@HistoryOfChairs @margbrennan 44% of republicans would likely disagree.

@margbrennan的HistoryOfChairs 44%的共和党人可能不同意。

@FitzGab @GHS @PeterHotez He's sort of right. Delta was already out there and anyone paying attention could see the it was going to spread in even among vaccinated once it got established. The "vanishing" was destined to be temporary even at the time, but western politicians wanted no part of this reality

@FitzGab@GHS@PeterHotez他是对的。Delta已经存在，任何关注它的人都可以看到，一旦它建立起来，它甚至会在接种疫苗的人群中传播。即使在当时，“消失”也注定是暂时的，但西方政客不想参与这一现实

@Mark_Ungrin @HRHTish @SizzleMel @debra_caplan It may be coincidence that strict behavior control aligns with China politics, but similar was accomplished in other countries e.g. Japan, Taiwan, Australia, NZ, South Korea, that don't necessarily align with local authoritarian politics.

@Mark\u Ungrin@HRHTish@SizzleMel@debra\u caplan严格的行为控制与中国政治相一致可能是巧合，但在其他国家，如日本、台湾、澳大利亚、新西兰、韩国，也取得了类似的成就，这些国家不一定与地方独裁政治相一致。

@Mark_Ungrin @HRHTish @SizzleMel @debra_caplan It's not coincidence. This is actually physical reality, in contrast to your conceptualization of post-truth. Viruses spread through behavior. Change behavior in enough of the right ways and you stop transmission. China wasn't the only one to do it. Look all over asia-pacific.

@Mark\u Ungrin@HRHTish@SizzleMel@debra\u caplan这不是巧合。这实际上是物理现实，与你对后真理的概念化相反。病毒通过行为传播。以足够正确的方式改变行为，你就会停止传播。中国并不是唯一一个这样做的国家。看看整个亚太地区。

@redbaybound @jolly1766 @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom There is no study supporting that at the population level, across a wide variety of conditions.
There may be one for a particular setting. I don't know where you are getting it so I can't comment.

@红海湾地区@jolly1766@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom没有研究支持在人口水平上，在各种条件下的这一点。
对于特定设置，可能有一个。我不知道你从哪里得到的，所以我不能发表评论。

@EnemyInAState The woman infecting her husband doesn't say anything about mode of transmission.

@EnemyInAState感染丈夫的女性没有透露任何传播方式。

@redbaybound @jolly1766 @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom The pie-in-the-sky theory of everyone using N95s diligently might be better than 20%, but we don't really know, it hasn't been studied at the population-wide level.

@redbaybound@jolly1766@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom每个人都在努力使用N95的空中派理论可能比20%要好，但我们真的不知道，它还没有在人群层面上进行研究。

@redbaybound @jolly1766 @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom Overall studies find about 20% reduction in spread RATE, which isn't the same as number affected. R of 3 will infect most people given time. R of 2.4 will as well (slightly fewer in slightly more time).

@jolly1766@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom的redbaybound总体研究发现，传播率降低了约20%，这与受影响的人数不同。在一定时间内，3的R会感染大多数人。2.4的R也会（在稍长的时间内稍微少一些）。

@redbaybound @jolly1766 @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom That's not how the this actually works. I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but N95 certainly don't prevent 83% of transmission in bars and restaurants where people don't and can't use them.

@redbaybond@jolly1766@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom这不是它实际工作的方式。我不知道你从哪里得到你的号码，但N95当然不能阻止83%的数据在酒吧和餐馆中的传播，因为那里的人们既不能也不能使用它们。

@jolly1766 @redbaybound @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom Who is overstating? There was just large study concluding 19% reduction in R. Other studies have mostly been in line with that in terms of magnitude. That's not zero, it's not 100%. Reality is messy.

@jolly1766@redbaybound@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom谁夸大了？有一项大型研究得出的结论是R降低了19%。其他研究大多在幅度上与之一致。这不是零，也不是100%。现实是混乱的。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden Oakland is 400k people at 8k/sqm. There's nothing like that in CCC. There are certainly similarities but naive A vs. B comparison can't work. Plus mixing between small, adjacent counties
The theory is testable, but not like that. The test is the paper at top of thread.

@_科多斯@humftydrumpfty@托姆·弗里登（DrTomFrieden）奥克兰有40万人，每平方米8千人。CCC里没有这样的。当然有相似之处，但天真的A和B的比较是行不通的。加上相邻小县市之间的混合
这个理论是可以检验的，但不是那样的。测试是在螺纹顶部的纸张。

@jolly1766 @sinz54 @vvalkyri @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom Supposedly 5.6 million commercial buildings. 130k schools. 130k government. Good places to start.
Source: https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...

@jolly1766@sinz54@vvalkyri@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom，据推测有560万栋商业建筑。13万所学校。130k政府。开始的好地方。
资料来源：https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...

@vvalkyri @sinz54 @jolly1766 @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom Would be another factor to consider in prioritizing. Some restaurants (location/space/etc.) and some climates can't do that. Those should be prioritized for IAQ.

@vvalkyri@sinz54@jolly1766@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom将是另一个优先考虑的因素。一些餐厅（位置/空间等）和一些气候条件无法做到这一点。室内空气质量应优先考虑这些因素。

@vvalkyri @jolly1766 @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom Exactly

@vvalkyri@jolly1766@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom确切地说

@sinz54 @vvalkyri @jolly1766 @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom There are only a million or so restaurants in the entire US. It is theoretically possible to focus on the most significant, mask-incompatible locations first. In practice, that would take leadership and competence, so...

@自z54@vvalkyri@jolly1766@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom以来，整个美国只有大约一百万家餐馆。从理论上讲，可以首先关注最重要、屏蔽不兼容的位置。实际上，这需要领导力和能力，所以。。。

@jolly1766 @redbaybound @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom 20% reduction in R from 1.25 to 1 is very significant. From 3 to 2.4 (during initial Omicron wave) is not so significant, although even there it would tend to shorten the wave somewhat.

@jolly1766@redbaybound@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom R从1.25降低20%至1非常显著。从3到2.4（在初始Omicron波期间）没有那么显著，尽管即使在那里，它也会在一定程度上缩短波。

@jolly1766 @redbaybound @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom Omicron vs. Omicron doesn't really matter. It did during the initial surge but now the there is more of an equilibrium with immunity where spread rates are back down near R=1, the modest effect of masks returns to significance.

@jolly1766@redbaybound@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom Omicron vs.Omicron并不重要。在最初的激增期间确实如此，但现在，当扩散率在R=1附近回落时，免疫力更趋于平衡，面具的适度效应恢复到显著水平。

@SamirMadi01 @PeterAttiaMD It was more of a sincere question than an assessment. I would guess there is some of both going on, but how much I have no idea whatsoever.

@SamirMadi01@PeterAtiamd这与其说是一个评估，不如说是一个真诚的问题。我想这两种情况都会发生，但我对此一无所知。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden That is broadly speaking what it says. 19% reduction does not mean "works" or "doesn't work". It means works to a degree.
Which one of these counties has a large dense city? Simplistic comparisons like that don't work.

@_Kodos\uuu@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden，从广义上讲，这就是它所说的。19%的降价并不意味着“有效”或“无效”。这意味着工作到了一定程度。
这些县中哪一个有一个人口稠密的大城市？这样简单的比较是行不通的。

@vvalkyri @jolly1766 @jimhubbell6177 @RadioFreeTom It's not just funding, also takes leadership, competence, and lack of corruption. Schools in the US were funded for about $1 million per school and often did nothing or bought overpriced ineffective air cleaners.

@vvalkyri@jolly1766@jimhubbell6177@RadioFreeTom这不仅仅是资金，还需要领导力、能力和缺乏腐败。在美国，每所学校的资金约为100万美元，通常什么也不做，或者购买价格过高的无效空气净化器。