@antizeroalt @MikeBromley15 @thumbhatguy @NKinNewEng @macroliter As far as what else to do, we'll see how it evolves, I can't predict. However, with certainty every major cause of death (plus non death impacts which may be even larger here, unclear) results in major health and safety adaptations and investment. This will too.
@antizeroalt@MikeBromley15@thumbhatguy@NKinNewEng@Macrolel至于还能做什么，我们将看看它是如何演变的，我无法预测。然而，可以肯定的是，每一个主要的死亡原因（加上非死亡影响，此处可能更大，尚不清楚）都会导致重大的健康和安全适应和投资。这也会。
@antizeroalt @MikeBromley15 @thumbhatguy @NKinNewEng @macroliter Societies learn, individuals learn. Be patient. Or with hope, we won't have to because the impact will diminish. It hasn't yet.
@antizeroalt@MikeBromley15@thumbhatguy@NKinNewEng@macrolel社团学习，个人学习。要有耐心。或者有了希望，我们就不必这样做，因为影响会减弱。还没有。
@antizeroalt @MikeBromley15 @thumbhatguy @NKinNewEng @macroliter Disagree. Society accepts all manner of normal health and safety regulations, most for risks that at one time didn't exist or were small. If covid subsides into a background, that's great. But if high burden persists (e.g. top 1-5 cause of death), normal will adapt.
@antizeroalt@MikeBromley15@thumbhatguy@NKinNewEng@Macrolel不同意。社会接受所有形式的正常健康和安全法规，大多数针对的是曾经不存在或很小的风险。如果新冠肺炎消退成为背景，那太好了。但如果高负担持续存在（例如前1-5位死因），正常人会适应。
@antizeroalt @MikeBromley15 @thumbhatguy @NKinNewEng @macroliter That's overly fixating on mask mandates. And even so it's not irrelevant because vulnerable people have to do certain things, say a medical visits or using public transit. Mask mandates in THOSE locations are surely more effective than the overall mix (including pubs, etc.)
@antizeroalt@MikeBromley15@thumbhatguy@NKinNewEng@Macrolel过度关注口罩指令。即便如此，这也不是无关紧要的，因为弱势群体必须做某些事情，比如医疗就诊或使用公共交通。这些地方的口罩授权肯定比整体组合（包括酒吧等）更有效
@JonathanBohan @RosieKrc @nytmike Sort of. There are any number of prominent people who could be picked and have it look "suspicious", not just these two. When you notice an unlikely event after the fact it's usually much less likely than if defined in advance.
@JonathanBohan@RosieKrc@nytmike之类的。有很多名人可以被挑选出来，让它看起来“可疑”，而不仅仅是这两个人。当你在事后注意到一个不太可能的事件时，通常比事先定义的可能性要小得多。
@antizeroalt @MikeBromley15 @thumbhatguy @NKinNewEng @macroliter Embedded in the assumption of "too transmissible" is a one-and-done model of infection, which is absolutely false. When, where, and how many times people are infected makes a big difference, not necessarily (though still maybe) to 100% of the population, but surely to much of it.
@antizeroalt@MikeBromley15@thumbhatguy@NKinNewEng@Macrolel嵌入“太易传播”的假设是一个一劳永逸的感染模型，这是绝对错误的。感染时间、地点和感染次数会产生很大的差异，不一定（尽管仍然可能）对100%的人口有影响，但肯定对大多数人有影响。
@antizeroalt @MikeBromley15 @thumbhatguy @NKinNewEng @macroliter What an individual does NEVER makes much difference to society as a whole, but the sum of individual actions does. That's why it's up to society to learn risk-reducing practices, policies, and norms, and not just individuals.
@antizeroalt@MikeBromley15@thumbhatguy@NKinNewEng@macrolel一个人所做的事情对整个社会来说并没有多大影响，但个人行动的总和确实如此。这就是为什么社会需要学习降低风险的实践、政策和规范，而不仅仅是个人。
@Rattle_Resists @writeon1 @LazarusLong13 His advisors are mostly political appointees. The head of covid response for the first year was a private equity investor and political fundraiser with no scientific experience whatsoever.
@拉格鲁抵制@writeon1@LazarusLong13他的顾问大多是政治任命者。第一年应对新冠肺炎的负责人是一名私人股本投资者和政治筹款人，没有任何科学经验。
@DrEricDing @StoneColdPillar You can't "heed airborne precautions" when both governments and countless "experts" fail to tell you it is airborne or tell you it isn't (not everyone is a follower of yours), and likewise don't provide airborne-safe workplaces and essential services.
@Drericing@StoneColdPillar当政府和无数“专家”都没有告诉你它在空中或没有告诉你它在空中时（不是每个人都是你的追随者），你就不能“注意空中预防措施”，同样也不能提供空中安全的工作场所和基本服务。
@luckytran @TaylorLorenz "No, the COVID-19 pandemic is not an extinction level"
HOW DO YOU KNOW?
There is a difference between saying that claims of it being an ELE are speculative and unproven, and claiming the opposite.
In fact both are speculative and unproven.
@luckytran@TaylorLorenz“不，2019冠状病毒疾病大流行不是灭绝水平”
你怎么知道？
说它是一个ELE的说法是推测性的和未经证实的，和说相反的说法是不同的。
事实上，两者都是推测性的和未经证实的。
@thumbhatguy @NKinNewEng @macroliter Shades of gray here. When someone knows they are contagious or even very likely to have been exposed and then goes to a crowded event, many people would say that is irresponsible.
Compassion applies to the illness, doesn't extend, at last not unconditionally, to the spreading.
@拇指帽盖@恩金内温@这里是灰色。当有人知道自己有传染性，甚至很可能被感染，然后去参加一个拥挤的活动时，许多人会说这是不负责任的。
同情适用于疾病，并没有最终无条件地扩展到传播。
@nyneuropsych @WesElyMD @NEJM @CDCgov Major employers changed sick leave and pay policies from 10->5 days when CDC did. The guidance change reduced willingness and ability to isolate as much as if not more so than the other way around.
@nyneuropsych@WesElyMD@NEJM@CDCgov主要雇主改变了病假和工资政策，从10改为>；CDC检查的5天。指导方针的改变降低了隔离的意愿和能力，如果不是更大的话，也会降低隔离的意愿和能力。
@Melinda05548325 @MeetJess @PerpetualWinger Okay they can declare it, but doing so doesn't actually do anything beyond messaging. https://www.statnews.com/2022/... https://t.co/fgyMB3dZ6b
@Melinda05548325@MeetJess@performalwinger好的，他们可以声明它，但这样做实际上除了消息传递之外什么都做不了。https://www.statnews.com/2022/... https://t.co/fgyMB3dZ6b