@RobChan66733000 @EricTopol @CDCMMWR Some data here https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@RobChan66733000@EricTopol@CDCMMWR此处有一些数据https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@EricTopol @CDCMMWR These questions are so weak (similarly CDC guidance) e.g "when possible", "when safe", no standards as what metrics constitute an "increase", etc. that YES is likely highly overstated relative to what actually happens.

@EricTopol@CDCMMWR这些问题很弱（类似于CDC指南），例如“在可能的情况下”，“在安全的情况下”，没有关于什么指标构成“增长”的标准，等等。相对于实际发生的情况，是的可能被高估了。

@AstorAaron @thechancellor6 @white_bite @Momonamission78 @LeisaSchaim It's also not clear that a more transmissible variant results in a lower reduction from a physical barrier. Yes a modest percentage reduction from a high level still results in a high level.

@Astraaron@thechancellor6@white\u bite@Momonacmission78@LeisaSchaim也不清楚更易传播的变异是否会导致物理屏障的降低。是的，从高水平适度降低百分比仍然会导致高水平。

@AstorAaron @thechancellor6 @white_bite @Momonamission78 @LeisaSchaim "There was no 19% reduction with Omicron"
We don't know this. No one has studied it carefully.

@AstorAaron@thechancellor6@white\u bite@Momonamission78@Leischaim“奥米克罗没有减少19%”
我们不知道这一点。没有人仔细研究过它。

@AstorAaron @thechancellor6 @white_bite @Momonamission78 @LeisaSchaim The Bangladesh study had low uptake (it was only a recommendation and free masks). If you scale it to everyone masking you get similar results to every other study which is 20-25%.

@Astraaron@thechancellor6@white\u bite@Momonacmission78@LeisaSchaim孟加拉国的研究摄取率较低（这只是一项推荐和免费面具）。如果你将其扩展到每个人的掩蔽，你会得到与其他研究相似的结果，即20-25%。

@AstorAaron @thechancellor6 @white_bite @Momonamission78 @LeisaSchaim There's no way to know that, alternative isn't visible.. All of these natural phenomena are difficult to measure. The best we can do is large studies such as the recent one that conclude a 19% reduction in transmission. That's enough to blunt a surge, not stop it.

@AstorAaron@thechancellor6@white\u bite@Momonamission78@Leischaim没有办法知道这一点，替代品不可见。。所有这些自然现象都难以衡量。我们所能做的最好的就是进行大型研究，比如最近的一项研究，得出的结论是传播率减少了19%。这足以减缓而不是阻止浪涌。

@AstorAaron @white_bite @thechancellor6 @Momonamission78 @LeisaSchaim That Korea surge is not even that big. Yes, it goes to a high level but doesn't stay there that long. The population of South Korea is 50 million, and cumulative reported is 17 million. (Unclear how many uncounted cases there are though.)

@Astraaron@white\u bite@thechancellor6@Momonamission78@Leischaim表示，韩国的激增幅度甚至没有那么大。是的，它达到了一个很高的水平，但不会停留那么久。韩国人口为5000万，累计报告人口为1700万。（但不清楚有多少未统计的病例。）

@AstorAaron @white_bite @thechancellor6 @Momonamission78 @LeisaSchaim Masks didn't prevent any other surge either. That doesn't mean they didn't work to blunt/shorten the surge, or prevent infection of some people who would otherwise have been infected (e.g. people avoiding inherently-unmasked environment such as restaurants).

@Astraaron@white\u bite@thechancellor6@Momonamission78@LeisaSchaim面具也没有阻止任何其他激增。这并不意味着他们没有努力减缓/缩短激增，或防止一些本来会被感染的人感染（例如，人们避免固有的暴露环境，如餐馆）。

@wanderer_jasnah @SurpriseSparrow All true.

“流浪汉贾斯纳”惊喜都是真的。

@wanderer_jasnah @SurpriseSparrow It's certainly not sufficient but it still may contribute. The guns have always been there, what else changed?

@Loverter\u jasnah@惊奇的Sparrow这当然不够，但它仍然可能有贡献。枪一直在那里，还有什么变化？

@WalkerBragman It's not only because the midterms are coming up. In a crisis there is a rallying around the leader/flag effect, and a potential for appeal to the need for an empowered competent and steady hand. What is the confluence of factors that has led to the choice of a denial strategy?

@WalkerBragman这不仅仅是因为期中考试即将到来。在危机中，围绕着领袖/旗帜效应展开了一场集会，并有可能呼吁人们需要一只有能力、有能力、稳定的手。导致选择拒绝策略的因素有哪些？

@GainOfDystopia @IHME_UW Disagrees with CDC. IHME has been a recurring dumpster fire.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... https://t.co/LMEmfQqC6K

@GainOfDystopia@IHME\u UW不同意CDC的观点。HIME是一个反复发生的垃圾场火灾。
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru...对不起，对不起。https://t.co/LMEmfQqC6K

@jolly1766 @redbaybound @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom It's certainly not. No one "needs" to do much of anything. You don't "need" to look both ways before you cross the street, but it's certainly safer to do so.

@jolly1766@redbaybound@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom当然不是。没有人“需要”做很多事情。在过马路之前，你不需要“看”两边，但这样做肯定更安全。

@jolly1766 @redbaybound @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom These studies are most of low quality to the point where you can't really infer correct individual effects, but you absolutely CAN predict a change in R from careful measurement of individual effects. R is just an average across individuals.

@jolly1766@redbaybond@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom这些研究质量很低，以至于你无法真正推断出正确的个体效应，但你完全可以通过仔细测量个体效应来预测R的变化。R只是个人的平均值。

@jolly1766 @redbaybound @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom The word "need" is really misapplied here. It's entirely subjective.

@jolly1766@redbaybond@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom这里“需要”这个词真的被误用了。这完全是主观的。

@jolly1766 @redbaybound @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom Agree that poll is extremely weak as a study, and probably doesn't even measure individual effects very well. It doesn't even try to measure source control at all, which is another major issue with it.

@jolly1766@redbaybound@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom同意民意调查作为一项研究非常薄弱，甚至可能无法很好地衡量个人影响。它甚至没有尝试测量源代码控制，这是它的另一个主要问题。

@jolly1766 @redbaybound @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom Population effects are always downstream of individual effects (i.e. population is just a collection of individuals). Claiming otherwise is an appeal to magical thinking.

@jolly1766@redbaybound@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom群体效应总是在个体效应的下游（即群体只是个体的集合）。相反的说法是对魔法思维的一种诉求。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden If you look at a multivariate study such as this one, both NPIs and density can appear as significant correlations.
https://twitter.com/joe_sill/s...

@_Kodos\uuU@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden如果你看一个多变量研究，比如这一个，NPI和密度都可以显示为显著的相关性。
https://twitter.com/joe_sill/s...

@redbaybound @jolly1766 @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom Fine. Where is the study that population-wide use of N95s reduces the contact rate by 83%?

@jolly1766@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom Fine的红色海湾。哪里有研究表明，在人群中广泛使用N95可将接触率降低83%？

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden One of the reasons you don't see much correlation is denser places tend to enact more NPIs, resulting in similar outcomes (in much of the west, with a "flatten the curve" mitigation strategy) the outcomes tend to be at or near the limit of tolerable.

@_Kodos@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden你看不到太多相关性的原因之一是，密度较高的地方往往会制定更多的NPI，导致类似的结果（在西方大部分地区，采用“曲线平坦”缓解策略），结果往往处于或接近可容忍的极限。