Apple Retail stores will look very different in the US when they reopen

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 91
    rotateleftbyterotateleftbyte Posts: 1,593member
    I'm not sure Americans can stand 2 meters apart.  All the confusing metric stuff and all.  Hopefully they'll translate that into English for us.

    "Please stand 6.6 feet apart."  But then people will complain about those extra 6.75"  /s
    Don't you mean...

    Hopefully they'll translate that into American for us.
    Over here in the UK, we went metric for most measurements including small distances around 1970. The odd exception is made for things like miles and mph rather than kilometres and kph.


    svanstromronnlolliver
  • Reply 62 of 91
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    wizard69 said:
    Very interesting but I have two issues. 

    First what happens to customers that normally run temperatures above “normal”.   Frankly I really doubt there will be a lot of public tolerance to having their temperature taken.  

    Second does social distancing really accomplished anything if people are wearing masks?   I’ve been wondering about this a lot lately.  I don’t mean actual touching here but rather the stupidity of the 6 foot rule.  
    Not many people run over 100.4. Fringe case at best. 

    I gladly had my temp taken at the dentist and didn’t think twice about it. Being safe and courteous to others is my duty. 

    The 6’ rule isn’t stupid. Actual testing has shown it’s a minimum, as cough droplets easily travel to 9 and even 12’ with no mask. With is reduced but it all depends on the mask. 6’ seems reasonable at a min. 

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/04/cough-coronavirus-masks-kaye-pkg-vpx.cnn
    Wizard69 was specifically asking about requiring distance when everyone is already wearing a mask.  I assume that the answer is that masks (especially the non-N95 masks we're all making do with) are far from fool proof.  As someone else said it all about probabilities.  Wearing a mask reduces the risk of transmission; standing 6 feet apart reduces the risk; etc.
    I suspect it’s more about making people “feel” safer than actually be safer.  All the homemade masks make me laugh.  All the times that people touch them...to straighten them, is more likely for them to get contaminated (and the wearer infected) than going without.

    Here’s what they were saying a few weeks ago.  I suspect this is accurate.
    https://www.cpr.org/2020/02/28/colorado-is-sold-out-of-medical-masks-due-to-coronavirus-fears-dont-worry-you-dont-need-one/
    “ I think almost everyone I've seen outside of the hospital, that's wearing these in public, don't even have them on properly," said Barron. "I think ends up happening is that it gives them a false sense of security and then they don't realize that their hands are far more likely to be the way they're going to catch this."
    Yep. And what’s worse asking simple questions like this would get you banned on FB or Twitter. Sad we’ve gotten to the point where we can’t ask questions like this in a pubic forum. Makes you wonder.
  • Reply 63 of 91
    I am from Singapore and we and the rest of the world don’t follow what Trump says. 
    We follow the dead bodies we see. We are currently in the 2nd month of lock down and daily infection rate is at about 700-800 people. 
    But thank goodness our death rate is at 18 now. (p.s we throw anyone not wearing a mask into a mental institute.)
    Government is currently paying 75% of my salary. 

    We understand that US may live in a different reality. 
    edited May 2020 dewmeBart Ylolliver
  • Reply 64 of 91
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    apple ][ said:
    You will think very differently about these rules when someone(s) around had died due to Covid. I am in Asia and I heard more in US had died because of Covid19 than Sep 11
    That's just media fear mongering and a pretty useless comparison in my opinion.

    More than sept 11?  Another comparison that I've seen the garbage media make is D-Day, lol.

    In 2017 in the USA:

    Heart Disease  647,457  - - - OMG that's 215 Sept 11s every single year, and just from heart disease!  :#

    Cancer  599,108 - - - OMG that's 199 Sept 11s every single year! :#

    Accidents 169,936 - - - OMG, that's 56 Sept 11s every single year! People should be more careful so that they don't get into accidents. Maybe we should shut down society completely and save at least 170,000 lives this year :#

    The plain old regular Flu and pneumonia  55,672 - - - OMG, that's like 18 Sept 11s every single year!   If everybody were confined to their homes 24-7-365 and never went outside, nobody would catch the Flu anymore and we wouldn't have tens of thousands dying from the Flu each year.  :#

    I don't see anybody getting all hysterical about those deaths. 

    It's important to keep things in perspective. So far, all of the death totals for the virus are far, far lower than many of the insane, delusional and clueless predictions that have come from a variety of sources.

    I'd say we're doing pretty good. 



    Oh!  So you actually believe the nonsense coming from Trump.   Don't you realize he cares only about his re-election -- and could care less about your life?
    Utter nonsense. You are letting the internet and tv rot your brain. All politicians want to be re-elected. And those who can’t be will do anything to help the next chosen one. Never got a chance to respond to one of your earlier comments but Flynn says hello.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 65 of 91
    smcartersmcarter Posts: 38member
    If customers don’t want to have their temperature taken by Apple, they can order online, but they are not entitled to enter one of their stores. 

    The same goes for masks. In California, masks are required in most stores and areas of the state, but even if it weren’t, it is the polite thing to do until this scourge is over. 

    Btw,  your temperature can be taking by using thermal scan technology without using a thermometer.  Gyms will begin using this technology when they reopen; at least in California. 

    wizard69 said:
    Very interesting but I have two issues. 

    First what happens to customers that normally run temperatures above “normal”.   Frankly I really doubt there will be a lot of public tolerance to having their temperature taken.  

    Second does social distancing really accomplished anything if people are wearing masks?   I’ve been wondering about this a lot lately.  I don’t mean actual touching here but rather the stupidity of the 6 foot rule.  

  • Reply 66 of 91
    smcartersmcarter Posts: 38member
    Far more. Almost 80,000 are dead from the disease as of today. 

    You will think very differently about these rules when someone(s) around had died due to Covid. I am in Asia and I heard more in US had died because of Covid19 than Sep 11

  • Reply 67 of 91
    atomic101atomic101 Posts: 123member
    smcarter said:
    Far more. Almost 80,000 are dead from the disease as of today. 

    You will think very differently about these rules when someone(s) around had died due to Covid. I am in Asia and I heard more in US had died because of Covid19 than Sep 11

    What is largely glossed over is the age and risk level of the population that is dying from this. Those belonging to the high risk need to take prudent steps to protect themselves. But throwing a suffocating blanket of “safety” across every living person removes all concept of responsibility and intelligence to our response. The majority of the population is exposed to very minor risk to the virus. They’ll catch it, some will have symptoms, most will not. Per CDC data, only 3 out of 100,000 cases for people under 50 years of age will even need to be hospitalized for this. In other words, 1 in 33,000 under 50 will actually get serious complications requiring medical intervention. Those are extremely low odds to be flying off the deep end about. The risk increases as age does, like everything else in life. 

    The point is, the focus should be on protecting the highest risk while still allowing society to continue to function. This is how human civilization has approached most risk in our history. Until now, apparently. 
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 68 of 91
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    dewme said:
    seanismorris said: I suspect it’s more about making people “feel” safer than actually be safer.  All the homemade masks make me laugh.  All the times that people touch them...to straighten them, is more likely for them to get contaminated (and the wearer infected) than going without.
    It's about reducing risk, not eliminating risk. Masks aren't impenetrable, but provide a percentage of risk reduction. So does social distancing. So does limiting the number of times you go out into public spaces with other people. So does washing your hands for 20 seconds. So does not touching your face. When you add all those things together, it becomes significant. 
    Absolutely awesome response. Living entails risk, including risks you accept through your own actions, risks that you are subjected to through the actions of others, environmental risks, societal risks, and of course random being-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time risks that seemingly come out of nowhere. It’s virtually impossible to eliminate risks, but you can reduce some of them through directed action. Scientifically you’d think that we’d always apply a risk-vs-reward calculus to decision making, but that’s not how humans operate. Humans are heavily influenced by emotions and self-centered motivation and rarely consider the risk-vs-reward equation when living life in the moment.

    All you can really do is try to reduce the risks that you have some degree of control over. You, and society in general, can attempt to motivate through compassion, reward, or fear of punishment the risks that others can inflict on you. But due to human nature it’s never going to be universally adopted, so some level of human-induced risk will always be there no matter the motivations and good intentions. The world is not perfect and humans are A big part of the imperfection. It’s up to you to navigate life and its inherent risks, some of which you recognize and others that can hit you out of the blue. However, you can’t simply shut down and eliminate all risks if you want to go on living.

    Yes, it is always up to you to reduce your personal risks as much as possible.
    But what the American right has forgotten in the age of Trump is that protecting its people is the primary rule of government -- whether it is protecting them from themselves, foreign invaders or foreign pathogens.
  • Reply 69 of 91
    atomic101atomic101 Posts: 123member
    dewme said:
    seanismorris said: I suspect it’s more about making people “feel” safer than actually be safer.  All the homemade masks make me laugh.  All the times that people touch them...to straighten them, is more likely for them to get contaminated (and the wearer infected) than going without.
    It's about reducing risk, not eliminating risk. Masks aren't impenetrable, but provide a percentage of risk reduction. So does social distancing. So does limiting the number of times you go out into public spaces with other people. So does washing your hands for 20 seconds. So does not touching your face. When you add all those things together, it becomes significant. 
    Absolutely awesome response. Living entails risk, including risks you accept through your own actions, risks that you are subjected to through the actions of others, environmental risks, societal risks, and of course random being-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time risks that seemingly come out of nowhere. It’s virtually impossible to eliminate risks, but you can reduce some of them through directed action. Scientifically you’d think that we’d always apply a risk-vs-reward calculus to decision making, but that’s not how humans operate. Humans are heavily influenced by emotions and self-centered motivation and rarely consider the risk-vs-reward equation when living life in the moment.

    All you can really do is try to reduce the risks that you have some degree of control over. You, and society in general, can attempt to motivate through compassion, reward, or fear of punishment the risks that others can inflict on you. But due to human nature it’s never going to be universally adopted, so some level of human-induced risk will always be there no matter the motivations and good intentions. The world is not perfect and humans are A big part of the imperfection. It’s up to you to navigate life and its inherent risks, some of which you recognize and others that can hit you out of the blue. However, you can’t simply shut down and eliminate all risks if you want to go on living.

    Yes, it is always up to you to reduce your personal risks as much as possible.
    But what the American right has forgotten in the age of Trump is that protecting its people is the primary rule of government -- whether it is protecting them from themselves, foreign invaders or foreign pathogens.
    dewme said:
    seanismorris said: I suspect it’s more about making people “feel” safer than actually be safer.  All the homemade masks make me laugh.  All the times that people touch them...to straighten them, is more likely for them to get contaminated (and the wearer infected) than going without.
    It's about reducing risk, not eliminating risk. Masks aren't impenetrable, but provide a percentage of risk reduction. So does social distancing. So does limiting the number of times you go out into public spaces with other people. So does washing your hands for 20 seconds. So does not touching your face. When you add all those things together, it becomes significant. 
    Absolutely awesome response. Living entails risk, including risks you accept through your own actions, risks that you are subjected to through the actions of others, environmental risks, societal risks, and of course random being-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time risks that seemingly come out of nowhere. It’s virtually impossible to eliminate risks, but you can reduce some of them through directed action. Scientifically you’d think that we’d always apply a risk-vs-reward calculus to decision making, but that’s not how humans operate. Humans are heavily influenced by emotions and self-centered motivation and rarely consider the risk-vs-reward equation when living life in the moment.

    All you can really do is try to reduce the risks that you have some degree of control over. You, and society in general, can attempt to motivate through compassion, reward, or fear of punishment the risks that others can inflict on you. But due to human nature it’s never going to be universally adopted, so some level of human-induced risk will always be there no matter the motivations and good intentions. The world is not perfect and humans are A big part of the imperfection. It’s up to you to navigate life and its inherent risks, some of which you recognize and others that can hit you out of the blue. However, you can’t simply shut down and eliminate all risks if you want to go on living.

    Yes, it is always up to you to reduce your personal risks as much as possible.
    But what the American right has forgotten in the age of Trump is that protecting its people is the primary rule of government -- whether it is protecting them from themselves, foreign invaders or foreign pathogens.
    dewme said:
    seanismorris said: I suspect it’s more about making people “feel” safer than actually be safer.  All the homemade masks make me laugh.  All the times that people touch them...to straighten them, is more likely for them to get contaminated (and the wearer infected) than going without.
    It's about reducing risk, not eliminating risk. Masks aren't impenetrable, but provide a percentage of risk reduction. So does social distancing. So does limiting the number of times you go out into public spaces with other people. So does washing your hands for 20 seconds. So does not touching your face. When you add all those things together, it becomes significant. 
    Absolutely awesome response. Living entails risk, including risks you accept through your own actions, risks that you are subjected to through the actions of others, environmental risks, societal risks, and of course random being-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time risks that seemingly come out of nowhere. It’s virtually impossible to eliminate risks, but you can reduce some of them through directed action. Scientifically you’d think that we’d always apply a risk-vs-reward calculus to decision making, but that’s not how humans operate. Humans are heavily influenced by emotions and self-centered motivation and rarely consider the risk-vs-reward equation when living life in the moment.

    All you can really do is try to reduce the risks that you have some degree of control over. You, and society in general, can attempt to motivate through compassion, reward, or fear of punishment the risks that others can inflict on you. But due to human nature it’s never going to be universally adopted, so some level of human-induced risk will always be there no matter the motivations and good intentions. The world is not perfect and humans are A big part of the imperfection. It’s up to you to navigate life and its inherent risks, some of which you recognize and others that can hit you out of the blue. However, you can’t simply shut down and eliminate all risks if you want to go on living.

    Yes, it is always up to you to reduce your personal risks as much as possible.
    But what the American right has forgotten in the age of Trump is that protecting its people is the primary rule of government -- whether it is protecting them from themselves, foreign invaders or foreign pathogens.
    What about economic destruction? The destruction of livelihoods? Of personal freedoms? Is that not part of the equation? Should we allow people to drive cars if there is any risk to themselves or others? Where do we stop? You can quickly approach a level of societal paralysis if you seek to minimize any and every risk.
    razorpit
  • Reply 70 of 91
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    atomic101 said:
    smcarter said:
    Far more. Almost 80,000 are dead from the disease as of today. 

    You will think very differently about these rules when someone(s) around had died due to Covid. I am in Asia and I heard more in US had died because of Covid19 than Sep 11

    What is largely glossed over is the age and risk level of the population that is dying from this. Those belonging to the high risk need to take prudent steps to protect themselves. But throwing a suffocating blanket of “safety” across every living person removes all concept of responsibility and intelligence to our response. The majority of the population is exposed to very minor risk to the virus. They’ll catch it, some will have symptoms, most will not. Per CDC data, only 3 out of 100,000 cases for people under 50 years of age will even need to be hospitalized for this. In other words, 1 in 33,000 under 50 will actually get serious complications requiring medical intervention. Those are extremely low odds to be flying off the deep end about. The risk increases as age does, like everything else in life. 

    The point is, the focus should be on protecting the highest risk while still allowing society to continue to function. This is how human civilization has approached most risk in our history. Until now, apparently. 
    Absolutely right response.
    atomic101
  • Reply 71 of 91
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,386member
    atomic101 said:
    ...

    The point is, the focus should be on protecting the highest risk while still allowing society to continue to function. This is how human civilization has approached most risk in our history. Until now, apparently. 
    There's also the timing and novelty factor. I do agree with your points but we also have to recognize a tendency for risks to get normalized over time, not completely put out of the picture, but suppressed emotionally, biologically (herd immunity), and rationally to the point where they are considered "manageable risks" that we can deal with as a matter of course rather than as an exception. Note that "manageable risk" never means that we are okay with the risk, it just means that we recognize that we have to deal with a specific risk in a rational and balanced manner alongside all of the other risks and concerns in our lives.

    As adults we also have to accept that risk probabilities never exclude ourselves or those people in our lives from being directly impacted. All of the probability numbers, supporting data, trends, risk factor demographics, and tendencies in the world aren't going to save us from the pain that we feel when someone close to us comes up on the wrong side of the equation, as I have experienced firsthand during this pandemic. It's not always some anonymous, high risk, medically compromised, living somewhere else far away from you old person who draws the short straw. It can be a friend in the prime of their life with no preexisting conditions or unusual travel history. Probability sometimes means you.
    edited May 2020 GeorgeBMaclolliver
  • Reply 72 of 91
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    atomic101 said:
    dewme said:
    seanismorris said: I suspect it’s more about making people “feel” safer than actually be safer.  All the homemade masks make me laugh.  All the times that people touch them...to straighten them, is more likely for them to get contaminated (and the wearer infected) than going without.
    It's about reducing risk, not eliminating risk. Masks aren't impenetrable, but provide a percentage of risk reduction. So does social distancing. So does limiting the number of times you go out into public spaces with other people. So does washing your hands for 20 seconds. So does not touching your face. When you add all those things together, it becomes significant. 
    Absolutely awesome response. Living entails risk, including risks you accept through your own actions, risks that you are subjected to through the actions of others, environmental risks, societal risks, and of course random being-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time risks that seemingly come out of nowhere. It’s virtually impossible to eliminate risks, but you can reduce some of them through directed action. Scientifically you’d think that we’d always apply a risk-vs-reward calculus to decision making, but that’s not how humans operate. Humans are heavily influenced by emotions and self-centered motivation and rarely consider the risk-vs-reward equation when living life in the moment.

    All you can really do is try to reduce the risks that you have some degree of control over. You, and society in general, can attempt to motivate through compassion, reward, or fear of punishment the risks that others can inflict on you. But due to human nature it’s never going to be universally adopted, so some level of human-induced risk will always be there no matter the motivations and good intentions. The world is not perfect and humans are A big part of the imperfection. It’s up to you to navigate life and its inherent risks, some of which you recognize and others that can hit you out of the blue. However, you can’t simply shut down and eliminate all risks if you want to go on living.

    Yes, it is always up to you to reduce your personal risks as much as possible.
    But what the American right has forgotten in the age of Trump is that protecting its people is the primary rule of government -- whether it is protecting them from themselves, foreign invaders or foreign pathogens.
    dewme said:
    seanismorris said: I suspect it’s more about making people “feel” safer than actually be safer.  All the homemade masks make me laugh.  All the times that people touch them...to straighten them, is more likely for them to get contaminated (and the wearer infected) than going without.
    It's about reducing risk, not eliminating risk. Masks aren't impenetrable, but provide a percentage of risk reduction. So does social distancing. So does limiting the number of times you go out into public spaces with other people. So does washing your hands for 20 seconds. So does not touching your face. When you add all those things together, it becomes significant. 
    Absolutely awesome response. Living entails risk, including risks you accept through your own actions, risks that you are subjected to through the actions of others, environmental risks, societal risks, and of course random being-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time risks that seemingly come out of nowhere. It’s virtually impossible to eliminate risks, but you can reduce some of them through directed action. Scientifically you’d think that we’d always apply a risk-vs-reward calculus to decision making, but that’s not how humans operate. Humans are heavily influenced by emotions and self-centered motivation and rarely consider the risk-vs-reward equation when living life in the moment.

    All you can really do is try to reduce the risks that you have some degree of control over. You, and society in general, can attempt to motivate through compassion, reward, or fear of punishment the risks that others can inflict on you. But due to human nature it’s never going to be universally adopted, so some level of human-induced risk will always be there no matter the motivations and good intentions. The world is not perfect and humans are A big part of the imperfection. It’s up to you to navigate life and its inherent risks, some of which you recognize and others that can hit you out of the blue. However, you can’t simply shut down and eliminate all risks if you want to go on living.

    Yes, it is always up to you to reduce your personal risks as much as possible.
    But what the American right has forgotten in the age of Trump is that protecting its people is the primary rule of government -- whether it is protecting them from themselves, foreign invaders or foreign pathogens.
    dewme said:
    seanismorris said: I suspect it’s more about making people “feel” safer than actually be safer.  All the homemade masks make me laugh.  All the times that people touch them...to straighten them, is more likely for them to get contaminated (and the wearer infected) than going without.
    It's about reducing risk, not eliminating risk. Masks aren't impenetrable, but provide a percentage of risk reduction. So does social distancing. So does limiting the number of times you go out into public spaces with other people. So does washing your hands for 20 seconds. So does not touching your face. When you add all those things together, it becomes significant. 
    Absolutely awesome response. Living entails risk, including risks you accept through your own actions, risks that you are subjected to through the actions of others, environmental risks, societal risks, and of course random being-in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time risks that seemingly come out of nowhere. It’s virtually impossible to eliminate risks, but you can reduce some of them through directed action. Scientifically you’d think that we’d always apply a risk-vs-reward calculus to decision making, but that’s not how humans operate. Humans are heavily influenced by emotions and self-centered motivation and rarely consider the risk-vs-reward equation when living life in the moment.

    All you can really do is try to reduce the risks that you have some degree of control over. You, and society in general, can attempt to motivate through compassion, reward, or fear of punishment the risks that others can inflict on you. But due to human nature it’s never going to be universally adopted, so some level of human-induced risk will always be there no matter the motivations and good intentions. The world is not perfect and humans are A big part of the imperfection. It’s up to you to navigate life and its inherent risks, some of which you recognize and others that can hit you out of the blue. However, you can’t simply shut down and eliminate all risks if you want to go on living.

    Yes, it is always up to you to reduce your personal risks as much as possible.
    But what the American right has forgotten in the age of Trump is that protecting its people is the primary rule of government -- whether it is protecting them from themselves, foreign invaders or foreign pathogens.
    What about economic destruction? The destruction of livelihoods? Of personal freedoms? Is that not part of the equation? Should we allow people to drive cars if there is any risk to themselves or others? Where do we stop? You can quickly approach a level of societal paralysis if you seek to minimize any and every risk.

    Another thing Trump and the Trumpers forgot was that it was the virus that caused the economic destruction.  It took the pillars out from under our economy.  But, instead of taking care of the cause of the problem -- the virus -- Trump & his Wall Street buddies simply tried to prop up the failing stock market by mortgaging the country's future.   
    (And no, the social distancing we have done so far was never meant to contain the virus -- just slow it enough that it didn't overwhelm the healthcare system.  Unfortunately, we stopped there -- even though it was the first step, not the last!)

    So, instead of managing the virus and getting the economy and people's lives back to normal Trump gave us:  
    -- a trashed economy
    -- Multiple trillions of debt
    -- 1 1/4 million sick
    -- Over 75,000 dead

    In other countries like China and S. Korea they did the right things, brought the virus under control quickly and are getting their economy and their lives back to normal.   Here we have no signs of relief -- just more economic destruction and more dying everyday.

    What the Trumpers don't understand is:  when you do bad, stupid things, bad things happen.   They need to learn more and whine less because this was not the first and neither will not be the last pandemic.
    Bart Y
  • Reply 73 of 91
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    atomic101 said:
    smcarter said:
    Far more. Almost 80,000 are dead from the disease as of today. 

    You will think very differently about these rules when someone(s) around had died due to Covid. I am in Asia and I heard more in US had died because of Covid19 than Sep 11

    What is largely glossed over is the age and risk level of the population that is dying from this. Those belonging to the high risk need to take prudent steps to protect themselves. But throwing a suffocating blanket of “safety” across every living person removes all concept of responsibility and intelligence to our response. The majority of the population is exposed to very minor risk to the virus. They’ll catch it, some will have symptoms, most will not. Per CDC data, only 3 out of 100,000 cases for people under 50 years of age will even need to be hospitalized for this. In other words, 1 in 33,000 under 50 will actually get serious complications requiring medical intervention. Those are extremely low odds to be flying off the deep end about. The risk increases as age does, like everything else in life. 

    The point is, the focus should be on protecting the highest risk while still allowing society to continue to function. This is how human civilization has approached most risk in our history. Until now, apparently. 
    Absolutely right response.

    No, he's wrong on that too.   Seniors are far from the only ones affected by this -- ask anybody in a prison or working in a meat packing plant.
    Bart Y
  • Reply 74 of 91
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    No, he's wrong on that too.   Seniors are far from the only ones affected by this -- ask anybody in a prison or working in a meat packing plant.
    People in prison don't count, and stupid politicians should certainly not be releasing any of them due to the virus, as certain idiots have been doing.


    razorpit
  • Reply 75 of 91
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    In other countries like China and S. Korea they did the right things, brought the virus under control quickly and are getting their economy and their lives back to normal.   Here we have no signs of relief -- just more economic destruction and more dying everyday.

    Yeah, China lol. They've certainly been doing the right things. They've been lying and covering up since the very beginning. They're also complicit in helping to spread the virus, because of their misinformation and cover ups. They've also been hoarding medical supplies while they were pretending that the virus was not a big deal. They've also massively been lying about their death counts.

    Keep praising China, lol.
    edited May 2020 razorpit
  • Reply 76 of 91
    Bart YBart Y Posts: 42unconfirmed, member
    “You will think very differently about these rules when someone(s) around had died due to Covid. I am in Asia and I heard more in US had died because of Covid19 than Sep 11”

    Unfortunately it’s quite true, as of May 9, 2020, 9:00pm PDT, US have had over 78,795 deaths, more than lost bee the entire Vietnam War, more than the current or 2018 Flu season (essentially doubling the number of deaths).  IMO, these deaths would have been lessened with a more effective response early on and even now.  It has taken approx 23 days to double the number of cases to today’s 1.3M cases, and about 21 days to double the number of deaths.  With more cases comes more people who will become ill enough to be hospitalized, and a significant number of those hospitalized will die, IMO, needlessly because if they had not been infected, they would have continued to survive.  At present, the US has a known death rate (known deaths/known positive cases = 6.0%, meaning 6/100 or 60 people/1000 infected will die. (yes you can argue that without more thorough testing, the rate may be lower as they MUST be many more cases.). But at present, the death rate is at least 10X more lethal than seasonal influenza, and up 30x more lethal at worst.
    hammer of truth said:
    zoetmb said:
    IMO, the bigger issue in an Apple Store and other similar retail environments is that everyone is touching everything.   I'd be very wary of touching devices in the store while the virus is still raging.   I know they'll probably clean everything several times a day, but I doubt they'll clean every device after every touch.  


    “You better believe they will. There will be a limited amount of products on display compared to what it was and I’m pretty sure the employees will wipe down the devices in front of the customer. “

    I suspect since much less less people insider, the demo tables will have less devices displayed and more room between devices.  I also believe there will be specific store team members whose function is to clean after each transaction or demo encounter.  If Sam’s Club and Costco can clean POS terminals and keypads after each purchase, Apple certainly will do so with its demo devices.  The individual team member completing the transaction on their portable terminal likely will clean hourly IF they are the only ones touching it.
    avon b7 said:
    rcomeau said:
    wizard69 said:
    Very interesting but I have two issues. 

    First what happens to customers that normally run temperatures above “normal”.   Frankly I really doubt there will be a lot of public tolerance to having their temperature taken.  

    Second does social distancing really accomplished anything if people are wearing masks?   I’ve been wondering about this a lot lately.  I don’t mean actual touching here but rather the stupidity of the 6 foot rule.  
    It's called redundancy. Distancing is the first line of defence and the mask is the second. Given all that is going on and the cost socially and economically in dragging this on with half-hearted, half-baked measures, wearing a simple mask is not too much to ask.
    I must say that I am very interested in whether these good habits will spill over into this winters flu season. 

    If we keep the habit of wearing them or just put a mask on as soon as we have the tell tale first signs of colds and flu, the recuperation of lost man hours due to habitual winter illnesses and the resulting sick leave could be notable. 
    There are a small number of people in every population group whose temps run lower or higher than “normal”, up to a full degree Celsius or about 36 C = 96.8 F, and 38 C = 100.4 F.  For those people, I would strongly suggest a doctor’s note stating THAT temp is normal for them so as to clear up any issues.  However, each store, Apple or not, has the right to refuse service to ANYONE they have a concern about.  Entry into a privately run store is not a right, but the store does have a duty to protect its employees and its customers.  That protects the vast majority of customers.

    As for wearing masks in general, Asia and the Far East had first hand experience with SARS 17 yrs ago and subsequent flu outbreaks so culturally they have very little problem with wearing masks of any type.  Now that the US has had a big taste of this, a ton of people will undoubtedly wear masks during the normal seasonal flu/influenza outbreaks and with any Covid recurrence.  We shall see if it has an effect on next year’s flu season and expected Covid return.
  • Reply 77 of 91
    Bart YBart Y Posts: 42unconfirmed, member
    DAalseth said:
    I suspect all retailing will look very different. Especially after this has continued, albeit at a less intense level, for a couple of years. People will have gotten used to ordering things online be default. Before this started malls and department stores were in a major slump. This is going to accelerate it dramatically. I’d give even odds that Apple gets out of the brick and mortar store business within five or so years. Would not surprise me at all. 

    I agree that the virus will increase the trend to online shopping.   But I think there are limits there -- particularly with high-cost, high-end merchandise such as what Apple sells.  You can only tell so much from specs and product reviews and sometimes you just need to see it and touch it to know which product is the right one for you.

    But that last -- "touching it" -- is a problem areas.
    Like any virus the Corona is not just spread with coughs and sneezes but by inanimate vectors where people contaminate something by picking it up and the next person picking it up gets infected -- as well as the person after him and the person after him, and the....

    I wonder if Apple will be monitoring their display products like a jeweler monitors his jewelry and, in this case, disinfect it immediately after the customer puts it down?
    Or, possibly, as implied by the story, they will attempt to disinfect the customer by asking them to use hand sanitizer as they enter the store.

    Maybe the Apple Store would be better served by handing out gloves to each customer as they enter the store.
    But, I am reassured that Apple is taking their cues from S. Korea who, unlike the U.S., has managed the virus well.
    Hand sanitizer and gloves for each customer, if they are to touch something, would be quite useful but I suspect Apple employee cleaning is to be the gold standard, simply because the the store employees ensure it is humanly done to standard.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 78 of 91
    apple ][ said:

    In other countries like China and S. Korea they did the right things, brought the virus under control quickly and are getting their economy and their lives back to normal.   Here we have no signs of relief -- just more economic destruction and more dying everyday.

    Yeah, China lol. They've certainly been doing the right things. They've been lying and covering up since the very beginning. They're also complicit in helping to spread the virus, because of their misinformation and cover ups. They've also been hoarding medical supplies while they were pretending that the virus was not a big deal. They've also massively been lying about their death counts.

    Keep praising China, lol.
    Could u explain Locking down Cities for months and sending all data to WHO right away as cover up? I don’t what the media in US has been saying but we other countries in Asia has been monitoring this since Dec 19. 
    Question, if u think the death count in China should be in fact much much higher, then won’t u think the virus is more a more serious problem then it is right now? (Bearing in mind China build 3 hospital in ten days)
    GeorgeBMaclolliver
  • Reply 79 of 91
    svanstromsvanstrom Posts: 702member
    Could u explain Locking down Cities for months and sending all data to WHO right away as cover up? 
    Let's start with this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51364382

    (That'd be the part about the security bureau forcing him to confessing to "lying" to cause panic.)
  • Reply 80 of 91
    svanstrom said:
    Could u explain Locking down Cities for months and sending all data to WHO right away as cover up? 
    Let's start with this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51364382

    (That'd be the part about the security bureau forcing him to confessing to "lying" to cause panic.)
    Let me quote you a line from the report. "It was 10 days later - on 20 January - that China declared the outbreak an emergency.”
    Now compare 20 Jan to what the rest of the world had been doing and what US had been doing. 

    One diff I can say is, the rest of the world is treating it as  an global problem( an Alien invasion if u would), while Trump see this as a political one. 

    GeorgeBMaclolliver
Sign In or Register to comment.