@IshmaelMcgoo @CovidDataReport A lot of the most vulnerable, who would otherwise have gotten vaccinated, died in 2020 (nursing home residents for example). Both populations have survivorship bias.
Agree on there being other outcomes besides "fine" and "death".

@IshmaelMcgoo@CovidDataReport许多最脆弱的人在2020年死亡（比如养老院的居民），他们本来可以接种疫苗的。这两个群体都存在生存偏差。
同意除了“罚款”和“死亡”还有其他结果。

@JeromeAdamsMD Wasn't a close contact "as defined by the CDC"
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@JeromeAdamsMD不是CDC定义的亲密接触者
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@cattzee3 @CovidDataReport 30%

@cattzee3@CovidDataReport 30%

@LogicalMD33 @VanGennepD @JimRosenthal4 There is data right in the first tweet. Can you read?

@LogicalMD33@VanGennepD@JimRosenthal4第一条推文中有数据。你会读书吗？

@CovidDataReport Don't let people gaslight you about the "base rate fallacy". The US is only 65% vaccinated. Vaccines are reducing deaths proportionately in the vaccinated but IT ISN'T AN OVERWELMING, NEARLY 100% REDUCTION. Not even close.

@CovidDataReport不要让人们告诉你“基本利率谬误”。美国只有65%接种了疫苗。在接种疫苗的人群中，疫苗按比例减少了死亡人数，但这并不是过度劳累，几乎是100%的减少。甚至都不接近。

@positivelyafan @amyriscool @EricTopol @LukeMMoney @ronlin What Dr. Topol said was "so much for the pandemic being over". If you're already taking precautions, a reasonable way to take that is "keep doing what you're doing".

@积极的Yafan@amyriscool@EricTopol@LukeMMoney@ronlin Topol博士所说的“大流行已经结束了”。如果你已经采取了预防措施，一个合理的方法就是“继续做你正在做的事情”。

@positivelyafan @amyriscool @EricTopol @LukeMMoney @ronlin Nobody above you in the thread showed any signs of freaking out or even said to "get ready" (I can't speak for the entirety of the rest fo the thread, hard to read it all).
You seem to be projecting something that isn't there.

@积极的Yafan@amyriscool@EricTopol@LukeMMoney@ronlin在帖子中，你上面的人没有表现出任何惊慌失措的迹象，甚至没有人说“准备好”（我不能代表帖子的其余部分，很难全部阅读）。
你似乎在投射一些不存在的东西。

@VanGennepD @JimRosenthal4 Yeah that's what I was thinking as air conditioner foam filter.

@VanGennepD@JimRosenthal4是的，这就是我所想的空调泡沫过滤器。

@VanGennepD @JimRosenthal4 I suspect you are right, but there is an obvious tradeoff here. The MERV8 isn't filtering small particles so I would imagine it has to be doing SOMETHING to catch e.g. dust better than a thin piece of foam or such. I have no idea what level of filtration+impedance best, if any.

@VanGennepD@JimRosenthal4我想你是对的，但这里有一个明显的权衡。MERV8没有过滤小颗粒，所以我认为它必须做一些事情来捕捉灰尘，比一块薄薄的泡沫或类似的东西更好。我不知道什么级别的过滤+阻抗最好，如果有的话。

@RayJLeBlanc @JimRosenthal4 Yes I've thought about that too, like loosely woven cloth or a cheap foam "air conditioner filter". I just wonder if anyone has tested this.

@RayJLeBlanc@JimRosenthal4是的，我也考虑过这个问题，比如宽松的织物或廉价的泡沫“空调过滤器”。我只是想知道是否有人测试过这个。

@positivelyafan @amyriscool @EricTopol @LukeMMoney @ronlin Taking sensible precautious isn't being afraid you'll die any more than is driving safely or wearing a seat belt. It's smart not scared.

@积极的Yafan@amyriscool@EricTopol@LukeMMoney@ronlin采取明智的预防措施，并不比安全驾驶或系安全带更担心你会死。不害怕是明智的。

@JimRosenthal4 Is it worth putting a MERV8 outside the MERV13 to collect large dust and (maybe?) make the MERV13 last longer, or would the pressure drop and added cost not be worth it?

@JimRosenthal4是否值得在MERV13外放置一个MERV8来收集大量灰尘和（可能？）灰尘让MERV13持续更长时间，否则压降和增加的成本不值得吗？

@MrTheposter @JennaLuche @GooglyChess1 @Gab_H_R @a__virologist @VincentRK @DrEricDing @EricTopol @Tuliodna @RajlabN @RajeevJayadevan @RijoMJohn First paragraph calls it BA 2.12. So not clear.

@MrTheposter@JennaLuche@GooglyChess1@Gab_H_R@a__病毒学家@VincentRK@Drericing@EricTopol@Tuliodna@RajlabN@RajeevJayadevan@RijoMJohn第一段称之为BA 2.12。所以不清楚。

@IPEdmonton @lisa_iannattone @Don_Milton https://t.co/LYc5SzdG2G

@IPEdmonton@lisa_iannattone@Don_Miltonhttps://t.co/LYc5SzdG2G

@LisaForKansas For example
https://khub.net/documents/135... https://t.co/dsMckOABkF

@比如利萨福坎萨斯
https://khub.net/documents/135...对不起，对不起。https://t.co/dsMckOABkF

@LisaForKansas There are a collection of studies here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mo...

@LisaForKansas这里有一系列研究https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mo...

@LisaForKansas In careful studies, including from UK, which adjust for risk, the negative efficacy disappears and it ends up being something like 70-90% depending on specifics.

@LisaForKansas在包括英国在内的仔细研究中，根据风险进行调整后，负面效应消失，根据具体情况，其最终约为70-90%。

@beantowndancer @MelpomeneMel @WHCommsDir Yes nearly all talk of "mild" or "severe" refers only to the acute phase and ignores long covid.

@Beantowndacer@MelpomeneMel@WHCommsDir是的，几乎所有关于“轻度”或“重度”的说法都只指急性期，而忽略了长期新冠病毒。

@LisaForKansas This is due to higher risk being disproportionately boosted.
Boosters work, but not 100%, and not close enough to 100% to render resulting boosted deaths negligible.

@利萨福肯色州：这是因为更高的风险被不成比例地提高了。
助推器起作用，但不是100%，也不足以100%地使增加的死亡率可以忽略不计。

@LisaForKansas There are plenty of boosted deaths in the US too. In February, 15% of deaths were boosted, 25% were vaccinated unboosted. i.e. 37.5% of vaccinated deaths were boosted.
https://twitter.com/wsbgnl/sta...

@LisaForKansas在美国也有很多人死亡。2月份，死亡人数增加了15%，25%未接种疫苗。i、 e.37.5%的接种疫苗死亡人数增加。
https://twitter.com/wsbgnl/sta...