Apple Stores Will Continue to Require Masks for Now

[nathansz]

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.

from the danish study itself:

“

Limitation:​

Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”

not to mention that the study was looking at whether or not masks protect the wearer, which is not the purpose of mask mandates in the first place

……..


from the PLOS study linked on the same page:

“Conclusion:

This trial failed to provide definitive evidence for the effectiveness of facemasks during the Hajj. This was likely due to poor compliance with facemask use. We report difficulties in implementing a large cRCT, evaluating the effectiveness of facemasks against viral respiratory infections including participants’ poor compliance with the protocol, despite active explanation and support.”

once again, quite different than how SPR represents it

we could go through every link on the page like this

as i’ve attempted to explain a few times. this site has taken a small number of studies and misrepresented their findings, their import or both

 

[shigzeo]

It didn't end well for him.

I don't get what you're saying. Every single massive change that has been forced on people was forced them. They were not asked if they would like to eventuate into desk workers with high BMI low muscle mass, weak immune systems, and to be employed by the fewest number of employers the world has ever seen, and all of that coupled wit the loss of diverse cultures and races as every place on the map becomes the same movie screen, high rise and car park.

Somehow a person that recognises this (as does every people before being swallowed into the whole) is now Ted K? Since you are so well read, what was Ted wrong about? Are you separate from the system, or are you perfectly adapted to it as to advance every of its aims?

Is free thought, freedom of cultural expression, of bodily autonomy allowed? Or, must we all be fully integrated and no dissent allowed? Are we going to at least admit that what we are aiming for is totalitarian control of every corner of the globe?

 

[shigzeo]

...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.

Appeals to authority are normal as we all know. But what if a director of an important medical system disagrees with the message of the system or the body? Are they then wrong, or, as authorities, does their voice carry weight? Because previous heavy hitters are then demonised by the same media or narrative structures that earlier supported them.

There is no way around appeals to authority, but those appeals themselves are selected for by this or that system.

 

[shigzeo]

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.

We understand how knowledge accumulates, but from the very beginning it is obvious that, through demonisation and ostracisation, the scientific method, which doesn't assert things, but attempts to uncover truth through experimentation, was ignored.

The PCR test, which everyone can at least pronounce, has very specific methodology, which everyone in medical science and the medical field should know about, but do not. Many places use cycles too high, which the CDC and WHO know about, but which they do not correct unless the person has been vaccinated, in which case, the cycle threshold is lowered to 28. PCR use has to be done correctly in order to isolate anything, but it is not and that is the one method we are using to determine a person's carrying of Covid or not.

Cycles above 35 will prove almost anyone, fully isolated or living on another planet or not, will have Covid. And that has NOT been corrected for. That alone should damn the entire system, but of course no one talks about that. Normal people have a thing called intuition, and while that has been demonised in the modern world, it is an important sense that should not be ignored.

Instead, we have repeated narratives that replace it and, no manner of lies or redacted knowledge, we listen and listen and listen and repeat. Anything repeated enough will eventually become truth in the eyes and ears of the listener, truth or not. Of course this goes both ways, but calling one side totally scientific and factual and the other side not is false.

And the PCR guidelines alone prove that the numbers are wrong. Everything else could be true, but the numbers are wrong.

 

[nathansz]

The PCR test, which everyone can at least pronounce, has very specific methodology, which everyone in medical science and the medical field should know about, but do not. Many places use cycles too high, which the CDC and WHO know about, but which they do not correct unless the person has been vaccinated, in which case, the cycle threshold is lowered to 28. PCR use has to be done correctly in order to isolate anything, but it is not and that is the one method we are using to determine a person's carrying of Covid or not.

Cycles above 35 will prove almost anyone, fully isolated or living on another planet or not, will have Covid. And that has NOT been corrected for. That alone should damn the entire system, but of course no one talks about that. Normal people have a thing called intuition, and while that has been demonised in the modern world, it is an important sense that should not be ignored.

Instead, we have repeated narratives that replace it and, no manner of lies or redacted knowledge, we listen and listen and listen and repeat. Anything repeated enough will eventually become truth in the eyes and ears of the listener, truth or not. Of course this goes both ways, but calling one side totally scientific and factual and the other side not is false.

And the PCR guidelines alone prove that the numbers are wrong. Everything else could be true, but the numbers are wrong.

The COVID-19 PCR Test Is Reliable Despite the Commotion About Ct Values

True crime series like Serial and Making a Murderer invite us to sharpen our abilities and to outperform the detectives assigned to the case in figuring out what really happened. We hear the official narrative and we then inspect various clues provided to us by the storyteller, turning them...

www.mcgill.ca

 

[I7guy]

I don't get what you're saying. Every single massive change that has been forced on people was forced them. They were not asked if they would like to eventuate into desk workers with high BMI low muscle mass, weak immune systems, and to be employed by the fewest number of employers the world has ever seen, and all of that coupled wit the loss of diverse cultures and races as every place on the map becomes the same movie screen, high rise and car park.

Somehow a person that recognises this (as does every people before being swallowed into the whole) is now Ted K? Since you are so well read, what was Ted wrong about? Are you separate from the system, or are you perfectly adapted to it as to advance every of its aims?

Is free thought, freedom of cultural expression, of bodily autonomy allowed? Or, must we all be fully integrated and no dissent allowed? Are we going to at least admit that what we are aiming for is totalitarian control of every corner of the globe?

We understand how knowledge accumulates, but from the very beginning it is obvious that, through demonisation and ostracisation, the scientific method, which doesn't assert things, but attempts to uncover truth through experimentation, was ignored.

The PCR test, which everyone can at least pronounce, has very specific methodology, which everyone in medical science and the medical field should know about, but do not. Many places use cycles too high, which the CDC and WHO know about, but which they do not correct unless the person has been vaccinated, in which case, the cycle threshold is lowered to 28. PCR use has to be done correctly in order to isolate anything, but it is not and that is the one method we are using to determine a person's carrying of Covid or not.

Cycles above 35 will prove almost anyone, fully isolated or living on another planet or not, will have Covid. And that has NOT been corrected for. That alone should damn the entire system, but of course no one talks about that. Normal people have a thing called intuition, and while that has been demonised in the modern world, it is an important sense that should not be ignored.

Instead, we have repeated narratives that replace it and, no manner of lies or redacted knowledge, we listen and listen and listen and repeat. Anything repeated enough will eventually become truth in the eyes and ears of the listener, truth or not. Of course this goes both ways, but calling one side totally scientific and factual and the other side not is false.

And the PCR guidelines alone prove that the numbers are wrong. Everything else could be true, but the numbers are wrong.

A bit far a field from the premise of the thread, but what happens is that people pick their scientific data point and derive their own opinions from that data point. Nothing wrong with that, but there is more than one data point in the entirety of this pandemic to latch onto.

As masks have not been proven to be 100% ineffective, which means there is some efficacy to wearing a mask, Apple is taking a cautious approach. Personally I am glad of this.

 

[deeddawg]

As masks have not been proven to be 100% ineffective, which means there is some efficacy to wearing a mask, Apple is taking a cautious approach. Personally I am glad of this.

I’d add to this that as vaccines are never 100.0000% effective, there will always remain some level of risk to those who are fully vaccinated.

Agreed that different folks have different risk tolerances, some of which is based in their individual circumstances.

Thus we can have different people draw different personal choices from the same data while not necessarily contradicting one another. There’s an individual “X factor” to apply to the data which generates different choices. Objectively some may be accepting more risk than others… but is this really any different from normal life. Some choose motorcycles and some choose Volvos. *shrug*

Apple is free to make the choice they’ve made. Given their global presence it isn’t surprising since this conveys a certain degree of “solidarity” with nations which aren’t as far along the vaccination path as others.

Re-entering a semblance of a normal life is a paradigm shift. We each react to that differently; some running to embrace it despite the risks, others hanging back in perceived safety.

Rather than be divisive maybe we be supportive of one another and each individual choice. Surely the people able to find MR are above to observe their local circumstances and what we might say today may change next week if the “environment” changes.

I suspect most of use acknowledge that zero-risk is umachievable and the world cannot stay hunkered down forever. Thus the question is what level of risk is acceptable— the answer to which varies by person and situation.

 

[Analog Kid]

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

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

You read the thread of conversation I had with someone who said that a vaccinated person can't transmit the virus. You added information and commentary saying that the risk was very low that someone would transmit the virus. I agreed with you and said that is true and that is different than saying, as the person I had been responding to did, that it hasn't happened.

You've been haranguing me ever since, trying to make this personal somehow.

 

[LonestarOne]

Agreed that different folks have different risk tolerances, some of which is based in their individual circumstances.

Thus we can have different people draw different personal choices from the same data while not necessarily contradicting one another. There’s an individual “X factor” to apply to the data which generates different choices. Objectively some may be accepting more risk than others… but is this really any different from normal life. Some choose motorcycles and some choose Volvos. *shrug*

That’s fine, unless you deliberately disable the brakes on your motorcycle, then tell people they have no right to safety on the streets and, if they don’t want to be run over, they should “stay home and live in fear”.

That’s what anti-maskers have been doing for the past year.

Rather than be divisive maybe we be supportive of one another and each individual choice. Surely the people able to find MR are above to observe their local circumstances and what we might say today may change next week if the “environment” changes.

Not if when one choice has killed more Americans than Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini combined. Your argument is based on a false equivalence.

Rights come with responsibilities. Anti-maskers insist on their “choice” but refuse to accept any responsibility for the consequences. Like selfish children, they just want their way and don’t care about the price — much of which will be paid by other people.

Re-entering a semblance of a normal life is a paradigm shift. We each react to that differently; some running to embrace it despite the risks, others hanging back in perceived safety.

Re-entering a normal life will require defeating the virus, not playing political propaganda games. By rejecting masks, closures, social distancing, and vaccines, Covidiots have made it *harder* for things to get to normal. The result they have produced is just opposite of what they claim they want, and no amount of cockamamie pseudoscience or political rhetoric will change that.

 

[shigzeo]

The COVID-19 PCR Test Is Reliable Despite the Commotion About Ct Values

True crime series like Serial and Making a Murderer invite us to sharpen our abilities and to outperform the detectives assigned to the case in figuring out what really happened. We hear the official narrative and we then inspect various clues provided to us by the storyteller, turning them...

www.mcgill.ca

Friend, if PCR CT values didn't matter to the covid test, the WHO would have no guidelines, let alone split guidelines based on the month and on the vaccination status. The opinion of this masters student who wrote this paper happens to clash with the advice of PHD researchers I personally know, all of whom had no idea the PCR test for covid was allowed to be run at faster than 30 cycles.

 

[shigzeo]

A bit far a field from the premise of the thread, but what happens is that people pick their scientific data point and derive their own opinions from that data point. Nothing wrong with that, but there is more than one data point in the entirety of this pandemic to latch onto.

As masks have not been proven to be 100% ineffective, which means there is some efficacy to wearing a mask, Apple is taking a cautious approach. Personally I am glad of this.

Agreed.

 

[bushman4]

Masks, hand sanitizing and temperature checks sound good for now. Nobody wants a return of this pandemic
Apple has made good decisions in the past so I’ll respect Apples policy if Iwant to go into an Apple Store

 

[Analog Kid]

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.

Ah good! The Danish mask study. An excellent choice.

The Danish Mask study does indeed tell us its findings and, as I predicted, they are not what you think. It found that wearing a mask reduces the risk of infection to the wearer by a likely 18% but would be consistent with a 46% reduction. The number of participants were too small to be truly statistically significant.

But then the reason to wear a mask was never to prevent contracting covid, it was to prevent transmitting covid. That's why the Danish Mask study also says this:

"The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection."

But, of course, you know that already because I explained it to you months ago:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ed.2276232/page-9?post=29421084#post-29421084

 

[Karma*Police]

from the danish study itself:

“

Limitation:​

Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”

not to mention that the study was looking at whether or not masks protect the wearer, which is not the purpose of mask mandates in the first place

……..


from the PLOS study linked on the same page:

“Conclusion:

This trial failed to provide definitive evidence for the effectiveness of facemasks during the Hajj. This was likely due to poor compliance with facemask use. We report difficulties in implementing a large cRCT, evaluating the effectiveness of facemasks against viral respiratory infections including participants’ poor compliance with the protocol, despite active explanation and support.”

once again, quite different than how SPR represents it

we could go through every link on the page like this

as i’ve attempted to explain a few times. this site has taken a small number of studies and misrepresented their findings, their import or both

You literally glossed over the results to find any bit of information to confirm your bias. That's neither scientific nor will it help you to learn.

I'm not sure you know how to read scientific studies. I'm not saying that to be mean... every study has limitations. That doesn't mean the study is invalid! As for the Hajj conclusion, that's one tiny facet of the study!

Here's what you missed, actual results of the overall study:

Results:​

A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

 

[shigzeo]

You literally glossed over the results to find any bit of information to confirm your bias. That's neither scientific nor will it help you to learn.

I'm not sure you know how to read scientific studies. I'm not saying that to be mean... every study has limitations. That doesn't mean the study is invalid! As for the Hajj conclusion, that's one tiny facet of the study!

Here's what you missed, actual results of the overall study:

Results:​

A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

It's actually easier to say you love science, to choose which reports/tests/studies you like, or to curate them based on preconceived ideas, than it is to really effin' love science.

My wife, who works in pharmaceutical industry as a researcher (and who uses PCR tests every week), told me some harrowing things about the field that normies now worship. Loads of retractions, some public, most not, entire studies that are passed off as 'peer reviewed' when all it means is that they have been read, and this goes up as far as Nature and other high end journals and uni studies.

The infallible thing we call science is also funded by an interesting concoction of industry insiders, governmental grants (often which are given based on the lobbying of insiders), and a lot more. The infusion of politics and political ideas into science has probably ruined it for at least sixty years, where every year it is less rigorous and blind than the year before. With the advent of popular science and excitement by the lay, it is less reputable than ever before as further interested parties now gravitate to what moves the normie before lobbying.

 

[Analog Kid]

You literally glossed over the results to find any bit of information to confirm your bias. That's neither scientific nor will it help you to learn.

I'm not sure you know how to read scientific studies. I'm not saying that to be mean... every study has limitations. That doesn't mean the study is invalid! As for the Hajj conclusion, that's one tiny facet of the study!

Here's what you missed, actual results of the overall study:

Results:​

A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between "negligible" and "not statistically significant". I'm not saying that to be mean...

 

[Td1970]

Rarely go there anyway so if I go I’ll wear a mask. Not a big friggin deal

 

[deeddawg]

That’s fine, unless you deliberately disable the brakes on your motorcycle, then tell people they have no right to safety on the streets and, if they don’t want to be run over, they should “stay home and live in fear”.

That’s what anti-maskers have been doing for the past year.



Not if when one choice has killed more Americans than Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini combined. Your argument is based on a false equivalence.

Rights come with responsibilities. Anti-maskers insist on their “choice” but refuse to accept any responsibility for the consequences. Like selfish children, they just want their way and don’t care about the price — much of which will be paid by other people.




Re-entering a normal life will require defeating the virus, not playing political propaganda games. By rejecting masks, closures, social distancing, and vaccines, Covidiots have made it *harder* for things to get to normal. The result they have produced is just opposite of what they claim they want, and no amount of cockamamie pseudoscience or political rhetoric will change that.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make as you seem to be arguing against snippets of my post in a different context than they were written.

 

[nathansz]

Friend, if PCR CT values didn't matter to the covid test, the WHO would have no guidelines, let alone split guidelines based on the month and on the vaccination status. The opinion of this masters student who wrote this paper happens to clash with the advice of PHD researchers I personally know, all of whom had no idea the PCR test for covid was allowed to be run at faster than 30 cycles.

they aren’t a masters student they hold a masters degree

they also don’t say that pcr ct values “don’t matter”

can we see the advice that this article conflicts with

let’s hear from these phd friends of yours.

 

[nathansz]

You literally glossed over the results to find any bit of information to confirm your bias. That's neither scientific nor will it help you to learn.

I'm not sure you know how to read scientific studies. I'm not saying that to be mean... every study has limitations. That doesn't mean the study is invalid! As for the Hajj conclusion, that's one tiny facet of the study!

Here's what you missed, actual results of the overall study:

Results:​

A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

i didn’t gloss over the results to find any bit of information to confirm my bias. i pointed out where the researches themselves explained that the study is flawed and the results therefore inconclusive. this happens in statiscal research. perhaps you missed that part when you took stats

what you are describing is in fact exactly what spr does, as i’ve pointed out

 

[shigzeo]

they aren’t a masters student they hold a masters degree

they also don’t say that pcr ct values “don’t matter”

can we see the advice that this article conflicts with

let’s hear from these phd friends of yours.

You can do literally nothing in any science without at least a PHD and/or a post doc. If they are a masters they can be used as a lab assistant, but no more. I am not in favour of this system, but my dear friend, you are taking the word of a person that either doesn't know what they are talking about or is wholly taken with a narrative. The CT values absolutely matter and without strict rules on them either high or low return results that predict nothing.

 

[nathansz]

….

 

[nathansz]

You can do literally nothing in any science without at least a PHD and/or a post doc. If they are a masters they can be used as a lab assistant, but no more. I am not in favour of this system, but my dear friend, you are taking the word of a person that either doesn't know what they are talking about or is wholly taken with a narrative. The CT values absolutely matter and without strict rules on them either high or low return results that predict

again, nowhere does this article say that ct values don’t matter.

we await the advice of you phd expert friends

 

[I7guy]

It's actually easier to say you love science, to choose which reports/tests/studies you like, or to curate them based on preconceived ideas, than it is to really effin' love science.

My wife, who works in pharmaceutical industry as a researcher (and who uses PCR tests every week), told me some harrowing things about the field that normies now worship. Loads of retractions, some public, most not, entire studies that are passed off as 'peer reviewed' when all it means is that they have been read, and this goes up as far as Nature and other high end journals and uni studies.

The infallible thing we call science is also funded by an interesting concoction of industry insiders, governmental grants (often which are given based on the lobbying of insiders), and a lot more. The infusion of politics and political ideas into science has probably ruined it for at least sixty years, where every year it is less rigorous and blind than the year before. With the advent of popular science and excitement by the lay, it is less reputable than ever before as further interested parties now gravitate to what moves the normie before lobbying.

All anonymous internet posts know somebody who have some knowledge, which isn't public common knowledge. I take that information with the same weight as was used to acquire said information.

But I'm wondering how this dovetails into Apple requiring masks?

 

[nathansz]

All anonymous internet posts know somebody who have some knowledge, which isn't public common knowledge. I take that information with the same weight as was used to acquire said information.

But I'm wondering how this dovetails into Apple requiring masks?

i think that the argument is meant to be that covid testing is not only inaccurate, but specifically results in massive numbers of false positives, from this it is surmised that almost no one actually has covid, therefore there is no reason for anyone to wear a mask

part of the standard suite of covid related conspiracy theories