@mamasaurusMeg @smitty8234 @violin_health @WADOHIssues @DocJeffD @KCPubHealth @masknerd No, that is based on physical testing. And I doubt the 90% is accurate on the basis of volume of emissions and viral load either. I've recently seen claims from experts that majority is 1-5, but I don't really know, and highly doubt you do.

@mamasaurusMeg @smitty8234 @violin_health @WADOHIssues @DocJeffD @KCPubHealth @masknerd 不，这是基于物理测试的。而且我怀疑 90% 是否基于排放量和病毒载量是准确的。我最近看到专家声称大多数是 1-5，但我真的不知道，并且非常怀疑你知道。

@AGoldsmithEsq That's the nature of anarchy (and IR is literally anarchy). Friends as long as and to the extent it is beneficial, and no longer.

@AGoldsmithEsq 这就是无政府状态的本质（而 IR 就是字面上的无政府状态）。朋友只要和在一定程度上是有益的，就不再。

@jultar2001 @StillMadGreek @twobluecats @DrEricDing @CDCgov 3/5 is almost certainly wrong, though maybe not for kids (unclear). CDC current best estimate is 30%, and some of those know it by testing.
2/3 of US not infected is also clearly wrong, relies only on reported cases, which is definitely a large undercount.

@jultar2001 @StillMadGreek @twobluecats @DrEricDing @CDCgov 3/5 几乎可以肯定是错误的，尽管可能不适合孩子（不清楚）。 CDC 目前的最佳估计是 30%，其中一些人通过测试知道这一点。
2/3 的美国未感染显然也是错误的，仅依靠报告的病例，这绝对是一个很大的低估。

@0xfbifemboy We will?

@0xfbifemboy 我们会吗？

@AGoldsmithEsq Poor choice of word. "Other actor in international relations" is more conceptually neutral, same point.

@AGoldsmithEsq 选词不当。 “国际关系中的其他行为者”在概念上更加中立，同样的观点。

@_TheAncientOne_ @OmicronData After all, you do clear the virus (at least mostly, reservoirs not entirely ruled out), so biology not compatible with reinfection w/same or very similar virus for at least some time.

@_TheAncientOne_ @OmicronData 毕竟，您确实清除了病毒（至少在大多数情况下，没有完全排除宿主），因此生物学至少在一段时间内与再次感染相同或非常相似的病毒不兼容。

@_TheAncientOne_ @OmicronData These data aren't even comparable. The study only measures for a few months, mostly shortly after first Omicron infection and the UK data excludes reinfections <90 days. Possible, and plausible, protection is high for a short time then wanes.

@_TheAncientOne_ @OmicronData 这些数据甚至没有可比性。该研究仅测量了几个月，主要是在第一次 Omicron 感染后不久，英国的数据不包括再感染

@AGoldsmithEsq Not necessarily. That might be worse. Sometimes its possible that an adversary just has the upper hand and refusing to accept that and acting on pure spite is not the right call. Not saying that is true, but it easily can be.

@AGoldsmithEsq 不一定。那可能会更糟。有时，对手可能只是占上风并拒绝接受这一点并纯粹出于恶意而采取行动并不是正确的选择。不是说这是真的，但它很容易成为。

@FreightAlley @RodAlzmann Probably true in some sectors, not necessarily true overall because it assumes immigrants don't contribute to aggregate demand, which is false.

@FreightAlley @RodAlzmann 在某些领域可能是正确的，但总体上不一定正确，因为它假设移民不会对总需求做出贡献，这是错误的。

@smitty8234 @violin_health @WADOHIssues @DocJeffD @KCPubHealth This is BS.
1. N95 filter much more than 95% across a range of sizes in practice (see pinned test data by @masknerd)
2. Assumes all exhaled are inhaled, only true if you're breathing directly into someone's airway or living inside a plastic bag.
3. No idea of numbers correct.

@smitty8234 @violin_health @WADOHIssues @DocJeffD @KCPubHealth 这是废话。
1. 在实践中，N95 过滤器在各种尺寸范围内的过滤率都超过 95%（参见@masknerd 的固定测试数据）
2. 假设所有呼出的气体都被吸入，仅当您直接呼吸到某人的气道或生活在塑料袋中时才是正确的。
3. 不知道数字是否正确。

@violin_health @WADOHIssues @DocJeffD @KCPubHealth This is true, also the graphic shows ways of getting better fit with surgical masks, it doesn't just suggest surgical masks or worse without anything else.

@violin_health @WADOHIssues @DocJeffD @KCPubHealth 这是真的，该图还显示了更好地佩戴外科口罩的方法，它不只是建议外科口罩或更糟糕的情况。

@_TheAncientOne_ @OmicronData Also, this number isn't exceptionally high, implies about 16% reinfection within one year.

@_TheAncientOne_ @OmicronData 另外，这个数字并不是特别高，意味着一年内大约有 16% 的再感染。

@_TheAncientOne_ @OmicronData I don't think that is clear. You could still have disproportionately more reinfections in unvaccinated, and also this doesn't separate out first infection. In fact I believe UK excludes reinfections <90 days which would itself exclude many Omicron-Omicron reinfections.

@_TheAncientOne_ @OmicronData 我认为这不是很清楚。在未接种疫苗的情况下，您仍然可能有更多的再感染，而且这并不能区分第一次感染。事实上，我相信英国不包括再感染

@WADOHIssues @DocJeffD @KCPubHealth Loose use of language on their part. It is partial protection i.e. exposure reduction. But then what isn't. I don't know of anything for anything that is 100% effective.

@WADOHIssues @DocJeffD @KCPubHealth 他们使用松散的语言。它是部分保护，即减少暴露。但那不是。我不知道任何100％有效的东西。

@OmicronData Study period is very short after first Omicron infection.

@OmicronData 首次感染 Omicron 后，研究时间非常短。

@_TheAncientOne_ @OmicronData 1. Is that stratified by vaccination status?
2. High protection doesn't imply "low" reinfection, just lower than otherwise.

@_TheAncientOne_ @OmicronData 1. 是否按疫苗接种状态分层？
2.高保护并不意味着“低”再感染，只是比其他低。

@StanphylCap He could just close now.

@StanphylCap 他现在可以关门了。

@Ari58394958 @MaskBreathable1 @DocJeffD If that were actually a real issue there are transparent masks that can easily be used for speech therapy. But since antimaskers are mostly arguing on the basis of emotion and politics, they're not interested in real solutions.

@Ari58394958 @MaskBreathable1 @DocJeffD 如果这实际上是一个真正的问题，那么透明面罩可以很容易地用于言语治疗。但由于反蒙面者大多是在情感和政治的基础上争论，他们对真正的解决方案不感兴趣。

@WADOHIssues @DocJeffD It's exposure reduction (esp w/good ventilation), not protection. Surgical mask filtration media is effective for small particles but fit is often poor.

@WADOHIssues @DocJeffD 这是减少暴露（尤其是通风良好），而不是保护。外科口罩过滤介质对小颗粒有效，但贴合性通常较差。

@jvipondmd https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@jvipondmd https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...