@ItalianoVV56 @briantylercohen @PollyannaP3 Obama too. In 2016 he was the 34th richest American worth $13 billion.

@意大利人v56@briantylercohen@PollyannaP3奥巴马也是。2016年，他是美国第34位最富有的人，价值130亿美元。

@matpVI Just wash your hands
https://twitter.com/TannisBell...

@matpVI只要洗手
https://twitter.com/TannisBell...

@wsbgnl That'll fix it.

@wsbgnl将修复它。

@itshullabalulu 85-90% survival rate

@其生存率为85-90%

@VirginiaBuysse @mskathleenquinn Even setting aside transmission, 20k courses per day is a pittance when there are several hundred thousand cases per day and most qualify as "high risk". It's not getting to the people who need it.

@VirginiaBuysse@mskathleenquinn即使撇开传播不谈，当每天有几十万个病例时，每天2万个疗程也是微不足道的，而且大多数都属于“高风险”。它无法送达需要它的人。

@santiagokique He's not a physician. He's an economist who happens to have a medical degree, but no license to practice and has never practiced.

@圣地亚哥·库克他不是医生。他是一位经济学家，碰巧有医学学位，但没有执业许可证，也从未执业过。

@x3r0gxx @xabitron1 https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@x3r0gxx @xabitron1 https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@xabitron1 Nah, only spreads by "close contact"

@Xabitron 1不，仅通过“密切接触”传播

@alexmeshkin Let them eat...less.

@亚历克斯·梅希金让他们吃。。。较少的

@meabh_mcmahon @jbakcoleman It's not. If there is no goal and severity is a random walk then it is extremely unlikely we're at the future maximum right now.

@Meabhu mcmahon@jbakcoleman不是。如果没有目标，严重性是随机的，那么我们现在极不可能达到未来的最大值。

@joaquinlife One. Without reinfection you could arguably see it as everybody going to get infected so get it over with. But with reinfection, rate of transmission and frequency of reinfections matters greatly.

@joaquinlife一号。如果没有再感染，你可以认为每个人都会被感染，所以赶紧结束吧。但对于再感染，传播率和再感染频率至关重要。

@mMekota @vgr I meant disparity between US (2x) and rest of world (about 10x, after accounting for undercount). US was certainly richer than many but wasn't even the predominant superpower at that time, and even "advanced" medical care in 1918 had little to offer.

@mMekota@vgr我指的是我们和世界其他国家之间的差距（2倍），在考虑到数量不足后，大约是10倍）。美国当然比许多国家更富有，但当时甚至不是主要的超级大国，甚至1918年的“先进”医疗保健也没有什么可提供的。

@catladyactivist @dianemann0613 I remember this one from early in the pandemic. It was attributed to job stress, but who knows.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...

@catladyactivist@dianemann0613我在大流行早期就记得这个。这归因于工作压力，但谁知道呢。
https://www.theguardian.com/us...

@vgr Interesting disparity in population fatality in any case.

@在任何情况下，vgr在人群死亡率方面都存在有趣的差异。

@vgr Million in US is a bit of an underestimate too, but not as much of one.
All of the 1918 numbers are all estimates so apples-to-apples is best estimate from studies not official count.

@美国的百万vgr也有点被低估了，但没有低估那么多。
所有1918年的数字都是估计数，所以苹果对苹果是研究而非官方统计得出的最佳估计数。

@vgr https://www.nature.com/article...

VGRhttps://www.nature.com/article...

@ShiraDoronMD "as well as it would if others were wearing it too"
This is 100% false.

@ShiraDoronMD“就像其他人也穿着它一样”
这是完全错误的。

@OmicronData @ENirenberg @jbakcoleman @notdred That's better model, yes.

@OmicronData@ENirenberg@jbakcoleman@notdred这是更好的模型，是的。

@celinegounder Nobody is "losing sight of the endgame". They all know that vaccines are quite protective against hospitalization and death. They are pointing out that even "mild" frequent infections have high individual, family, school, workplace, and societal impact.
https://twitter.com/chrislhaye...

@没有人“看不到结局”。他们都知道疫苗对住院和死亡有很大的保护作用。他们指出，即使是“轻微”的频繁感染也会对个人、家庭、学校、工作场所和社会产生巨大影响。
https://twitter.com/chrislhaye...

@OmicronData @ENirenberg @jbakcoleman @notdred The 50% in six months = 1 per year model assumes that the people infected in the next six months will be the other 50%. But if the same people have high exposure constantly, it may be that same 50% getting infected again. (Of course, not entirely.)

@OmicronData@ENirenberg@jbakcoleman@notdred六个月内50%的人=每年1人模型假设在未来六个月内感染的人将是其他50%。但如果同样的人经常接触高浓度的病毒，那么同样的50%可能会再次感染。（当然，并非完全如此。）