. Saying cases are up because testing is up sounds like some would prefer not knowing the true number of cases, like the President has said more than once. Playing expert on social media and forums is very popular, last month a business expert, last week a political expert, yesterday a medical and public health expert, tomorrow whatever the topic is. It’s good to an internet renaissance man 😏
Apple closed its offices and stores before the government ordered lockdowns. They continue to reclose stores in areas seeing a rise in cases even without government requirements to do so.
Tests are not spiking.
They are consistently increasing. What is spiking is percent of positive tests. If you are testing more people and a the percent positive is still increasing then it’s a pretty sure bet you haven’t found everyone yet and the disease is becoming more prevalent.
Hospitalizations are also increasing, which is further evidence of spread.
The reason nobody distinguishes between positive tests and showing symptoms is because you can spread the disease without showing symptoms and the people you spread it to can still develop symptoms, fall seriously ill, and die.
If we only reported the number of people showing symptoms, nothing would change for the better— we’d suffer the same fate as a ship only worried about the parts of the iceberg it can see above the waterline.
The problem is it is not a disease as long as you do not show symptoms. With your methodology we could test for any of the 200+ different viruses that make up the Flu and flu like diseases and come to the same result. We could even pick from a range of Corona Viruses to Test for, because out of the these ~200 Viruses that make up the flu, about 10-15% are in fact corona viruses.
These numbers about positive tests are scientifically worthless and everyone who works with them has zero credibility and is either a liar or clueless.
What you should be really looking at is overall mortality and life expectancy.
In Austria there was zero decline in life expectancy. Also the average age of „Corona victims“ matched the life expectancy. Which leads to the conclusion that at least in Austria, there was no new and extraordinarily dangerous sickness going around. and there was never a reason to lock down the country. Everyone who supposedly died from corona would have died anyway from some other opportunistic pathogen. And they all very likely would have been counted as victim of the flu. (Flu deaths Formular is in essence subtract summer mortality from winter Mortality.)
In Hamburg, Germany, a doctor opposed WHO recommendations and did autopsies on 200 deceased. He found serious pre existing conditions in every single one.
Actually, it isn't because you are taking the precautions seriously, the reason you are now seeing fewer cases is because your state allowed you to go through hell and back. Honestly, every single area is going to have the same reckoning sooner or later, the question is do you go through it and get out on the other side early or do you prolong the suffering thinking you are going to somehow prevent the inevitable?
While California was applauded for its early efforts, I think long term we will look at places that appear to have been hit very heavily early on and realize that they are much better off in the long run.
Are you implying New York has reached herd immunity? Not true at all. Antibody tests show maybe 15% had antibodies
There is a distinction between the disease and the virus, but for most people the two blur together and there is a bit of overlap in how the language is commonly used. We say "covid testing", but we're not actually testing for the disease we're testing for SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus.
The reason why we care about the virus more than the disease is because the disease does the damage but it is not contageous, the virus is contagious. So having the virus, even without showing symptoms of the disease, means you can give the virus to someone else who may develop much more serious symptoms than you have.
As an analogy that shouldn't be taken much further than the language used, HIV is the virus and AIDS is the disease caused by that virus. We worry about sexual contact with someone who is positive for HIV, regardless of whether they are showing symptoms of AIDS. There is some overlap in people's language when they talk about "being HIV positive" and "having AIDS".
You can point me to a reference that explains what you're saying here, but I'm pretty sure it's completely wrong. None of the influenza viruses are coronaviruses. Influenza viruses are members of Orthomyxoviridae. Coronoaviruses are members of Orthocoronavirinae.
We can, and do, test for influenza viruses, and we can monitor it's spread in similar ways. We don't tend to bother for seasonal flus because humanity has a baseline level of immunity to them. The situation is different for pandemic flus where we are less well prepared-- think of the Swine Flu and Bird Flu outbreaks over the last decade or two where government jumped in and responded much more forcefully than for seasonal flu.
Most of the credible scientists who are too busy to post to Apple forums tend to disagree with your assessment here. As a pure matter of logic, I don't see how your point stands-- knowing how many positive tests you have is an important indicator of the spread of the virus. It's an incomplete indicator, and in many countries is being collected badly, but important none-the-less.
Now, that's a lagging indicator if ever there was one... Which live expectancy do you mean here? Life expectancy at birth?
First, there's no way this data can even be calculated yet, but it's also false by definition. If anyone dies due to Covid-19, the life expectancy of the population declined. There may be a question of by how much, but it can't be zero. Not can't as in "I don't believe it" but can't as in "mathematically impossible".
I think you misunderstand what "life expectancy" means. The numbers you're most likely talking about is "life expectancy at birth", which is a measure of how long a newborn baby is expected to live. It averages in the lifespan of all the babies that die in the first minutes and months after birth. Once you survive infancy, your life expectancy increases significantly. And once you survive your drinking-and-driving teenage years. And once you survive your dangerous workplace.
So, when you say the average age is the life expectancy, you mean "when this person was born, we thought they would live a very short time or a very long time, and those numbers coincidentally average to the age they contracted the coronavirus". Because when they were the age they were when they contracted it, their expected life was longer. Dying of the disease means they lived shorter than was previously expected.
We will all die anyway from some other cause. If we follow this logic, why do we need a healthcare system at all? If we don't die of this, we'll die of that, so why bother doing anything about it?
No, the whole point of medical science, and a principal motivator of most living creatures, is self preservation and the extension of life for as long as possible. "Would have died anyway" is a sociopathic argument.
What you mean is they would have been incorrectly counted as a victim of the flu because you're counting "flu" deaths by naive subtraction. I'm curious if increased automobile accidents on icy roads and impalement by falling icicles are also called "flu"...
This seems kind of moot. Lot's of people have pre-existing conditions that they're managing, and which may even shorten their remaining life, but when they get hit by a bus we don't do an autopsy and say "we don't know the bus killed them because we found elevated PSA levels".
The question is how and when the reckoning comes. The longer we delay it the more we learn about treating the disease and the better the outcomes-- this partly explains why we see declining mortality rates. Likewise, the more we draw out the process, the less the strain on the system and the better it is able to cope with and treat the individual cases.
If by "better off in the long run" you mean economically, there's no evidence of that. The countries and jurisdictions that locked down less or not at all appear to be suffering as much as those that didn't. The difference is how much we do to cushion that economic damage, and our ability to keep the closure severe and brief rather than on again off again because we're arguing about whether we should fight it with science or with happy thoughts.
Last edited:
You are misinformed. The percentage of positives is increasing. This is not a function of the number of tests done. Realistically if you do more tests you get more positives as an absolute number but the percentage of positives would be reduced.
Last edited by a moderator:
not quite that simple. many people don't have the facility to work from home; to do customer support, you have to have a quiet space, good wifi, privacy etc.