Apple Stores Will Continue to Require Masks for Now

[deeddawg]

.

There has not been much attention paid to transmission post vaccination yet, so there is limited confidence in the truth of any statement. But again, if we know that infected people transmit the disease, and we know vaccinated people can become infected, then there is work to be done to show that vaccinated people aren't able to transmit the disease once infected-- until that work is done, then I'd call it decidedly unproven that vaccinated people can not transmit the disease.

FYI:

“The risk is extremely low of getting infected, of getting sick, or of transmitting it to anybody else, full stop,” says Dr. Fauci, explaining the new CDC mask guidance for fully vaccinated folks.

(source)

So yes, as with most if not all vaccines, there's not 0.00000% risk of infection/re-transmission.

... but that's also an unrealistic expectation IMHO. Every activity bears some risk; walking my dog this morning I risked being injured or killed by a falling tree branch or an errant car driver careening out of control. You can even be killed while sleeping in your bed.

We shall see what the continued numbers are, yet per the current CDC guidance it seems that fully vaccinated people bear little risk of illness, and even less risk of serious illness or re-transmission.

 

[I7guy]

Many peer reviewed studies vs. what amounts to political rhetoric at this point? An appeal to authority is not a valid argument. The most prominent scientists, including Einstein, at one point all believed the universe was static. Didn't make it true, just like Mayoclinic's mask information doesn't stand up to real science nor real world evidence.

Your appeal to authority analogy holds no water. It’s not one source that makes the claim it’s multiple sources. Your “peer reviewed” studies don’t stand up to the rest of scientific community and real evidence.

Believe what you will. Zei Gazint.

 

[nathansz]

Constantly calling a site a conspiracy theory website doesn't make it true. If you don't trust the site, simply click the links to the actual studies. Problem solved!

And if in your delusion there's scant evidence that masks don't work while there's overwhelming evidence that masks do work, you shouldn't have a problem deluging us with those studies, right? Right?

As for there being no point in further debate, you should know that this was never a debate because you failed to present a single case or rebuttal. Ad hominem attacks do not count.

I read the studies, as I’ve explained twice already, the studies don't say what the little blurbs claim that they do.

it doesn't take much research to learn what Swiss policy research is all about.

if you were actually interested in learning the truth about Swiss policy research, masks, vaccines or any of these topics it's easy enough to do, I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you


good luck!

 

[shigzeo]

The CDC and WHO have reported zero cases to demonstrate a vaccinated individual transmitting the virus to another person. That isn't personal experience. Its non-existence means you'll need proof of it happening to disprove my statement. That's just how it works, sorry you don't like it. The burden of proof is on you, not me, no matter how many diatribes you want to waste your time writing only to demonstrate you don't understand anything about this.

I'm sure that is true, but after a year of both bodies changing their story, covering up bad procedures, funding, and more, using either as an authority on anything but how to weave a story may not be that sound.

 

[I7guy]

I do need to add that we have no idea how many people have died OF or FROM covid, none at all, and comparing modern numbers to ancient numbers is a bit of a reach. Imagine a world of 500 million where 5 million died. That is 1 in 100, but in a world of 7 billion, where a purported 3,5 million have died, and again, we have no idea how many actually died OF or FROM covid? There is no comparison, let alone to plagues.

I am not being callous.

I think that a system that sets itself up against all traditions and then forces all peoples to use the same system or else, and ignores their worries, cultures, and more, in order to establish a singular state of all things economic, medical, and governmental, is callous.

Nearly all traditional vocations have been killed, both medicinal (even modern forms) and other. All of it. No one is allowed to be separate from the new system. No kings, no gods, no traditions. All must be car parks, high rises, degenerate partying, and broken families. And, in the middle of that, all must accept a singular medical system whereby even modern medicine practiced outside of a singular governing body, is illegal.

And, the media and the pharmaceuticals and banks, all of which receive or fund themselves using the same material founts, want the entire population of the planet to take a vaccine. They do this whilst promoting libertine lifestyles that have for decades ended in heart failure, obesity, and myriad other life foreshortening side effects, but still they get behind the vaccine and this one narrative as existential.

This is the most callous time in all of history, but a person or a people wary of singular narratives that pull the entire world in is demonised. I don't get it.

Your post reads like a modern day pandemic version of a Ted Kaczynski manifesto. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski)

The Apple Stores are taking a prudent path to wellness for our society. By society I mean the global, not just the US where I live.

 

[shigzeo]

Your post reads like a modern day pandemic version of a Ted Kaczynski manifesto. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski)

The Apple Stores are taking a prudent path to wellness for our society. By society I mean the global, not just the US where I live.

Imagine that: a man or a society not wanting to be swallowed into the totalitarian whole. How horrible.

 

[I7guy]

Imagine that: a man or a society not wanting to be swallowed into the totalitarian whole. How horrible.

It didn't end well for him.

 

[Karma*Police]

Your appeal to authority analogy holds no water. It’s not one source that makes the claim it’s multiple sources. Your “peer reviewed” studies don’t stand up to the rest of scientific community and real evidence.

Believe what you will. Zei Gazint.

Of course it does. The very authority you've been listening to has flip flopped on this very issue multiple times which has utterly destroyed their credibility. So not only does your appeal to authority not work in this case, but popular opinion, as I've already pointed out, doesn't work either. Science only cares about truth.

Let's examine just a few... At one point, the experts that you continue to have faith in said:

- There would be 2MM American deaths in one year from Covid, and anyone who disagreed was shut down... Youtube literally took down videos of people who claimed it would be a much smaller number.

- We would need 2 weeks to flatten the curve. Over a year later, we know how that turned out.

- Respirators were the best way to help people with Covid. When a doctor came forward and said it would do more harm, he was shut down... until months later, when the "experts" realized that doctor was right.

On and on... Groupthink happens in every field, including the medical field... even the scientific field. But at least with science, as long as there are enough people willing to look at the actual facts and keep pushing them forward, the truth eventually wins out. Sometimes it can takes centuries, like with Darwinian evolution, where over 30% of scientists in that field now believe it's bunk and are in favor of replacing it with a theory that is more in line with modern discoveries.

 

[I7guy]

Of course it does. The very authority you've been listening to has flip flopped on this very issue multiple times which has utterly destroyed their credibility. So not only does your appeal to authority not work in this case, but popular opinion, as I've already pointed out, doesn't work either. Science only cares about truth.

Let's examine just a few... At one point, the experts that you continue to have faith in said:

- There would be 2MM American deaths in one year from Covid, and anyone who disagreed was shut down... Youtube literally took down videos of people who claimed it would be a much smaller number.

- We would need 2 weeks to flatten the curve. Over a year later, we know how that turned out.

- Respirators were the best way to help people with Covid. When a doctor came forward and said it would do more harm, he was shut down... until months later, when the "experts" realized that doctor was right.

On and on... Groupthink happens in every field, including the medical field... even the scientific field. But at least with science, as long as there are enough people willing to look at the actual facts and keep pushing them forward, the truth eventually wins out. Sometimes it can takes centuries, like with Darwinian evolution, where over 30% of scientists in that field now believe it's bunk and are in favor of replacing it with a theory that is more in line with modern discoveries.

What you are pointing out is the discovery process. Imagine how the people felt when they discovered the world wasn't flat because they gained more knowledge as time moved on. Same with covid.

I believe what the common wisdom is, from the organizations who know more than us believe --- that the trifecta of behaviors - masks, social distancing and good hygiene along with vaccinations will ultimately beat covid into submission.

IMO, you're way deep into the weeds by discrediting the accumulation of knowledge with one-off examples.

 

[Analog Kid]

The CDC and WHO have reported zero cases to demonstrate a vaccinated individual transmitting the virus to another person.

This is a very different statement than your original, and my very well be true.

It is also provable, by looking at the body of CDC and WHO reports, but I don't see a need to do that-- we know infection rates are low among the vaccinated so there is limited opportunity, and we know that very little effort has been made to track transmission from vaccinated individuals so if a small number of transmissions happened they were unlikely to be recorded. I'm willing to believe this statement.

 

[Analog Kid]

.


FYI:

(source)

So yes, as with most if not all vaccines, there's not 0.00000% risk of infection/re-transmission.

... but that's also an unrealistic expectation IMHO. Every activity bears some risk; walking my dog this morning I risked being injured or killed by a falling tree branch or an errant car driver careening out of control. You can even be killed while sleeping in your bed.

We shall see what the continued numbers are, yet per the current CDC guidance it seems that fully vaccinated people bear little risk of illness, and even less risk of serious illness or re-transmission.

There is a difference between saying "extremely low" and saying it hasn't happened.

I appreciate being schooled on the fact that sometimes people get hit by cars and falling foliage, but my point wasn't one of policy, and it wasn't one of relative risk, it was simply one of fact-- if you say it hasn't happened while the scientific community is saying that it hasn't yet been well studied, then you need to be a little less absolute in your rhetoric or provide support for your statement.

 

[Analog Kid]

Where was I arguing about a site??

For example:

Constantly calling a site a conspiracy theory website doesn't make it true.

If I'd taken the time to use all my words, I'd have said "let's not argue about the site".

In any event, you ignored the substantive part of my comment. You're saying there are peer reviewed studies proving your point. Pick one to start with. Tell us what you think it says. Let's discuss it.

 

[deeddawg]

There is a difference between saying "extremely low" and saying it hasn't happened.

I appreciate being schooled on the fact that sometimes people get hit by cars and falling foliage, but my point wasn't one of policy, and it wasn't one of relative risk, it was simply one of fact-- if you say it hasn't happened while the scientific community is saying that it hasn't yet been well studied, then you need to be a little less absolute in your rhetoric or provide support for your statement.

Have I said "it hasn't happened"? Please link the post where I've said this as I don't recall doing so - I'll go back and correct whatever I miswrote.

The point of my post was that those who are waiting for zero-risk will be waiting a very long time since it's unlikely ever to be zero. Each needs to assess how much risk they're willing to accept, and go from there.

 

[I7guy]

The CDC and WHO have reported zero cases to demonstrate a vaccinated individual transmitting the virus to another person. That isn't personal experience. Its non-existence means you'll need proof of it happening to disprove my statement. That's just how it works, sorry you don't like it. The burden of proof is on you, not me, no matter how many diatribes you want to waste your time writing only to demonstrate you don't understand anything about this.

Yankees?

 

[Analog Kid]

Have I said "it hasn't happened"? Please link the post where I've said this as I don't recall doing so - I'll go back and correct whatever I miswrote.

The point of my post was that those who are waiting for zero-risk will be waiting a very long time since it's unlikely ever to be zero. Each needs to assess how much risk they're willing to accept, and go from there.

You replied in the middle of a thread and seem to have ignored all of its context.

 

[Karma*Police]

For example:


If I'd taken the time to use all my words, I'd have said "let's not argue about the site".

In any event, you ignored the substantive part of my comment. You're saying there are peer reviewed studies proving your point. Pick one to start with. Tell us what you think it says. Let's discuss it.

I think you missed the point about the site entirely, cos the focus was always about the studies, but sure, how about the danish study.

 

[BuffaloTF]

There is a difference between saying "extremely low" and saying it hasn't happened.

I appreciate being schooled on the fact that sometimes people get hit by cars and falling foliage, but my point wasn't one of policy, and it wasn't one of relative risk, it was simply one of fact-- if you say it hasn't happened while the scientific community is saying that it hasn't yet been well studied, then you need to be a little less absolute in your rhetoric or provide support for your statement.

...because it hasn't happened. The "extremely low" risk is to assign it something as a precaution. Which is why I provided the link where Dr Walensky said vaccinated individuals do not transmit it. Dr Walensky. The Director of the CDC. That Dr Walensky. The one in charge of the operation. Other docs at the CDC walked it back somewhat to assign it that "extremely low" value, but Dr Walensky said what she said because there's no evidence of it having occurred.

 

[Karma*Police]

What you are pointing out is the discovery process. Imagine how the people felt when they discovered the world wasn't flat because they gained more knowledge as time moved on. Same with covid.

I believe what the common wisdom is, from the organizations who know more than us believe --- that the trifecta of behaviors - masks, social distancing and good hygiene along with vaccinations will ultimately beat covid into submission.

IMO, you're way deep into the weeds by discrediting the accumulation of knowledge with one-off examples.

One could more readily argue that through the discovery process, we've learned that masks don't help, just like our pseudo-lockdowns. The real world evidence is overwhelming.

I've already pointed out why common wisdom holds zero value, and the numerous times common wisdom was wrong about Covid. Like with technology, and per Arthur Schopenhaeur's truth axiom, some people are just late to see it.

But I respect your right to hold the opinion that you do. That's what makes America so great.

 

[I7guy]

One could more readily argue that through the discovery process, we've learned that masks don't help, just like our pseudo-lockdowns. The real world evidence is overwhelming.

We could argue that, but we'd be wrong.

I've already pointed out why common wisdom holds zero value, and the numerous times common wisdom was wrong about Covid. Like with technology, and per Arthur Schopenhaeur's truth axiom, some people are just late to see it.

But I respect your right to hold the opinion that you do. That's what makes America so great.

I do respect your right to form an opinion from the sources you deem trustworthy. As I said, heavy hitters in the medical field have endorsed the trifecta of masks, distancing and hygiene. You may disagree and have a different opinion, but that opinion will not get you into an Apple store.

 

[deeddawg]

You replied in the middle of a thread and seem to have ignored all of its context.

Your assumption is incorrect.

Let’s stick to responding to what individuals write rather than assigning some presumption based on others writings.

 

[Analog Kid]

...because it hasn't happened.

You can't possibly know that.

 

[Analog Kid]

Your assumption is incorrect.

Let’s stick to responding to what individuals write rather than assigning some presumption based on others writings.

I'm sorry, which assumption is incorrect? That in a conversation with someone else you think I claimed you said something?

 

[Analog Kid]

I think you missed the point about the site entirely, cos the focus was always about the studies, but sure, how about the danish study.

What do you believe the Danish study tells us?

 

[Karma*Police]

What do you believe the Danish study tells us?

It's not what I believe. The study literally tells us its findings. The rate of infections between between people who wore masks and those who did not was negligible.

Now, do I believe the study actually happened the way they say it did? Yes.

 

[deeddawg]

I'm sorry, which assumption is incorrect? That in a conversation with someone else you think I claimed you said something?

The assumption that I hadn’t read the thread / observed the context.

I added information as well as some commentary of my own.

I’d say I’m sorry that’s bothered you, but I’m not.

if you wish to have private conversations without others commenting, there’s a venue here for doing so.

… now enuf of the tangential crap nobody elsemis interested in. If you have something on topic to say to me please feel free, but otherwise take it to private messaging.