@sirgetagrip @David_LKaplan @greg_travis There is more subtlety than you are giving credit. Like did the kids have necessary equipment, did they actually sign on, are there differences in experience in terms of what curriculum was used, differences by individual teacher, etc.?
These can all be studied, may differ.

@sirgetagrip@David_LKaplan@greg_travis这里有比你所说的更微妙的东西。比如，孩子们是否有必要的设备，他们是否真的登录了，在使用什么课程、个别老师的不同等方面，经验是否存在差异。？
这些都可以研究，可能有所不同。

@David_LKaplan @sirgetagrip @greg_travis The evidence on drinking bleach is extremely clear. People drink bleach = end up in the hospital. Educational and development outcomes are much harder to measure and more subjective.

@David_LKaplan@sirgetagrip@greg_travis饮用漂白水的证据非常清楚。人们喝漂白剂=最后进了医院。教育和发展成果更难衡量，也更主观。

@David_LKaplan @sirgetagrip @greg_travis I agree

@大卫·卡普兰@sirgetagrip@格雷格·特拉维斯我同意

@David_LKaplan @greg_travis If you randomize 10000 diverse children between two groups there will be enough of a variety in each group that "everyone is differen't" isn't a problem.

@David_LKaplan@greg_travis如果你将10000名不同的儿童随机分为两组，那么每组的孩子都会有足够的多样性，“每个人都不一样”不是问题。

@sirgetagrip @David_LKaplan @greg_travis This wasn't about the conclusion, it was about a controlled trial vs. anecdotes and subjectivity.
A RCT could end up reinforcing what you're reporting, and that's fine.

@sirgetagrip@David_LKaplan@greg_travis这与结论无关，而是关于对照试验与轶事和主观性。
RCT最终可能会强化你的报道，这很好。

@David_LKaplan @greg_travis Individual differences don't really matter in a large study population. The hard part is enrolling participants willing to be randomized into different formats without introducing too much bias into that population.
Easier might be hybrid, say one day per week remote vs. zero.

@David_LKaplan@greg_travis个体差异在大量研究人群中并不重要。困难的部分是招募愿意被随机分成不同形式的参与者，而不给该人群带来太多的偏见。
更简单的可能是混合型，比如说每周一天远程与零远程。

@David_LKaplan @greg_travis Still, what the tweet stated was no RCT. And that is correct AFAIK.

@David_LKaplan@greg_travis仍然，推特上说的不是RCT。这是正确的。

@David_LKaplan @greg_travis Either way, that's not a RCT

@David_LKaplan@greg_travis不管怎样，这都不是RCT

@BallouxFrancois @GYamey Even without bypassing the paywall, you can read 10 articles a month without a subscription I think

@BallouxFrancois@GYamey即使不绕过付费墙，我想你每月也可以阅读10篇文章而不必订阅

@Mondiablue @BNODesk They're still very high, higher than at any previous point in the pandemic. Shouldn't overstate the significance of a small decline.

@Mondiablue@BNODesk他们仍然很高，比大流行中的任何一个点都高。我们不应该夸大小幅下跌的重要性。

@Mondiablue @BNODesk Hospitalizations have generally been one week or less after cases.

@Mondiablue@BNODesk的住院时间通常为病例后一周或更短时间。

@Mondiablue @BNODesk This is hospitalizations.

@这是住院治疗。

@izakaminska Conditions changed considerably.
Social media increased, likely by orders of magnitude, the market value of contrarian messages and personalities (gradually)
Covid increased, likely by orders of magnitude, the market value of science focus (quickly in 2020)

@伊扎卡明斯卡的情况发生了很大变化。
社交媒体增加了反向信息和个性的市场价值（可能是数量级的）（逐渐增加）
新冠病毒可能以数量级增加了科学焦点的市场价值（2020年很快）

@Darren_Young_A @dianaberrent @Delta 1. Dumb policy, valves aren't that bad https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs...
2. Dumb design, valve-less model should be more visually distinctive. Another issue is user with access to both may accidentally pick up and use the wrong one.

@Darren_Young_A@dianaberrent@Delta 1。愚蠢的政策，阀门没那么糟糕https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs...
2.哑巴设计，无阀型号应更具视觉特色。另一个问题是，同时访问两者的用户可能会意外地拿起并使用错误的一个。

@Mondiablue @BNODesk Just? That was over 2-3 weeks ago.

@Mondiablue@BNODesk刚刚？那是2-3周前的事了。

@edwinhollins @Devilstower Because they can

@edwinhollins@Devilstower因为他们可以

@diannaeanderson If you have insurance, at home rapid tests are free up to 8/month @ $12/test starting yesterday. Not always easy to find though.

@戴安娜·安德森：如果你有保险，从昨天开始，在家快速测试每月免费8美元。但并不总是容易找到。

@MrSumfing Supergroup = members already successful on their own
Likely not a red flag at all.
Otherwise, it's a complication, might just pass.
Also, relationship best seasoned. A couple together 10+ years more likely to stay together than one 1-2 years. A breakup could be disruptive.

@MrSumfing Supergroup=成员自己已经成功
可能根本不是危险信号。
否则，这是一个复杂的问题，可能会过去。
而且，关系最好是老练的。夫妻在一起10年以上比在一起1-2年的可能性更大。分手可能具有破坏性。

@MrSumfing I'd want to know more.
Supergroup couples often do okay.

@萨明先生，我想知道更多。
超群夫妻通常都很好。

@SchmeteP @VincentRK They are, it's just that the overall numbers are so different that comorbidities don't change much (as they might when comparing places which are closer in outcomes).
Deaths per mil in the West about = 2000, often higher
Deaths per mil South Korea = 120.

@SchmeteP@VincentRK是的，只是总体数字差异太大，共病没有太大变化（在比较结果更接近的地方时可能会发生变化）。
在西方，每百万人的死亡率约为2000人，通常更高
韩国每百万人死亡人数=120。