@wewereimmortal @wsbgnl @gregggonsalves @DLeonhardt The polls are asking different questions. This is asking if people are wearing masks (the various polls ask in slightly different ways). That's not the same thing as asking, hypothetically, if masks should be required (e.g. if case are surging).

@WewereimMantal@wsbgnl@gregggonsalves@DLeonhardt民意测验提出了不同的问题。这是在问人们是否戴着面具（不同的民意调查要求的方式略有不同）。这与假设地询问是否需要口罩（例如，如果案件激增）不是一回事。

@jfeldman_epi In terms of "why did such and such place have masks and still have a surge", a 12% reduction is only going to "prevent" a surge in a the narrow case where R is between 1 and 1.12. Most surges trigger with R well above that.

@jfeldman\u epi关于“为什么某地有面具，但仍有激增”，减少12%只会“防止”在R介于1和1.12之间的狭窄情况下的激增。大多数浪涌在R远高于R时触发。

@jfeldman_epi So the net pop-level reduction is maybe 12.5%, which is hard to see in gross numbers. This number is low, in part because masks not used everywhere. But it does make people who are trying to stay safe MUCH safer when they are are in mixed public environment where masks are used.

@jfeldman\u epi因此，pop水平的净下降率可能为12.5%，这很难从总数中看出。这个数字很低，部分原因是没有在任何地方使用口罩。但当人们身处使用口罩的混合公共环境中时，这确实会让那些试图保持安全的人更加安全。

@jfeldman_epi Setting aside that it is all disingenuous antimaskism, as you demonstrate, the original premise isn't hard to understand. Community masks reduce pop-level transmission by about 25%. Mandates increase masking by some %, let's say 50% (e.g. 25%->75%)

@jfeldman\u epi抛开所有虚伪的反马斯克主义不谈，正如你所证明的，最初的前提并不难理解。社区口罩可将流行性感冒的传播减少约25%。授权会使掩蔽增加约%，比如说50%（例如，25%->；75%）

@wabbit011235813 @wsbgnl @gregggonsalves @DLeonhardt I'm seriously doubting they are nytimes subscribes. While male republicans HATE the nytimes.

@wabbit011235813@wsbgnl@gregggonsalves@DLeonhardt我很怀疑他们是《纽约时报》的订户。而男性共和党人讨厌《纽约时报》。

@wsbgnl @gregggonsalves @DLeonhardt Support is plenty strong among independents which one would think ought to be interesting and compelling to people like Leonhardt who probably considers himself a moderate speaking to moderates. And yet...

@wsbgnl@gregggonsalves@DLeonhardt在独立人士中的支持力度很大，人们会认为这对像Leonhardt这样可能认为自己是温和派人士的温和派人士来说应该是有趣和有吸引力的。然而。。。

@_stah @MatthewDavidH @jAndyGeorge @michael04121218 @ibrake4ants I've also seen the argument that most infections happen within households, which is not quite the same thing as gatherings. It also seems a bit questionable given attack rates and household sizes, but either way, still requires transmission between households to sustain.

@_stah@MatthewDavidH@jAndyGeorge@michael04121218@ibrake4ants我也看到了这样一种观点，即大多数感染发生在家庭内部，这与聚会不完全相同。考虑到发病率和家庭规模，这似乎有点可疑，但无论如何，仍需要家庭之间的传播来维持。

@_stah @MatthewDavidH @jAndyGeorge @michael04121218 @ibrake4ants I'm seriously doubting this. How many people gather in a home with others from outside the household *frequently* (not just occasional holidays)? Particularly in cities with smaller homes? It just doesn't happen that much.

@_stah@MatthewDavidH@jAndyGeorge@michael04121218@ibrake4ants我对此深表怀疑。有多少人经常（而不仅仅是偶尔的假期）与其他人聚集在一个家里？尤其是在住房面积较小的城市？只是发生的不多。

@_stah It's a good point for holidays, but still, holiday with big indoor gatherings only really happen on a large scale a few times a year.

@_斯塔：这是度假的好时机，但尽管如此，大型室内聚会的度假每年只会发生几次。

@wewereimmortal @wsbgnl @gregggonsalves @DLeonhardt Now if you look specifically at polls of mask wearing, as opposed to intent, you see almost exactly what has happened in reality, a huge drop. This is a composite of several polls for Ireland from IHME https://t.co/fHXLQkc8Zj

@WewereimMantal@wsbgnl@gregggonsalves@DLeonhardt现在如果你特别关注戴面具的民意调查，而不是意图，你几乎可以看到事实上发生了什么，大幅下降。这是IHME对爱尔兰的几项民意调查的综合结果https://t.co/fHXLQkc8Zj

@wewereimmortal @wsbgnl @gregggonsalves @DLeonhardt Questions like that are not asking people to swear a blood oath. They're asking about current intent, which can, and does, change over time according to conditions including the bahavior of others. It's still a very different question from supporting a mandate.

@WewereimMantal@wsbgnl@gregggonsalves@DLeonhardt这样的问题并不是要求人们宣誓献血。他们在询问当前的意图，这种意图可以而且确实会随着时间的推移而改变，具体情况包括其他人的行为。这与支持授权仍然是一个非常不同的问题。

@John_Kenney @sri_srikrishna @AdithyaR_YXE @Globalbiosec Unlikely? LOL
Agree about ventilation. Some nasty stuff comes out of burning gas, not just CO2.

@John\u Kenney@sri\u srikrishna@AdithyaR\u YXE@全球白化病不太可能？哈哈大笑
同意通风。一些讨厌的东西来自燃气，而不仅仅是二氧化碳。

@sri_srikrishna I think you need to consider density and a classroom might well "need" more than 6-12 ACH, or at least might consider higher ACH to be comparable mitigation as lower ACH in a less dense environment. But you do what you can of course, more is better than less.

@sri\u srikrishna我认为你需要考虑密度，一个教室很可能“需要”超过6-12 ACH，或者至少可以考虑在密度较低的环境中，较高的ACH可以与较低的ACH相比。但你尽你所能，当然，多多益善。

@alexmeshkin https://twitter.com/itshullaba...

@亚历克斯·梅希金https://twitter.com/itshullaba...

@wsbgnl What this comes down to is every single demographic slice in favor except Republicans/Trump voters/antivax/anti-abortion, which is all mostly the same group.

@wsbgnl得出的结论是，除了共和党/特朗普选民/反瓦克斯/反堕胎的人群外，所有人都支持每一个人口。

@danaparish @Incindery1 That's exactly why.

@danaparish@Incindery1这就是为什么。

@DailyJLee Responding to a vehicle?

@每日查看对车辆的响应？

@x3r0gxx @jmcrookston A few of the influencers did effectively say that.

@x3r0gxx@jmcrookston一些有影响力的人确实这么说了。

@moneroboating @OrangeHODLr If you can encrypt to an archive file locally you can use any cloud service.

@moneroboating@OrangeHODLr如果您可以在本地加密到存档文件，那么您可以使用任何云服务。

@yaneerbaryam It would be very interesting to look at the implicit and explicit influence factors that result in a person saying that 3-6% is not very high. It's not a natural thing for most normal people to say.

@yaneerbaryam研究一下导致一个人说3-6%不是很高的内隐和外显影响因素将是非常有趣的。对于大多数正常人来说，这不是一件自然的事。