@lebon80 @andyaschmidt @EricTopol @PNASNews @g_leech_ We mostly don't. There are a huge number of uncontrolled variables, and the relatively small number of randomized studies are of poor quality, especially low N (i.e. weak power).

@lebon80@andyaschmidt@EricTopol@PNASNews@g\u leech\uU我们大多没有。有大量不受控变量，相对较少的随机研究质量较差，尤其是低氮（即弱功率）。

@spooknine @Noahpinion There's no particular reason to think a fixed term is a good idea. If someone is doing a shitty job (no view on Chesa, don't particularly follow it), hit the road.

@spooknine@Noahpinion没有特别的理由认为固定期限是个好主意。如果有人在做一件差劲的工作（没有对Chesa的看法，不要特别关注它），那就上路吧。

@Lujan588 @nailatrahman @yaneerbaryam Interesting development. Surprised it took so long really. China ships KN95s all over the world but barely uses them was always a head scratcher.

@Lujan588@nailatrahman@yaneerbaryam有趣的发展。真奇怪花了这么长时间。中国将KN95运到世界各地，但几乎没有使用它们，这一直是一个令人头痛的问题。

@Westegnen @ArtVand67892245 @yaneerbaryam Hard to say. (Many) elderly don't want it. We could say "be more authoritarian and force them", but that's not exactly an easy ethical or practical argument, and it ignores long covid which is poorly understood. China may be making a different risk calculation.

@Westegnen@ArtVand67892245@yaneerbaryam很难说。（许多）老年人不想要它。我们可以说“更加独裁并强迫他们”，但这并不是一个简单的伦理或实际的论点，它忽视了人们对长冠状病毒知之甚少的问题。中国可能正在进行不同的风险计算。

@Westegnen @ArtVand67892245 @yaneerbaryam For 25m in Shanghai and a few other cities with hard lockdowns generally once in two years, yes very tough. For most of the 1.4b in China, not the case. Doesn't make it easier for those who did experience it.

@Westegnen@ArtVand67892245@yaneerbaryam在上海和其他一些城市的2500万美元的资金，通常两年一次，是的，非常困难。对于中国14亿人口中的大多数人来说，情况并非如此。并没有让那些经历过的人更容易接受。

@1883Of @nailatrahman @yaneerbaryam Also fair.

@1883年，yaneerbaryam的nailatrahman也很公平。

@1883Of @nailatrahman @yaneerbaryam Travel makes spread independently verifiable. For example, Japan has tested every arriving traveler since 2020, including many from China. Positive rate from China has been consistently extremely low compared to other places. Therefore low-covid in China = fact, not claim.

@1883年，yaneerbaryam Travel的nailatrahman使传播可独立验证。例如，自2020年以来，日本对每一位入境旅客进行了测试，其中包括许多来自中国的旅客。与其他地方相比，中国的阳性率一直极低。因此，中国的低冠状病毒=事实，而不是声称。

@1883Of @nailatrahman @yaneerbaryam It's hard to tell what happened in early 2020 when there was rampant spread, more isolation, and clearly more virus-driven activity (visible from satellites, etc.). Those numbers are very plausibly bullshit. Since then, not so much.

@1883年的今天，很难说2020年初发生了什么，当时传播猖獗，隔离加剧，病毒驱动的活动明显增多（从卫星等可见）。这些数字似乎都是胡说八道。从那以后，就没那么多了。

@1883Of @nailatrahman @yaneerbaryam It's easy to see if infections are widespread as long as there is travel. So far infections have been low, as claimed.

@1883年的今天，只要有旅行，就很容易看出感染是否普遍。正如所声称的那样，到目前为止，感染率一直很低。

@Westegnen @ArtVand67892245 @yaneerbaryam Shanghai is <2% of China population. The average person in China has experienced maybe one lockdown of moderate severity in two years (mostly in early 2020).
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@Westegnen@ArtVand67892245@yaneerbaryam上海is<；占中国人口的2%。中国普通人在两年内（主要是2020年初）可能经历过一次中度闭锁。
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@LancasterT18 @denise_dewald @Bob_Wachter A lot
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

@Lancaster18@denise\u dewald@Bob\u Wachter很多
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

@DavidWa57473731 @daveanthony The other research says the SAME thing as the CDC study does. She's got nothing to base her dismissal, other than pixie dust.

@DavidWa57473731@daveanthony另一项研究与CDC的研究得出了相同的结论。她没有任何理由被解雇，除了精灵灰尘。

@costrike @Bob_Wachter It's 23% in high where his conditions are already met. That's not rare.

@costrike@Bob\u Wachter在他的条件已经满足的情况下，这一比例高达23%。这并不罕见。

@DavidWa57473731 @daveanthony It's not just CDC research. There are several other studies showing the same thing.

@DavidWa57473731@daveanthony这不仅仅是CDC的研究。其他几项研究也显示了同样的情况。

@nyjohns5 @ArtVand67892245 @yaneerbaryam Considering why Shanghai was the only city that needed to do this despite several having omicron outbreaks. It's avoidable.

@nyjohns5@ArtVand67892245@yaneerbaryam考虑到为什么上海是唯一需要这样做的城市，尽管有几次omicron疫情爆发。这是可以避免的。

@31254NigerDelta @Wakevah @ArtVand67892245 @yaneerbaryam I don't have an answer for tourism, other than only accepting from other ZC countries (prob just China). China seems willing to make that tradeoff.

@31254NigerDelta@Wakevah@ArtVand67892245@yaneerbaryam我对旅游业没有答案，除了只接受其他ZC国家（可能只有中国）。中国似乎愿意做出这种权衡。

@31254NigerDelta @Wakevah @ArtVand67892245 @yaneerbaryam Mass testing. Which worked in several China cities against Omicron w/o harsh lockdown unlike Shanghai which resisted doing it for too long once cases started spreading.

@31254NigerDelta@Wakevah@ArtVand67892245@yaneerbaryam质量测试。该公司在中国多个城市针对Omicron采取了严厉的封锁措施，而不像上海，一旦案件开始蔓延，上海就拒绝这么做太久。

@andyaschmidt @EricTopol @PNASNews @g_leech_ R0 probably isn't 15 either. A lot of those estimates of "twice as infectious" were confusing immune escape with increased R0. Hard to measure though, with very few having no immunity.

@andyaschmidt@EricTopol@PNASNews@g\u leech\ur0可能也不是15岁。许多关于“传染性加倍”的估计将免疫逃逸与R0增加混淆了。但很难衡量，很少有人没有免疫力。

@andyaschmidt @EricTopol @PNASNews @g_leech_ A lot of spread happens where people aren't wearing masks, so the reduction is much larger in places where they are to get a 19% average. So getting people masked up in pharmacies, transit, workplaces, etc. reduces risk to people who have to be there by much more than 19%.

@andyaschmidt@EricTopol@PNASNews@g\u leech\u很多传播发生在人们不戴口罩的地方，因此在他们想要获得19%平均值的地方，减少的幅度要大得多。因此，让人们在药店、交通工具、工作场所等处蒙面，可以将不得不去那里的人的风险降低19%以上。

@floydophone @LupineChemist @adamnvillani @JLarky @antoniogm It comes from the individual precinct voting results which are public in most states. The same maps shown on TV on election night when analyzing the vote. Mostly it gets ignored except by wonks starting the next day.

@floydophone@LupineChemist@adamnvillani@JLarky@antoniogm它来自大多数州公开的个别选区投票结果。在选举之夜分析选票时，电视上显示的同样的地图。大多数情况下，除了第二天开始的书呆子，它都会被忽视。