@Trumpistas @chrislhayes @JudahWorldChamp US advantage also in wealth (per capita GDP) and population density. Nothing else matters.

@特朗普主义者@chrislhayes@JudahWorldChamp美国在财富（人均GDP）和人口密度方面也占据优势。其他什么都不重要。

@Trumpistas @chrislhayes @JudahWorldChamp Rows (BMI=1.1%) https://t.co/gYx2WpvzI7

@特朗普主义者@chrislhayes@JudaWorldChamp Rows（BMI=1.1%）https://t.co/gYx2WpvzI7

@Trumpistas @chrislhayes @JudahWorldChamp I just noticed this paper. Age is about 40x more important than obesity in terms of country IFR. So it doesn't even matter what the obesity rates are. By age (the most important factor by far), US was at an advantage to Germany, but did worse.
https://www.thelancet.com/acti... https://t.co/Jr5zF6mcm2

@特朗普主义者@chrislhayes@JudahWorldChamp我刚刚注意到这篇文章。就国家IFR而言，年龄比肥胖重要40倍左右。所以肥胖率是多少都无关紧要。按年龄（到目前为止最重要的因素）计算，美国对德国处于优势，但情况更糟。
https://www.thelancet.com/acti... https://t.co/Jr5zF6mcm2

@james1chas3 @DrTomFrieden He's never replied afaik. It's a post-only account likely run by a PR firm.

@james1chas3@DrTomFrieden他从来没有回复过。这是一个可能由一家公关公司运营的专递账户。

@ASlavitt @ezraklein The headline is very misleading.
The trust factor that "mattered" according to the article, only accounted for about 24% of the differences in outcomes, according to the paper. https://t.co/coE3nspb7Q

@ASlavitt@ezraklein这个标题很容易引起误解。
根据这篇文章，“重要”的信任因素仅占结果差异的24%。https://t.co/coE3nspb7Q

@selise @ASlavitt @ezraklein Not at all inconsistent. The trust stuff talked about in the article was only about 20%.

@selise@ASlavitt@ezraklein一点也不矛盾。文章中提到的信任度仅为20%左右。

@selise @ASlavitt @ezraklein How much people trust each other in society was a bigger factor than trust in the administration.
That said, all these factors together only accounted for less than half of the differences in outcomes.

@selise@ASlavitt@ezraklein人们在社会中相互信任的程度是比信任政府更重要的因素。
也就是说，所有这些因素加起来只占结果差异的不到一半。

@myrabatchelder @ASlavitt @ezraklein It's really only looking at preexisting conditions by country and concludes that 60% of the differences in outcomes are not related to those preexisting conditions. It doesn't have anything to say about response or policies, although those would be included in the 60%

@MyraBatcheld@ASlavitt@ezraklein这实际上只是按国家分析了先前存在的情况，并得出结论，60%的结果差异与那些先前存在的情况无关。它没有关于回应或政策的任何内容，尽管这些内容将包含在60%的预算中

@wsbgnl https://t.co/t2ZGixsnLa

@wsbgnlhttps://t.co/t2ZGixsnLa

@stargazing90 @MelpomeneMel One Dr's observation in the thread.
https://twitter.com/ToshiAkima...

@stargazing90@MelpomeneMel One博士在线程中的观察。
https://twitter.com/ToshiAkima...

@ASlavitt @Cleavon_MD I wouldn't say pushing too hard on vaccines but I would say relying too much solely on vaccines.

@ASlavitt@Cleavon_MD我不会说对疫苗的推动力度太大，但我会说过于依赖疫苗。

@ErrataRob @ariehkovler Collectables can be consumptive. People enjoy the process of collecting, of curating, etc. There is a prospect of financial return, but that's not the only value created.

@ErrataRob@ariehkovler收藏品可能是消费性的。人们喜欢收集、策划等过程。有经济回报的前景，但这不是创造的唯一价值。

@perdidostschool Yep, that's literally it
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@是的，就是这样
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@apmalong @Gab_H_R She's still going to get quoted and interviewed. Hardly vanquished.

@apmalong@Gab_H_R她仍然会被引用和采访。几乎没有被打败。

@ericgarland Doesn't get enough clicks.

@ericgarland点击次数不够。

@Noahpinion Maybe, but there is also a rationality to not making personal sacrifices when society isn't coming along.

@也许没有什么好处，但在社会不景气的时候，不做出个人牺牲也是有道理的。

@mr_raiderMD @EricTopol @SubstackInc Absolutely, but there's a matter of cost benefit too. Not just literal cost (but that too), but cost of the time of patient, discomfort, rare complications, etc. At some point v high NNT doesn't don't necessarily balance favorably with the benefit. What is that number here?

@当然罗德姆先生@EricTopol@SubstackInc，但也有成本效益的问题。不仅仅是字面上的成本（也包括字面上的成本），还有患者的时间成本、不适感、罕见并发症等。在某一点上，高NNT不一定能与益处取得良好的平衡。这里的号码是多少？

@COVIDnewsfast Not one mutation, it would have to be a collection.
Small clarification though, that's not to say it can't happen.

@COVIDnewsfast不是一个突变，它必须是一个集合。
尽管有一些小的澄清，但这并不是说它不可能发生。

@TomBollyky @ezraklein @TheLancet @IHME_UW I have a problem with articles that quote the 2019 GHSI but ignore ⬇️⬇️⬇️[see below]. Nevertheless, thoughtful article. https://t.co/9nGPNn8TLn

@TomBollyky@ezraklein@thelance@IHME_-UW我对引用2019年GHSI但忽略的文章有意见⬇️⬇️⬇️[见下文]。尽管如此，这篇文章还是很有思想性。https://t.co/9nGPNn8TLn

@jfeldman_epi @myrabatchelder It's a long term issue, which isn't to say policy doesn't have a part in it. Most of the decline was in the 60s and 70s, and then again in the 2000s, which is interesting.
https://www.pewresearch.org/po... https://t.co/av16CmT6fU

@jfeldman_epi@myrabatcheld这是一个长期问题，并不是说政策不参与其中。大部分下降发生在60年代和70年代，然后又出现在21世纪，这很有趣。
https://www.pewresearch.org/po... https://t.co/av16CmT6fU