@sri_srikrishna @J30607610 @AbraarKaran @RanuDhillon It looks like filtration data is missing?

@sri\u srikrishna@J30607610@AbraarKaran@RanuDhillon似乎缺少过滤数据？

@adam3us @brian_trollz (4) isn't really true at this point. Buybacks are a major presence in equity markets, and debt securities are repaid.

@adam3us@brian\u trollz（4）在这一点上并不是真的。回购是股票市场的主要存在，债务证券也会得到偿还。

@boogdeli @wsbgnl @WalkerBragman It's a graph of "working age" deaths. More seniors died in 2020, when there were at last some protections for workers. (But many seniors also work.)

@boogdeli@wsbgnl@WalkerBragman这是一张“工作年龄”死亡图。2020年，更多的老年人死亡，当时工人终于得到了一些保护。（但许多老年人也在工作。）

@AGoldsmithEsq @herrmanndigital @scott_squires @slippy_maxwell @lapublichealth Short term it's directionally valid (rising or falling) because RAT usage isn't changing that fast. Absolute number almost meaningless and also impossible to compare across time.

@AGoldsmithEsq@Herrmandigital@scott\u squires@slippy\u maxwell@lapublichealth短期内它在方向上是有效的（上升或下降），因为老鼠的使用变化没有那么快。绝对数几乎没有意义，也不可能跨时间进行比较。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden I never claimed that.
"If masks were effective then immunity wouldn't even be a factor"
Again, this is wrong. Paper says 19%. It doesn't say 100% where immunity wouldn't be a factor. Try reading and understanding. It's not that hard.

@_Kodos\uuU@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden我从来没有这样说过。
“如果面具有效，那么免疫力甚至不是一个因素”
同样，这是错误的。报纸上说是19%。它并没有说100%的免疫力不是一个因素。尝试阅读和理解。没那么难。

@GYamey There are more in the top 10.

@GYamey前十名中还有更多。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden That can't be correct. The stringency index doesn't consider days of quarantine.

@_Kodos\uuU@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden这不可能是正确的。严格性指数不考虑隔离天数。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden You could instead read what already wrote. Hint: first sentence
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@_Kodos\uuU@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden您可以阅读已经写下的内容。提示：第一句话
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden The 19% wasn't derived from one country, it was derived from data across many countries. Read the study.
What I said was that it isn't inconsistent with one spike in one country, which it isn't.

@_Kodos\uu@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden这19%并不是来自一个国家，而是来自许多国家的数据。阅读研究报告。
我所说的是，它与一个国家的一个峰值并不矛盾，事实并非如此。

@wsbgnl By way of comparison, in countries where the covid relief took the form more of payroll continuation, furloughed workers were not counted as unemployed. US relied more on enhanced UI and direct payments, which does count toward unemployed.
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@wsbgnl相比之下，在新冠肺炎救济更多采取继续发放工资的形式的国家，休假工人不被视为失业。美国更多地依赖于增强的用户界面和直接支付，这对失业者来说确实很重要。
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden Not zero cases either. Was 4-5 thousand cases pre-surge. South Korea never pursued a zero covid strategy.

@_Kodos\uU@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden也不是零例。激增前为4000-5000例。韩国从未推行过零冠状病毒战略。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden Also, I don't know what the changes were exactly, but to correct what you said, some measures were lifted over the course of February, starting February 4, which was right at the start of the surge. https://t.co/Q7nh7CLHHF

@_Kodos@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden同样，我不知道具体的变化是什么，但为了纠正你所说的，从2月4日开始，在2月期间取消了一些措施，这正是激增的开始。https://t.co/Q7nh7CLHHF

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden Which is another way of saying that there is nothing about that one spike inconsistent with the study conclusion of a 19% reduction.

@_Kodos\uuu@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden这是另一种说法，表示这一峰值与减少19%的研究结论完全一致。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden You can't generalize from specific conditions at one point in time.

@_Kodos\uuU@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden你不能在某个时间点从特定的条件中概括出来。

@GirkinGirkin What is this supposed to be hitting?

@GirkinGirkin这是在打什么？

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden At most, what this shows is that it may be essentially harmless to remove masks during a brief window of extremely rapid spread (but in practice may not be worth doing so).

@_Kodos@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden至多，这表明，在传播速度极快的短时间内去除口罩基本上是无害的（但实际上可能不值得这么做）。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden "that means masks now are useless"
This is also false. During the most rapid spread of a new variant with high immune escape (i.e. limited immunity) and sudden reopening, 19% isn't enough to matter much, but once that period of rapid spread passes, that's no longer the case.

@_Kodos\uuU@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden“这意味着面具现在没用了”
这也是错误的。在免疫逃逸率高（即免疫力有限）的新变种迅速传播并突然重新开放的过程中，19%不足以产生多大影响，但一旦快速传播期过去，情况就不再如此了。

@_Kodos_ @humftydrumpfty @DrTomFrieden "Masks either work or they don't"
This is false. Every single study and every single intervention for that matter, has a degree of efficacy. In this case reduction by 19%, not "all or nothing" by 100%.
19% needs to be considered relative to the totality of conditions.

@_Kodos@humftydrumpfty@DrTomFrieden“口罩要么起作用要么不起作用”
这是错误的。针对这一问题的每一项研究和每一项干预都有一定的功效。在这种情况下，减少19%，而不是“全部或全部”减少100%。
相对于所有条件，需要考虑19%。

@ShoalBear @TG22110 Fancy word for a doughnut

@ShoalBear@TG22110甜甜圈的花哨词汇

@sri_srikrishna @J30607610 @AbraarKaran @RanuDhillon Have you ever measured this AP-1512HH on the second to highest speed. It still seems (totally subjective "hold hand in airflow" test) to move quite a bit of air with MUCH lower noise.

@sri\u srikrishna@J30607610@AbraarKaran@RanuDhillon你有没有测量过这架AP-1512HH的第二高速度。它似乎仍然（完全主观的“握紧气流”测试）以更低的噪音移动相当多的空气。