No worries. You could not pay me to live there. Where I live a major grocery chain already changed their tune after 24 hours. It will happen. In the real world it was already happening.Don't bother shopping in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut then.
And I'll bet this won't happen a lot. It will happen, but not to any great extent to get stores to change policy.
I don’t think companies still requiring masks is necessarily “against the science” as it is “against the idiots who are (and have been) ignoring it all along and are now being given the opportunity to easily ignore the guidance“"Trust science"
A mandate requiring masks doesn't mean people are actually wearing masks indoors, so you have no idea if it is effective or notWhere did I, or any of the studies, suggest wearing masks causes more covid cases? What we do know is that wearing masks have been ineffective at slowing the spread.
No that's not the point of this particular vaccine. You can still become infected even after vaccination. The point of this particular vaccine is to keep you from being hospitalized and or dying if you do become infected. Ignorance is a choice.No. The vaccination is supposed to protect you from getting the virus. That's the point.
Oh, there’s no doubt “it” will happen. But some states are more cautious than others was my point as two states very hard hit, probably not want that type of thing to happen again.No worries. You could not pay me to live there. Where I live a major grocery chain already changed their tune after 24 hours. It will happen. In the real world it was already happening.
I got out of NY (upstate) a quarter century ago and haven’t looked back.No worries. You could not pay me to live there. Where I live a major grocery chain already changed their tune after 24 hours. It will happen. In the real world it was already happening.
I’m not concerned with ignorance among members here. The CDC knows more than Apple when it comes to this virus. Period.
If you want to live in fear and wear a mask the rest of your life go ahead. I’m not doing that and people who are vaccinated shouldn’t be forced to live in fear to accommodate the ignorant.
No, not even that. This is the only pandemic in history that not only kills fewer than 1 in 3.000 at most, but in most countries, even with the most creative of 'with covid' pronouncements of death, generally is said to be present at death in 1 in 10.000 people.Survival is death only.
I personally can't even take a stuffed nose!
there is a grey area before death. Weeks of suffering maybe? Longterm suffering?
What does "95% effective in preventing COVID-19" mean to you?No that's not the point of this particular vaccine. You can still become infected even after vaccination. The point of this particular vaccine is to keep you from being hospitalized and or dying if you do become infected. Ignorance is a choice.
What? I've had relatives die from this while waiting for ICU beds... Ignorance like this upsets me.No, not even that. This is the only pandemic in history that not only kills fewer than 1 in 3.000 at most, but in most countries, even with the most creative of 'with covid' pronouncements of death, generally is said to be present at death in 1 in 10.000 people.
You see no one dying from it, no sick people, and only through the media narrative, which is constant, are converts made. A simple cold now is great worry to people who sadly have succumbed to an obvious lie.
After reading this thread and seeing all the disagreement, I have a question.
Why should my vaccinated self have to wear a mask, just because some unvaccinated people might lie about being vaccinated and not wear them?
There's no evidence that Apple isn't doing either.Apple needs to Follow the Science and Trust the Experts at the CDC!!!!!!
I remember when the “settled science” was calling for a new Ice Age about now.Apple needs to Follow the Science and Trust the Experts at the CDC!!!!!!
It’s not that they are not following the science, it’s that they are choosing to follow the more restrictive situations of the science (as it stands now). There are currently two cases, vaccinated and unvaccinated. Vaccinated people are good to go, unvaccinated have more (scientifically defined) requirements. Since it is not clear (at least in the US) who has been vaccinated and who has not been, it makes complete sense to just apply the more restrictive requirements to everyone than the more loose requirements when a majority people remain unvaccinated.Apple needs to Follow the Science and Trust the Experts at the CDC!!!!!!
What? I've had relatives die from this while waiting for ICU beds... Ignorance like this upsets me.
So what you’re saying is …There's no evidence that Apple isn't doing either.
The CDC says that non-vaccinated people still need to wear masks, and that fully vaccinated people no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance in any setting, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.
It sounds like Apple has decided they can't tell whether unvaccinated people are entering without masks, so their local business guidance is to require everyone to wear a mask. That doesn't deviate from the science or the CDC.
Move to China, they wear them everywhereAt this point, considering I have not had even a stupid cold this whole year of COVID because people were actually wearing masks and washing their hands more often, I will forever wear a mask indoors in public places. Don’t know about you, but I like not being sick. I’m fine to be the weird person with the N95 at the supermarket or on an airplane and not get sick. Survival of the fittest has become survival of the smartest. Whatever…
This is beyond the Middle Ages. Read the official figures my dear friend. We are facing a pandemic that even the WHO admits is bolstered by WITH rather than FROM numbers, with totally fraught use of PCR testing, making it almost impossible to even guess what percentage of the population has even been confronted with the virus.What? I've had relatives die from this while waiting for ICU beds... Ignorance like this upsets me.
Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This isn't the Middle Ages...
No, I'm saying they have three choices:So what you’re saying is …
Apple assumes all unmasked people seeking to enter their stores are Liars and they won’t try to differentiate?
Why do people have it in their heads that, in a language with antonyms, you can't prove a negative? If I say "I'm right", that's a provable statement, but if I say "I'm not wrong" it somehow no longer requires proof?
And does no one find irony in the fact that "You can't prove a negative" is itself stated as a negative and thus unprovable under its own logic?
You didn't just offer an opinion, you made a strong statement of fact, repeatedly, and with emphasis. All caps, "ZERO", and then "literally zero", with added clarification that you mean literal as "truly defined". If it's not recorded by an authority on the subject, then don't present unsupportable claims as undeniable facts.
- You made a statement of fact that should be supported by a citation.
- "It has been shown in absolutely ZERO instances that you can pass it to others." is not a negative statement.
- "It has been shown in literally zero instances. Literally. The word literal being applied in its true form." is not a negative statement.
- You can easily link to support a negative statement
- "No Olympic athlete has completed the 100m dash in less than 9 seconds."
- Likewise, "It has been shown in absolutely ZERO instances that an Olympic athlete can complete the 100m dash in less than 9 seconds."
- It is not my responsibility to prove or disprove your statement of fact, it is yours.
That was some careful cherry picking. You must be assuming that the people you're talking to haven't already and aren't capable of reading an article. You managed to only quote the statements that the rest of the article is saying were being walked back by the agency.
From your article:
“Dr. Walensky spoke broadly during this interview,” an agency spokesman told The Times. “It’s possible that some people who are fully vaccinated could get Covid-19. The evidence isn’t clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence.”
It also specifically makes the point that 77 people out of 3950 vaccinated subjects became infected with the disease which refutes your statement that you can't transmit it because you can't be infected with it.
So, contrary to the fallacy of "you can't prove a negative", it turns out to be true that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In this case, it simply hasn't been looked at and studied. This is why we are continuing to research the subject.
People can become infected with the disease even after vaccination. Infected people can transmit the disease. There is also the possibility that non-infected people can transmit the disease which I haven't seen disproven. This is why we are continuing to research the subject.
There is no transmission data anywhere in this article. All this says is that fully vaccinated people are less likely but still able to become infected because the vaccine is only 90% effective.
There are a lot of things that weren't shown in that article, that doesn't make it ok to start claiming they are all facts.
You have shown nothing to support your statement of fact that "it has been shown in literally zero instances" that vaccinated people can transmit the disease. You clearly don't have that information, so please correct your claims that you do.
Can you even read a complete sentence?The CDC said vaccinated people don’t have to wear masks. End of discussion. Yet that’s not good enough for some of our members.