@berman_allen @drensber @sameo416 Most are literally trolls pushing propaganda or people caught up in replacing science and logic with slogans (if mask work..., if vaccines work..., etc.).

@berman_allen@drensber@sameo416大多数人实际上都是推动宣传的巨魔，或者是忙于用口号取代科学和逻辑的人（如果面具起作用，如果疫苗起作用等等）。

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 Like I said, go read the thread from the scientist. This crypto bro assumed someone replying here would have done so, but I assumed wrong.

@drensber@berman\u allen@sameo416就像我说的，去读科学家的帖子。这个加密兄弟以为有人会在这里回复，但我想错了。

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 Of course, that IS (obviously) assuming the masks are actually worn over nose and mouth, not on chin, etc.

@drensber@berman_allen@sameo416当然，也就是说（显然）假设口罩实际上戴在鼻子和嘴巴上，而不是下巴上，等等。

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 It was literally measured. A lot of "experts" are wrong.

@drensber@berman_allen@sameo416这是字面上测量的。很多“专家”都错了。

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 You didn't read the thread. Go do so. You'll learn more than by ignorantly replying to me.

@drensber@berman\u allen@sameo416你没有读这篇文章。去做吧。你会学到比无知地回答我更多的东西。

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 It was 1000x more virus on a swab, not expelled. You only expel a certain number of droplets, and the smaller droplets can't contain all the much virus (submicron droplets aren't even much bigger than ONE virus)

@drensber@berman_allen@sameo416拭子上的病毒是其他病毒的1000倍，而不是被排出。你只能排出一定数量的液滴，较小的液滴不能包含所有的病毒（亚微米液滴甚至比一种病毒大不了多少）

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 You seem stuck on one person to another person. In a plane full of 200 people, some will receive more exposure, some less. Some will be a sufficient does some not. With 72% reduction or whatever number, fewer will receive more, more will receive less.

@drensber@berman\u allen@sameo416你似乎被一个人和另一个人缠住了。在一架满载200人的飞机上，有些人会受到更多的照射，有些人会受到更少的照射。有些是足够的，有些不是。减少72%或任何数字，越少得到的越多，越多得到的越少。

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 Some of those airplane studies in the original thread were before any immunity. You didn't have the whole plane infected, you had a bunch of people near the infector and a few more scattered around the plane. Reducing dosage by 72% (more w/better masks) is going to reduce that.

@drensber@berman_allen@sameo416原始线程中的一些飞机研究在任何免疫之前。你没有感染整个飞机，你有一群人靠近感染者，还有一些人分散在飞机周围。减少72%的剂量（更多w/更好的口罩）将减少这一点。

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 Of course not. It's an indication of how transmission worked, and still works. I hope you don't believe those claims about some variant being 30x or 300x more contagious, those were bunk. Was always a very contagious virus yet not all infected. Time and dose matters.

@drensber@berman\u allen@sameo416当然不是。这表明了传输是如何工作的，并且仍然有效。我希望你们不要相信那些声称某些变异病毒的传染性是30倍或300倍的说法，这些都是胡说八道。一直是一种传染性很强的病毒，但并没有全部感染。时间和剂量很重要。

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 It's not common in all but the most extreme shared public settings (e.g. crowded bar/party with no ventilation) for everyone to become infected even if no immunity and infector present. Exposures differ.

@drensber@berman_allen@sameo416除了最极端的公共场所（例如拥挤的酒吧/派对，没有通风）外，在所有公共场所都不常见，即使没有免疫力和感染者在场，每个人都会受到感染。风险敞口不同。

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 There is always a time and dose component. You might get 10% from the person next to you but only 1% from someone 5 rows back. Both could be the infector.

@drensber@berman\u allen@sameo416始终存在时间和剂量分量。你可能从旁边的人那里得到10%，但从后面5排的人那里只得到1%。两者都可能是感染者。

@x2IndSpeculator @trvrb I think you're ignoring vaccination. Yes LIC had low vaccination but also young populations with low fatality rate (also most significant immunity from previous waves)

@我认为你忽视了疫苗接种。是的，LIC接种率低，但年轻人群死亡率低（也是对前一波免疫最显著的人群）

@sameo416 The well-mixed assumption has something going for it in a crowded environment. Increased exposure to one person due to non-uniform mixing almost equals reduced exposure to another (unless high/low risk areas are non-occupied, likely true to some extent, not entirely)

@sameo416在拥挤的环境中，混合良好的假设有其适用性。由于不均匀混合而增加对一个人的暴露几乎等于减少对另一个人的暴露（除非高/低风险区域没有被占用，在某种程度上可能是真的，而不是完全）

@drensber @berman_allen @sameo416 Study measuring filtration showed 72% reduction in exposure to aerosols with universal "cloth" masks. Is this "safe"? Probably not, but it is 3-4x safER.

@drensber@berman_allen@sameo416的过滤测试研究表明，使用通用“布”口罩的气溶胶暴露量减少了72%。这“安全”吗？可能不会，但安全性是3-4倍。

@apmalong Proper risk mitigation is usually "wrong".

@适当的风险缓解通常是“错误的”。

@NeilWC2010 @yannotyam @gregggonsalves @AshishKJha46 @WHCOVIDResponse I don't know if or when he said that, but there are a lot of other possibilities beside lying, even if he did say it. He might have been oversimplifying, or misspoke, or quoted out of context.
Suffice it to say NO vaccine (not just covid vaccines) is 100% effective.

@NeilWC2010@yannotyam@gregggonsalves@AshishKJha46@WHCOVIDResponse我不知道他是否说过或何时说过，但除了撒谎，还有很多其他可能性，即使他确实说过。他可能过于简单化了，或者说错了，或者断章取义。
只要说没有疫苗（不仅仅是新冠肺炎疫苗）是100%有效的就足够了。

@NeilWC2010 @yannotyam @gregggonsalves @AshishKJha46 @WHCOVIDResponse The would clearly be true if the effectiveness were 100% with respect to both acute and long-term disease. Neither is true.
If not, then it's a judgement call, and looking for layered measures is entirely reasonable.

@NeilWC2010@yannotyam@gregggonsalves@AshishKJha46@WHCOVIDResponse如果急性和长期疾病的有效性都是100%，那么这显然是真的。两者都不是真的。
如果没有，那么这是一种判断，寻找分层措施是完全合理的。

@alscriv @edsuom @greg_travis Who can "plan" for forever? You only know what the situation is now and somewhat in the foreseeable future, everything else is a guess.

@alscriv@edsuom@greg\u travis谁能“计划”到永远？你只知道现在和可预见的未来的情况，其他一切都是猜测。

@WalkerBragman No mention of recommending work from home (which also helps with energy usage)

@WalkerBragman没有提及推荐在家工作（这也有助于节约能源）

@JoannaCorrea15 @cryptomanran The source is in the quoted thread

@JoannaCorrea15@cryptomanran源代码在引用的线程中