@mara_fiorentina @RadioFreeTom @JamesRaxz It's hard do separate cause and effect. When people expect to be eating more, they'll reject restaurants that serve portions that are "too small". It is possible that less dense walkable cities in the US plays a role, Probably not whole story since obesity on the rise globally.

@马拉·佛罗伦萨@RadioFreeTom@詹姆斯·拉克斯很难区分因果关系。当人们期望吃得更多时，他们会拒绝提供“太少”的餐馆。美国人口密度较低的步行城市可能起到了一定的作用，但可能不是因为肥胖在全球呈上升趋势。

@RadioFreeTom As things stand today, both are major public health concerns. One is not the "real" epidemic, and the other not. That's a terrible take.

@RadioFreeTom就目前的情况来看，两者都是主要的公共卫生问题。一个不是“真正的”流行病，另一个不是。这是一个可怕的举动。

@RadioFreeTom Obesity kills about 300k per year in the US. If covid ever gets below that in some year, it'll be the first year it happens, and post-acute covid deaths aren't being attributed to covid either (but should be).

@美国每年约有30万人死于放射性肥胖。如果在某一年内，冠状病毒的感染率低于这一水平，这将是第一年，急性冠状病毒感染后的死亡也不是冠状病毒引起的（但应该是）。

@izacmann @mehdirhasan Agree that change should be made but if it is, it will become clear that vaccination as a program has failed due to low uptake (part of the reason the change isn't being made).
People aren't willing to show up for arbitrarily many frequent shots. It isn't realistic.

@izacmann@mehdirhasan同意应该做出改变，但如果是这样的话，很明显，作为一项计划的疫苗接种由于接种率低而失败（部分原因是没有做出改变）。
人们不愿意出现在任意频繁的拍摄中。这不现实。

@kathyf @yellowmgtiger @wwkdeux @RadioFreeTom The 20% comes from a CDC study which considers latent conditions, leading to increased risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes, etc. People with this increased risk don't necessarily have current symptoms they would report as "long covid".

@kathyf@yellowmgtiger@wwkdeux@RadioFreeTom这20%来自CDC的一项研究，该研究考虑了潜在条件，导致心脏病发作、中风、糖尿病等风险增加。风险增加的人不一定有目前的症状，他们会报告为“长冠状病毒”。

@PsionicPsittacc @mausraster @kasnesudfanvds @mildanalyst @CovidDataReport Well, daily cases would increase with steady exponential growth. So the point of erratic growth still potentially exploding is valid.

@PsionicPsittacc@mausraster@kasnesudfanvds@mildanalyst@CovidDataReport好吧，每日病例将随着稳定的指数增长而增加。因此，不稳定的增长点仍然可能呈爆炸式增长，这一点是正确的。

@kasnesudfanvds @mildanalyst @CovidDataReport The last day there is missing data. The rest since May 21 or so is close to a straight line i.e. exponential growth. The rate of growth did slow from the pre-May 21 period, which was likely when the bulk of cases shifted from finding old ones to spreading to new ones.

@kasnesudfanvds@mildanalyst@CovidDataReport最后一天缺少数据。自5月21日左右以来的其余时间接近直线，即指数增长。从5月21日之前开始，增长速度确实有所放缓，这可能是因为大部分病例从发现旧病例转向传播到新病例。

@gtamoeb @GooRee @mildanalyst @karamballes Probably limited protection, better than nothing.

@gtamoeb@GooRee@mildanalyst@Karambales可能保护有限，总比什么都没有好。

@mildanalyst @oni_blackstock One of those countries is the US, so making this a "travel" issue is stupid.

@mildanalyst@oni\u blackstock这些国家中的一个是美国，所以把这变成一个“旅行”问题是愚蠢的。

@Noahpinion The last part isn't really true in a strong job market.

@在一个强大的就业市场中，最后一部分并不是真的。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden Try to understand. 19%.
A simple way to think about that to help you comprehend is that it "breaches your mask" 81% of the time and does not breach your mask 19% of the time. That's meaningful but not 100%.

@_Kodos\uu@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden试图理解。19%.
有一个简单的方法可以帮助你理解，那就是它81%的时候“破坏了你的面具”，而19%的时候没有破坏你的面具。这很有意义，但不是100%。

@DerpasaurusWrex @MishGEA 2.5% copper. It's probably not worth it to separate (it already costs more than 1c to manufacture a penny).
The other coins contain much more copper, even though they don't look like it. Again, not clear separation costs would make this worthwhile as a "copper stockpile".

@MishGEA 2.5%铜的DerpasaurusWrex。分开可能不值得（一分钱的制造成本已经超过1c）。
其他的硬币含有更多的铜，尽管它们看起来不像。同样，不明确的分离成本将使其成为一个“铜储备”而有价值。

@boogdeli @wsbgnl @WalkerBragman There are no seniors (65+) on the chart. The highest age group shown is 55-64.

@boogdeli@wsbgnl@WalkerBragman图表上没有老年人（65岁以上）。显示的最高年龄组为55-64岁。

@robinhanson @jrfuisz @Humble_Analysis @FatEmperor It's also not likely that vaccination has NO effect on transmission and case rates. The effect is muted and easily hidden by other variables, but it's probably still there to an extent.

@robinhanson@jrfuisz@Humble\u Analysis@fatmeptor接种疫苗也不太可能对传播和病例率没有影响。这种影响是无声的，很容易被其他变量隐藏，但可能在某种程度上仍然存在。

@robinhanson @jrfuisz @Humble_Analysis @FatEmperor Healthcare capacity and socialized healthcare costs remain as externality arguments.

@robinhanson@jrfuisz@Humble\u Analysis@FatEmperor医疗能力和社会化医疗成本仍然是外部性的论据。

@DerpasaurusWrex @MishGEA Most of the ones in circulation contain minimal copper.

@MishGEA的DerpasaurusWrex大多数流通中的铜含量极少。

@pattern_boi @coldhealing Um, they don't. This was staged for a post.

@pattern\u boi@coldhealing嗯，他们没有。这是为一篇帖子准备的。

@sri_srikrishna @J30607610 @AbraarKaran @RanuDhillon Good to know. Perhaps that is mentioned in the paper (did read it once, but don't recall).

@sri\u srikrishna@J30607610@AbraarKaran@RanuDhillon很高兴知道。也许报纸上提到了这一点（确实读过一次，但不记得了）。

@adam3us @brian_trollz "Use spreadsheet from issuer" is dumb, I think we agree. Liquidity (market) is essential.
But even with a market, securities still critically reliant on issuer is my point.

@adam3us@brian\u trollz“使用发行人的电子表格”很愚蠢，我想我们同意。流动性（市场）至关重要。
但我的观点是，即使有了市场，证券仍然严重依赖发行人。

@adam3us @brian_trollz The buybacks are still important, and investors are relying on them. They serve almost the same economic purpose as dividends, which would be paid directly by the issuer. Without either, the value would be lower or nonexistent.

@adam3us@brian\u trollz回购仍然很重要，投资者依赖于回购。它们的经济用途几乎与股息相同，股息将由发行人直接支付。如果没有这两者，该值将更低或不存在。