Aeon 的最新消息
@ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein @HalCranmer Few disagree here. If cases drop to a very low level and stay there, few would argue for incurring costs, with the one caveat that *current* case levels aren't necessarily the right test, if cases are expected to potentially or imminently increase, that's worth some costs too.
@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein@HalCranmer在这里几乎没有人不同意。如果病例下降到非常低的水平并保持不变，很少有人会认为会产生成本，但有一点需要注意的是，目前的病例水平不一定是正确的测试，如果预计病例可能或即将增加，这也值得付出一些成本。
@IslandPirates77 @ChrisACole @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein @HalCranmer There is a lot of language in that paragraph that is just not applicable to community masking, such as that air "can pass through gaps" (how much air, and how much doesn't pass through gaps?). Or "can't be relied upon" (that's not the goal, the goal is risk *reduction*).
@IslandPirates77@ChrisACole@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein@HalCranmer该段中有很多语言不适用于社区掩蔽，比如空气“可以穿过缝隙”（有多少空气，有多少不穿过缝隙？）。或者“不可依赖”（这不是目标，目标是降低风险*）。
@IslandPirates77 @ChrisACole @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein @HalCranmer It depends on the objective, and 'not designed or certified' is really not the right test at all. Occupational PPE and community masking are two different problem spaces.
@IslandPirates77@ChrisACole@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein@HalCranmer这取决于目标，“未经设计或认证”实际上根本不是正确的测试。职业PPE和社区掩蔽是两个不同的问题空间。
@ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein @HalCranmer If for no other reason than just the statistical uncertainty (not to mention other sources of uncertainty is enormous). For the middle number, surgical masks, the range of reduction reported in the paper is 10%-87%. Turning that into one number is silly, done only for promotion.
@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein@HalCranmer，如果仅仅因为统计不确定性（更不用说其他不确定性来源是巨大的）。对于中等数量的口罩，论文中报告的减少范围为10%-87%。把它变成一个数字是愚蠢的，只是为了提升。
@HalCranmer @ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein Still hard to believe there isn't ANYTHING more important in that 76000. If not, then I guess we have relatively little to complain about.
@HalCranmer@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein仍然很难相信在这76000人中没有比这更重要的了。如果没有，那么我想我们就没有什么可抱怨的了。
@ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein @HalCranmer You're right, putting numbers like that on a graphic is questionable promotion. As with sensational headlines and press releases, it almost never comes from the scientists themselves, usually from a public relations form or staffer.
@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein@HalCranmer你说得对，把这样的数字放在图形上是值得怀疑的。就像耸人听闻的头条新闻和新闻稿一样，它几乎从不来自科学家本身，通常来自公共关系部门或工作人员。
@ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein @HalCranmer Good thing no one is doing that! Any one study of messy real world effect is going to be weak. Taken together there is enough evidence to form an effective consensus (this does not mean 100%, there will always be contrarians and those challenging a consensus, and this is fine).
@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein@HalCranmer幸好没人这么做！任何一项关于混乱现实世界影响的研究都将是薄弱的。综上所述，有足够的证据形成有效的共识（这并不意味着100%，总会有反对者和挑战共识的人，这很好）。
@IslandPirates77 @ChrisACole @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein @HalCranmer Norm is pretty subjective here. For half the world, the norm is masking *during outbreaks*, and a policy 'intervention' would be to not do that. There is no objective reason to think the subset of mask skeptical regions, mostly in the West, are the baseline or 'preferred' norm.
@岛上海盗77@ChrisACole@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein@HalCranmer Norm在这里相当主观。对世界上一半的人来说，标准是在疫情暴发期间掩盖疫情，政策“干预”是不这样做。没有客观理由认为主要在西方的面具怀疑区是基线或“首选”规范。
@ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein @HalCranmer Bias is possible but not this one since they report age, and the highest participation is 30-49 followed by 18-29.
@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein@HalCranmer可能存在偏见，但这不是因为他们报告年龄，参与率最高的是30-49岁，其次是18-29岁。
@HalCranmer @ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein Freedom is never absolute, including what you put on your body. You're required to wear clothes in most settings, often shoes, sometimes prohibited from wearing a hat or disguise mask (e.g. in banks). There are always balancing tests between freedom and functioning of society.
@HalCranmer@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein自由从来都不是绝对的，包括你穿在身上的东西。大多数场合都要求你穿衣服，通常是鞋子，有时禁止戴帽子或伪装面具（例如在银行）。自由和社会运作之间总是存在着平衡的考验。
@kprather88 Here's another one
https://twitter.com/joeyfox85/...
We stopped COVID in our home! My wife felt sick early last week and then tested positive (RAT). Everyone in our family is now negative. My kids and I never got it. We didn't resort to extreme measures like isolation or kids wearing N95s all day. This is how we did it:
1/11
@kprather88这是另一个
https://twitter.com/joeyfox85/...
我们在家里阻止了新冠病毒！我妻子上周早些时候感觉不舒服，然后检测呈阳性（老鼠）。我们家的每个人现在都是消极的。我和我的孩子们都不明白。我们没有采取极端措施，比如隔离或孩子们整天穿着N95。我们就是这样做的：
1/11
@HalCranmer @ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein Is it possible that different advice, for example, to use a surgical mask or better, and if you can't do that to use nothing, might be superior policy? Yes, that is possible, but there is nothing in these data (or elsewhere that I've seen) to support that.
@HalCranmer@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein是否可能有不同的建议，例如，使用外科口罩或更好的口罩，如果你不能做到这一点，不使用口罩，可能是更好的政策？是的，这是可能的，但这些数据（或我看到的其他地方）中没有支持这一点。
@HalCranmer @ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein The same data also show that the MIX of masks that people use is effective at a statistically significant level. So if you guide people to use masks, some use cloth and some use surgical, there is a statistically significant benefit at the population level. That's public health.
@HalCranmer@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein相同的数据还表明，人们使用的口罩组合在统计显著水平上是有效的。因此，如果你指导人们使用口罩，一些人使用布，一些人使用外科手术，在人口水平上有一个统计上显著的好处。这就是公共卫生。