@HalCranmer @ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein That's not what the data in this study show. The data show that they're probably effective, but not at the mostly-arbitrary p=0.05 level. Instead of was p=0.10.
Probably effective but can't be sure is a reasonable interpretion.

@HalCranmer@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein这不是本研究中的数据所显示的。数据显示，它们可能是有效的，但在大多数任意的p=0.05水平上并不有效。而不是p=0.10。
可能有效，但不能确定这是一个合理的解释。

@HalCranmer @ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein Also, particularly in observational data, the p=0.05 threshold for "statistical significance" is arbitrary. In this case the results are just barely below the threshold. Taken in context with the other highly significant results (including cross views of the same data), its fine.

@HalCranmer@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein同样，尤其是在观测数据中，“统计显著性”的p=0.05阈值是任意的。在这种情况下，结果仅略低于阈值。考虑到其他非常重要的结果（包括相同数据的交叉视图），它很好。

@HalCranmer @ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein It shows lack of scientific competence and credibility on the part of the critic.
In this specific case, "Not statistically significant" refers to only a small part of the results but he fails to even acknowledge that most of results ARE. Bad faith.
Can't have it both ways.

@HalCranmer@ChrisACole@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@J_D_Klein这表明评论家缺乏科学能力和可信度。
在这种特殊情况下，“无统计学意义”指的只是结果的一小部分，但他甚至没有承认大多数结果都是有意义的。恶意
不能两全其美。

@HalCranmer @ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein https://twitter.com/zorinaq/st...

@halcranmer@chrisacole@islandpirates77@elaine hali@j d kleinhttps://twitter.com/zorinaq/st...

@ChrisACole @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @J_D_Klein @HalCranmer https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volum...

@chrisacole@islandpirates77@elaine hali@j d klein@halcranmerhttps://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volum...

@TypsyGypsyDance @aeis17 NYC has over 300k workers. This is well within the range of normal attrition.

@纽约aeis17的TypsyGypsyDance有超过30万名员工。这完全在正常磨损范围内。

@SewFaceMasks @AbraarKaran The answer is no, clearly.

@SewFaceMasks@AbraarKaran答案显然是否定的。

@blufreezy @vonKriegstein @BommerBommer The right question is what outcomes would be over the same time period in the same place without the passports. Obviously this can't be known with certainty, all you can do is reason about it.

@blufreezy@vonKriegstein@BommerBommer正确的问题是，如果没有护照，在同一时间段内，在同一个地方会有什么结果。显然，这不能确定无疑，你所能做的就是对它进行推理。

@QuantVol This is bordering on metaphysical. 'Income' is generally (maybe always) in compensation for something.
It's not economic profit, that's true. There is an offsetting contingent liability.

@“这几乎是形而上学。”“收入”通常（可能总是）是对某事的补偿。
这不是经济利润，这是真的。存在抵消或有负债。

@DrLeanaWen @kprather88 @DrOz @BMore_Healthy It was sad in 2015 too
https://www.livescience.com/50...

@DrLeanaWen@kprather88@DrOz@BMore_Health 2015年也很悲伤
https://www.livescience.com/50...

@fetanylfloyd @danaparish @Riginal_Zen It was changed because it was confusing. The word "immunity" does not mean 100% effective sterilizing immunity and "old" vaccines often don't provide it either (never 100% in any case), including IPV (polio), mumps, influenza and others.

@fetanylfloyd@danaparish@original_-Zen之所以更改，是因为它令人困惑。“免疫力”一词并不意味着100%有效的消毒免疫力，“旧”疫苗通常也不能提供免疫力（在任何情况下都不能提供100%），包括IPV（脊髓灰质炎）、腮腺炎、流感等。

@fetanylfloyd @danaparish @Riginal_Zen Not sure what you're attempting to suggest with "rushed" either.
Of course they are rushed!
When you have thousands of people dying per day, millions in total, you rush as much as feasible to try to help.
Would be nice to have 10-20 years to do research. That's not reality.

@fetanylfloyd@danaparish@original_Zen也不确定你想用“匆忙”来暗示什么。
他们当然很匆忙！
当你每天有数千人死亡，总计数百万人时，你会尽可能匆忙地去帮助他们。
如果能有10到20年的时间做研究就好了。这不是现实。

@fetanylfloyd @danaparish @Riginal_Zen Not one vaccine in history, regardless of definition, was ever 100% effective. Not one.
Less than 100% effective does not mean "don't work".
Again regardless of definition death rates if vaccinated and boosted are much lower. That's working. Could be better.

@fetanylfloyd@danaparish@original_Zen历史上没有一种疫苗，无论定义如何，都是100%有效的。一个也没有。
低于100%的有效率并不意味着“不工作”。
同样，无论定义如何，如果接种疫苗并提高死亡率，死亡率都要低得多。这很有效。可能会更好。

@fetanylfloyd @danaparish @Riginal_Zen If 10 people who get a booster would have died, and 9 survive instead, then one died.
That doesn't mean it "didn't work", it just means it isn't perfect. Few things are. But still very effective.

@fetanylfloyd@danaparish@original_-Zen如果10名接受助推器的人死亡，9名幸存，那么其中一人死亡。
这并不意味着它“不起作用”，它只是意味着它并不完美。很少有事情是这样的。但仍然非常有效。

@wsbgnl January deaths to Jan 23 (current end of data set) would likely be only partially Omicron, which was declared dominant Dec 21. To the extent the apparent trend of increasing relative vulnerability of vaxed is due to Omicron, this count understates it, perhaps by half.

@wsbgnl 1月至1月23日（数据集的当前末尾）的死亡人数可能仅为部分Omicron，该公司于12月21日宣布占主导地位。在某种程度上，VAX相对脆弱性增加的明显趋势是由Omicron造成的，这个数字低估了它，可能是一半。

@wsbgnl You might find this analysis of California data interesting.
👀January/Omicron
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@wsbgnl你可能会发现对加州数据的分析很有趣。
👀1月/Omicron
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@AndrewNoymer @DLeonhardt 920,000 did.

@AndrewNoymer@DLeonhardt 920000做到了。

@HalCranmer @IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @ChrisACole @J_D_Klein Roughly 95% of the people in the study were using masks at least some of the time. You would expect more infections in a group 19 times larger, even with significant reduction in risk ratio (which is what the study found).

@HalCranmer@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@ChrisACole@J_D_Klein研究中大约95%的人至少有一段时间使用口罩。即使风险比显著降低（这是研究发现的），你也会预计19倍大的群体会出现更多感染。

@IslandPirates77 @elaine_hali @ChrisACole @J_D_Klein @HalCranmer Because when you break down by type of mask the number of participants drops in each subgroup so lower confidence in the result, particularly for cloth masks where the effect was smaller. In the study group, most people were using surgical or better.

@IslandPirates77@elaine_hali@ChrisACole@J_D_Klein@HalCranmer，因为当你按口罩类型分类时，每个亚组的参与者人数都会下降，因此对结果的信心较低，尤其是对效果较小的布口罩。在研究组中，大多数人使用外科手术或更好的方法。

@fitterhappierAJ "most Americans cannot even point it out on a map"
That's almost all of the world and probably at least half the US states.

@fitterhappierAJ“大多数美国人甚至不能在地图上指出它”
这几乎涵盖了全世界，可能至少占美国一半的州。