@NaphiSoc @michaelzlin Based on which data?

@NaphiSoc@michaelzlin基于哪些数据？

@michaelzlin @b_chinnian5 Serial interval of three days ~means half <3 days. Dosing at 2-3 days might reduce transmission by ~half?

@michaelzlin@b\u chinnian5三天的连续间隔表示一半<；3天。2-3天给药可能会将传播减少约一半？

@pseudorandompi @mindstalk @andyaschmidt @EricTopol @PNASNews @g_leech_ Agree of course. Correlation on its own would not be conclusive. There is a collection of findings on the matter including physical measurements which imply causation. You can't ever know for sure but you weigh the evidence and act on a conclusion.

@pseudorandompi@mindstack@和yaschmidt@EricTopol@PNASNews@g\u leech\u当然同意。相关性本身并不是决定性的。有一系列关于这一问题的调查结果，包括暗示因果关系的物理测量。你永远无法确定，但你需要权衡证据并根据结论采取行动。

@andyaschmidt @mindstalk @Nutmeg031992 @EricTopol @PNASNews @g_leech_ "We are now at the place we are going to be forever" simply isn't true, or at least it isn't possible to know.
Arguing politics is a separate matter from the effect of masks. It's also local. Oakland, CA just reinstated a mask mandate. There are no violent mass protests.

@andyaschmidt@mindstack@Nutmeg031992@EricTopol@PNASNews@g\u leech\u“我们现在所处的位置将是永远的”根本不是真的，或者至少不可能知道。
争论政治与面具的影响是不同的。它也是本地的。加利福尼亚州奥克兰市刚刚恢复了面具授权。没有大规模暴力抗议。

@andyaschmidt @mindstalk @Nutmeg031992 @EricTopol @PNASNews @g_leech_ 19% means 1.2 to 1.01 (more or less, and nobody knows these numbers with any sort of precision).
Also, if a surge starts with higher Rt and then drops, then reducing by another 19% means the surge is smaller and ends sooner.

@andyaschmidt@mindstalk@Nutmeg031992@EricTopol@PNASNews@g\u leech\u19%表示1.2到1.01（或多或少，没有人知道这些数字的精确性）。
此外，如果喘振从较高的Rt开始，然后下降，那么再减少19%意味着喘振更小，结束更快。

@mindstalk @pseudorandompi @andyaschmidt @EricTopol @PNASNews @g_leech_ It's implied by the data, you don't even need to
"know" masks work. If you have a 19% reduction from a mechanism and the mechanism isn't always used (0% reduction), the reduction is where it is used must be higher.

@Mindstape@pseudorandompi@andyaschmidt@EricTopol@PNASNews@g\u leech\u数据暗示，你甚至不需要
“知道”面具有用。如果某个机构的降幅为19%，但该机构并非始终使用（降幅为0%），则使用该机构的地方的降幅必须更高。

@andyaschmidt @mindstalk @Nutmeg031992 @EricTopol @PNASNews @g_leech_ On the first point, NYC has experienced a surge (BA2) from March to June which took average reported cases from 650 to 4500. This implies an R of about 1.1. In reality, probably somewhat higher since ascertainment degraded during that period, but not much higher.

@andyaschmidt@mindstalk@Nutmeg031992@EricTopol@PNASNews@g\u leech\u3月至6月，纽约市经历了激增（BA2），平均报告病例数从650例增加到4500例。这意味着R约为1.1。事实上，由于这一时期的查证率下降，查证率可能会稍高一些，但不会太高。

@andyaschmidt @mindstalk @Nutmeg031992 @EricTopol @PNASNews @g_leech_ Also, transmission isn't uniform. People who want to go to crowded night clubs are taking their own risk, which is part of that 19%, but people who don't, but need to use transit, go to a pharmacy, etc. or have workplace exposure are likely to experience a much larger reduction.

@andyaschmidt@Mindstack@Nutmeg031992@EricTopol@PNASNews@g\U leech\u0同样，传播不均匀。想去拥挤的夜总会的人都在承担自己的风险，这是19%的一部分，但不想去的人，但需要乘坐公交、去药店等，或者在工作场所接触的人可能会经历更大的风险降低。

@andyaschmidt @mindstalk @Nutmeg031992 @EricTopol @PNASNews @g_leech_ No that's wrong. You're looking at R0 but R-in-practice (after considering immunity and other factors) is much, must lower, even 1.1-1.2 during moderate surges, which means 19% reduction is the difference between having a surge at all or not.

@andyaschmidt@mindstack@Nutmeg031992@EricTopol@PNASNews@g\u leech\u不，这是错误的。您看到的是R0，但实际上R（在考虑免疫力和其他因素后）要低得多，必须低得多，甚至在中度浪涌期间为1.1-1.2，这意味着减少19%是有浪涌与无浪涌之间的差异。

@MelpomeneMel @Sisu56693590 @greghove @Cabbidges @EnemyInAState Yes, it's a story about Greece and the photo is from Canada.

@MelpomeneMel@Sisu56693590@greghove@Cabbidges@EnemyInAState是的，这是一个关于希腊的故事，照片来自加拿大。

@JustToReadTwee3 @LongCovidNYC @loscharlos @CDCgov The ratio doesn't help in any way whatsoever. A more infectious virus that results in more infections and reinfections but does less damage per infection causes the same amount of overall damage.

@仅仅是在LongCovidNYC@loscharlos@CDCgov，这个比率对任何方面都没有帮助。一种传染性更强的病毒会导致更多的感染和再感染，但每次感染造成的伤害较小，从而导致相同数量的总体伤害。

@M96191366 @trailrunner402 @StillMask @alexmeshkin BTW, Novavax is testing an Omicron update, so we will see what they find.
https://ir.novavax.com/Novavax...

@M96191366@trailrunner402@StillMask@alexmeshkin顺便说一句，Novavax正在测试Omicron更新，所以我们将看看他们发现了什么。
https://ir.novavax.com/Novavax...

@M96191366 @trailrunner402 @StillMask @alexmeshkin He was merely speculating in that thread, and he said so.

@M96191366@trailrunner402@StillMask@alexmeshkin他只是在推测这条线索，他是这么说的。

@M96191366 @trailrunner402 @StillMask @alexmeshkin No it doesn't. It's the exact same entire S protein as the other (spike) vaxes. If there does turn out to be a difference (possible, but not quite determined), it would have to do with packaging or adjuvant. And the RBD (which does mutate, a lot) is on S1, not S2.

@M96191366@trailrunner402@StillMask@alexmeshkin不，它与其他（spike）vax完全相同。如果事实证明确实存在差异（可能，但尚未完全确定），则与包装或佐剂有关。而RBD（变异很多）位于S1，而不是S2。

@doctorsaluja @ASlavitt @kprather88 Later it was named Epsilon, but it disappeared when more fit variants appeared (Alpha and Delta).

@doctorsaluja@ASlavitt@kprather88后来它被命名为Epsilon，但当出现更多合适的变体（Alpha和Delta）时，它就消失了。

@doctorsaluja @ASlavitt @kprather88 California had a worse mutant really. The California variant in winter of 2020-21 that ripped through LA (causing O2 shortages etc.) was sort of a proto-delta. Florida got vanilla covid at the time, and then everyone got delta later (post vax)
https://www.science.org/conten...

@加利福尼亚州博士Aluja@ASlavitt@kprather88有一个更糟糕的突变。2020-21年冬季，加州变种病毒横扫洛杉矶（造成氧气短缺等），有点像原始三角洲。当时佛罗里达州感染了香草型冠状病毒，后来每个人都感染了delta病毒（vax后）
https://www.science.org/conten...

@HFentonMudd @loscharlos @LongCovidNYC @CDCgov With holiday interruptions you can't take much from the reports until next week.

@HFentonMudd@loscharlos@LongCovidNYC@CDCgov有假期中断，你要到下周才能从报告中得到多少信息。

@JeromeAdamsMD Booster protection against infection wanes rapidly too. How many of those boosted were from six months ago or more?

@JeromeAdamsMD增强型抗感染保护也迅速减弱。其中有多少是六个月前或六个月以上的？

@rentonstreet @HelenBranswell Where is that from?

@HelenBranswell的rentonstreet是从哪里来的？

@trailrunner402 @StillMask @alexmeshkin Novavax isn't going to do much unless it's updated. It's still built on the OG extinct virus. But it may have less side effects at least.

@trailrunner402@StillMask@alexmeshkin Novavax除非更新，否则不会有多大作用。它仍然建立在已经灭绝的OG病毒之上。但至少它可能有较少的副作用。