@YesJeffAllen @MoshuaJoss @Noahpinion This was exactly what was in the post (except Novavax, although, even there, there is some suggestion it may be a little more variant-resistant).

@YesJeffAllen@MoshuaJoss@Noahpinion这正是帖子中的内容（除了Novavax，尽管，即使在那里，也有一些迹象表明它可能更具抗变异性）。

@MarvinH2_G2 That doesn't sound like "worst case" to me, it sounds like a pretty reasonable assessment of taking it on the chin.

@MarvinH2\u G2对我来说，这听起来不像是“最坏的情况”，这听起来是一个相当合理的评估。

@DailyJLee @danaparish @AnitraWheels @elisaperego78 Probably more like a million, at least.

@DailyJLee@danaparish@AnitraWheels@elisaperego78可能至少有一百万。

@EnemyInAState @xabitron1 They're happy to tell you how fatigued you are, just in case you forgot.

@EnemyInAState@xabitron1他们很高兴告诉你你有多疲劳，以防万一你忘了。

@wsbgnl Paid leave and quality of health coverage are much better one. This one will not result in large health disparities as much as the car manufacturers would like to claim.

@wsbgnl的带薪休假和医疗保险质量要好得多。这将不会像汽车制造商所声称的那样，导致巨大的健康差距。

@wsbgnl This is mostly marketing, turning off recirculation or cracking open windows, which you can do in a 20 year old Civic, does 90% of this or more.

@wsbgnl这主要是营销，关闭再循环或打开窗户，你可以在一个20岁的公民身上这样做，90%甚至更多。

@scottlincicome @RuyDiazB1976 This is wrong. 3 shots of China's inactivated vaccines are about as effective as mRNA according to Hong Kong data. The bigger concern and impact of low vax protection is due to low uptake in elderly (in both mainland and HK). Unclear newer/tech vaccine would improve uptake at all

@scottlincicome@RuyDiazB1976这是错误的。根据香港的数据，中国有3支灭活疫苗的效力与mRNA相当。低vax保护的更大担忧和影响是由于老年人（大陆和香港）的低摄取。尚不清楚新型/高科技疫苗是否能提高吸收率

@gardengirl778 @BarryHunt008 @booyah2yah @apmalong @ghhughes @Eric_Carroll @ZiadFazel @akm5376 @MarvinH2_G2 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud Graph showing cost-effectiveness of off-the-shelf air cleaners. Up and to the left is lowest cost + highest performance. This author has other variations of the data in her timeline.
https://twitter.com/marwa_zaat...

@gardengirl778@BarryHunt008@booyah2yah@apmalong@Ghughes@Eric\u Carroll@ZiadFazel@akm5376@MarvinH2\u G2@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud图表显示了现成空气滤清器的成本效益。最左边是最低成本+最高性能。这位作者在她的时间轴中还有其他数据的变化。
https://twitter.com/marwa_zaat...

@JohnArnoldFndtn The graph here is widely misinterpreted but what it actually shows is 100-vote confirmations used to be common and ended around 1990. https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... https://t.co/L6RP2w4dws

@JohnArnoldFndtn这里的图表被广泛误解，但它实际显示的是100票确认过去很常见，大约在1990年结束。https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... https://t.co/L6RP2w4dws

@gardengirl778 @BarryHunt008 @booyah2yah @apmalong @ghhughes @Eric_Carroll @ZiadFazel @akm5376 @MarvinH2_G2 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud You're lucky your school will even let you do it. C-R box is the best bang for the buck, but may raise (unfounded) concerns because they look improvised.
It's probably not feasible or safe to try to improvise UV yourself. Spread more air cleaners around the room.

@gardengirl778@BarryHunt008@booyah2yah@apmalong@Ghughes@Eric\u Carroll@ZiadFazel@akm5376@MarvinH2\u G2@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud你很幸运你的学校甚至会让你这么做。C-R盒子是最划算的，但可能会引起（毫无根据的）担忧，因为它们看起来是即兴创作的。
这可能是不可行的或安全的尝试即兴紫外线自己。在房间周围多铺一些空气滤清器。

@GlennWa33737801 @DocJeffD "Long covid" is a poorly defined term and whether or not increased risk of significant medical conditions constitutes specifically "long covid" (or the broader and arguably more precise term PASC), they are still a serious concern.

@GlennWa33737801@DocJeffD“长冠状病毒”是一个定义不清的术语，无论重大疾病风险的增加是否具体构成“长冠状病毒”（或更广泛、更精确的术语PASC），它们仍然是一个严重的问题。

@Its_Airborne @BarryHunt008 @MarvinH2_G2 @hazardscampaign @apmalong @ghhughes @Eric_Carroll @ZiadFazel @akm5376 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud You don't have to wonder, it's exactly the same today, even on the exact same measures such as ventilation!

@Its\u Airbored@BarryHunt008@MarvinH2\u G2@hazardscampaign@apmalong@Ghughes@Eric\u Carroll@ZiadFazel@akm5376@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud你不必怀疑，即使在通风等完全相同的措施上，今天也是一样的！

@BarryHunt008 @ghhughes @Eric_Carroll @ZiadFazel @akm5376 @MarvinH2_G2 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud "Cheap" syringes cost about the same as disposable respirators! I'm not entirely convinced about economics especially considering labor, etc. costs of disinfecting. Nevertheless agree it is a middle ground. As such, tradeoffs less clear, which was my original point.

@BarryHunt008@Ghughes@Eric\u Carroll@ZiadFazel@akm5376@MarvinH2\u G2@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud“便宜”注射器的价格与一次性呼吸器差不多！我不完全相信经济学，尤其是考虑到劳动力等消毒成本。尽管如此，我还是同意这是一个中间立场。因此，权衡不太明确，这是我的出发点。

@psuedonyms @BarryHunt008 @ghhughes @Eric_Carroll @ZiadFazel @akm5376 @MarvinH2_G2 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud Corruption run amok, unfortunately. In no way should an of these unsafe (for patients and workers alike) practices be allowed beyond at most an initial crisis, but the foxes are guarding the henhouse it seems.

@不幸的是，psuedonyms@BarryHunt008@ghhughes@Eric\u Carroll@ZiadFazel@akm5376@MarvinH2\u G2@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud腐败猖獗。这些不安全的做法（无论对病人还是工人来说）在最初的危机之后都是不允许的，但狐狸似乎在守护鸡舍。

@psuedonyms @BarryHunt008 @ghhughes @Eric_Carroll @ZiadFazel @akm5376 @MarvinH2_G2 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud I was clear above about only referring to the case of non-reuse. All the unsafe reuse is terrible, as you say.

@psuedonyms@BarryHunt008@ghhughes@Eric\u Carroll@ZiadFazel@akm5376@MarvinH2\u G2@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud我在上文中明确表示，我只提到了不重用的情况。正如你所说，所有不安全的重用都是可怕的。

@BarryHunt008 @ghhughes @Eric_Carroll @ZiadFazel @akm5376 @MarvinH2_G2 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud Using disposable single-use items is also an engineering solution. It eliminates the potential error of improper, ineffective, or skipped disinfection and hygiene.

@BarryHunt008@Ghughes@Eric\u Carroll@ZiadFazel@akm5376@MarvinH2\u G2@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud使用一次性一次性物品也是一种工程解决方案。它消除了不当、无效或跳过消毒和卫生的潜在错误。

@BarryHunt008 @ghhughes @Eric_Carroll @ZiadFazel @akm5376 @MarvinH2_G2 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud Clearly surface contamination can be important too, otherwise you would see things like this.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

@BarryHunt008@Ghughes@Eric\u Carroll@ZiadFazel@akm5376@MarvinH2\u G2@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud显然，表面污染也很重要，否则你会看到这样的情况。
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

@BarryHunt008 @ghhughes @Eric_Carroll @ZiadFazel @akm5376 @MarvinH2_G2 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud Protecting the wearer isn't the only consideration. Of course, it is a very important one, but lots of infections happen in a hospital, not necessarily airborne.

@BarryHunt008@Ghughes@Eric\u Carroll@ZiadFazel@akm5376@MarvinH2\u G2@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud保护佩戴者并不是唯一的考虑因素。当然，这是一个非常重要的问题，但许多感染发生在医院，不一定是空气传播的。

@BarryHunt008 @ghhughes @Eric_Carroll @ZiadFazel @akm5376 @MarvinH2_G2 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud In an infection control environment there clear benefits to disposable (if not reused!), but that doesn't necessarily mean benefits outweigh costs.

@BarryHunt008@Ghughes@Eric\u Carroll@ZiadFazel@akm5376@MarvinH2\u G2@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud在感染控制环境中，一次性使用（如果不重复使用！）有明显的好处，但这并不一定意味着收益大于成本。

@MarvinH2_G2 @TruthAbout_ME2 @YouAreLobbyLud This probably ignores environmental (high ACH and/or supplementary air filtration in hospitals). It's probably more relevant to shitty stagnant air in a home or poorly ventilated building. Also probably assumes infector is a high/max level of contagion, ICU patients may not be.

@MarvinH2\u G2@TruthAbout\u ME2@YouAreLobbyLud这可能忽略了环境因素（医院中的高ACH和/或补充空气过滤）。这可能与家里或通风不良的建筑物中的污浊空气有关。也可能假设感染者是高/最高级别的传染病，ICU患者可能不是。