@bilitated_dee @edsuom @LaSeletzky @DrEricDing You can order them from Amazon or industrial supply dealers.

@bilitated\u dee@edsuom@LaSeletzky@drericing您可以从亚马逊或工业用品经销商处订购。

@bilitated_dee @edsuom @LaSeletzky @DrEricDing P100 has higher standard for filtration (99.97% vs 99%) and "P" respirators are oil-resistant while "N" respirators are not. In practice unless dealing with oils, they're very similar.

@bilitated\u dee@edsuom@LaSeletzky@Drericing P100具有更高的过滤标准（99.97%对99%），且“P”型呼吸器耐油，而“N”型呼吸器则不耐油。实际上，除非处理油，否则它们非常相似。

@VincentRK @LaSeletzky @DrEricDing Is the original thread still around? I couldn't find it.

@VincentRK@LaSeletzky@Drericing原始线程是否仍然存在？我找不到它。

@Dave99117584 @wanderer_jasnah @BallouxFrancois Huh? There's no finding here. The intervals all overlap except 3 doses > 2 doses. That's it, that's the only conclusion.

@Dave99117584@Loverer\u jasnah@BallouxFrancois嗯？这里没有找到。除了3个剂量>；2剂。就这样，这是唯一的结论。

@BallouxFrancois @wanderer_jasnah It does appear "better" for 2 doses vs 1 infection but 2D+1I vs 3D still overlaps.

@BallouxFrancois@Wander\u jasnah 2剂与1剂感染确实“更好”，但2D+1I与3D仍然重叠。

@Dave99117584 @wanderer_jasnah @BallouxFrancois Yes but the graph above only applies to severe+. Those are rare out of 25k

@Dave99117584@Loverer\u jasnah@BallouxFrancois是的，但上面的图表只适用于严重+。这些在25k中很少见

@PaulSorrentino3 @yaneerbaryam Kinda. China is mostly ignoring science around ventilation and high quality masks and relying on testing, shitty masks, social distancing, and lockdowns.

@PaulSorrentino3@yaneerbaryam Kind。中国主要忽视通风和高质量口罩方面的科学，而依赖检测、劣质口罩、社交距离和封锁。

@wanderer_jasnah @BallouxFrancois Basic problem is very low, some single digit, severe outcomes in entire study. Hard to conclude much from that.

@Wanderr\u jasnah@BallouxFrancois的基本问题是很低的，在整个研究中出现了一些个位数的严重结果。很难从中得出什么结论。

@wanderer_jasnah @BallouxFrancois Well, just that most of the intervals overlap too. No strong conclusion here, maybe weak suggestion at best.

@Wanderr\u jasnah@BallouxFrancois嗯，只是大部分间隔也重叠了。这里没有有力的结论，充其量也可能是微弱的建议。

@wanderer_jasnah @BallouxFrancois To be clear, imagine a population of mixed young and old:
YYYYOOOO
1st infection kills off 1/2 of the O and none of the Y:
YYYYOO
Overall fatality 1/4
Assume NO acquired immunity, overall fatality now 1/6. Appears "protective" (1/6 < 1/4) but no individual is protected.

@Wanderr\u jasnah@BallouxFrancois要清楚，想象一个年轻人和老年人混合的群体：
YYYYOOOO年
第一次感染可杀死1/2的O和Y：
YYYYOO年
总死亡率1/4
假设没有获得性免疫力，目前总死亡率为1/6。显示“保护”（1/6<；1/4），但没有个人受到保护。

@wanderer_jasnah @BallouxFrancois Either way it could happen I think. Probably to a different degree.

@流浪者jasnah@BallouxFrancois我想这可能会发生。可能到了不同的程度。

@AGoldsmithEsq @alexmeshkin I'm reasonable sure it doesn't just spread by sex but is it possible that R-effective would nearly always be <1 outside of sex or sex-like contact? In effect that is close to the same thing.

@阿戈尔德·史密斯（AGoldsmithEsq@Alexmeskin）我有理由相信它不仅仅是通过性传播的，而且R-effective是否可能几乎总是如此<；1非性接触或类性接触？实际上，这几乎是同一件事。

@chiiki_i @RhondaMoskowitz @DrEliDavid If you didn't hear statements about the situation evolving, you weren't listening. At the time it was only a modest but significant and important reduction in protection against infection.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... https://t.co/pRowZf48z4

@chiiki\u i@RhondaMoskowitz@DrEliDavid如果你没有听到关于形势发展的陈述，你就没有在听。在当时，这只是一个适度的，但重大和重要的减少对感染的保护。
https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... https://t.co/pRowZf48z4

@joeminocqua @RhondaMoskowitz @DrEliDavid We knew that vaccinated people were very unlikely to contract the virus, as he said, which was why case levels collapsed to 10k, the lowest level before or since.
What was true and correct at that time is not true now. Shit happens.

@joeminocqua@RhondaMoskowitz@DrEliDavid我们知道，接种疫苗的人不太可能感染病毒，正如他所说，这就是为什么病例数量下降到10k，这是之前或之后的最低水平。
当时是正确的，现在不是了。大便发生了。

@BallouxFrancois @wanderer_jasnah Also separate question, but how do these studies account for survivorship bias? Someone with a previous infection survived covid, perhaps indicates ability to survive again via mechanisms other than through acquired immunity.

@BallouxFrancois@Wander\u jasnah也提出了一个单独的问题，但这些研究如何解释生存偏差？以前感染过新冠病毒的人存活下来，这可能表明他们有能力通过获得性免疫以外的机制再次存活。

@BallouxFrancois @wanderer_jasnah These data do not show that both together protects more.

@BallouxFrancois@Wander\u jasnah这些数据并没有表明两者共同保护更多。

@VVRabbi @BallouxFrancois That's the baseline

@Vvrabi@BallouxFrancois这是基线

@Turboshunt @DHATE2020 @85JJB @BallouxFrancois It's a troll

@涡轮分流器@DHATE2020@85JJB@BallouxFrancois它是一个巨魔

@MarvinH2_G2 @Unusual_Times @WHO @mvankerkhove Greek life

@MarvinH2\u G2@不同寻常的时代@世界卫生组织@mvankerkhove希腊生活

@0bj3ctivity @emilygraymd_mph @grahamwalker It works for them, why stop?

@0bj3ctivity@emilygraymd\u mph@grahamwalker这对他们有用，为什么要停下来？