@billybinion @nberlat How is this different from a runoff? You have a huge field and someone has to win. >50% will have chosen the winner, even if not their first choice.

@billybinion @nberlat 这与径流有何不同？你有一个巨大的领域，有人必须赢。

@jsherman256 No breeze?

@jsherman256 没有微风？

@boxofsparklers @michaelmina_lab (And obviously if you have constant allergies, then you don't necessarily need to test all the time. You'd only do so based on a NEW symptom. Unless you're just testing regularly, which @michaelmina_lab would say is a good idea too w/cheap tests.)

@boxofsparklers @michaelmina_lab （显然，如果您经常过敏，那么您不一定需要一直进行测试。您只会根据新症状进行测试。除非您只是定期测试，@michaelmina_lab 会说便宜的测试也是一个好主意。）

@boxofsparklers @michaelmina_lab I'm not even counting the rarer severe cases and human cost. Just on the basis of economics having a high level of circulating disease that will cause people to miss work or school (or a parent to have to stay home with a sick kid) is not a positive thing.

@boxofsparklers @michaelmina_lab 我什至没有计算更罕见的严重病例和人力成本。仅仅从经济学的角度来看，高流行性疾病会导致人们错过工作或上学（或父母不得不待在家里照顾生病的孩子）并不是一件好事。

@boxofsparklers @michaelmina_lab There's no harm in taking a free test that costs a public health program $1. Even if you have to do it 50 times and it saves one person from missing work that is well worth it.
And lab-based tests are starting to include flu, at least some of them, though not the $1 tests

@boxofsparklers @michaelmina_lab 参加一项花费 1 美元的公共卫生计划的免费测试并没有什么坏处。即使您必须这样做 50 次，它也可以避免一个人错过工作，这是非常值得的。
并且基于实验室的测试开始包括流感，至少其中一些，尽管不是 1 美元的测试

@boxofsparklers @michaelmina_lab Because you're not going to, and shouldn't, isolate with allergies or some other less serious bug with similar symptoms (covid symptoms span a wide range).

@boxofsparklers @michaelmina_lab 因为您不会也不应该与过敏或其他具有类似症状的不太严重的错误（covid 症状范围很广）隔离。

@DCsmom51 @wsbgnl @myrabatchelder Partially that, partially this, which is more disturbing because it is objectively wrong. People have been misled about what is going on, and predictably make bad decisions with bad information.
https://twitter.com/wsbgnl/sta...

@DCsmom51 @wsbgnl @myrabatchelder 部分地，部分地，这更令人不安，因为它在客观上是错误的。人们被正在发生的事情误导，并且可以预见地用错误的信息做出错误的决定。
https://twitter.com/wsbgnl/sta...

@mrbcpa99 @MelpomeneMel @AshishKJha46 There is significant cross immunity between BA1 and BA5 but the vaccine may improve it.
Also, BA5 is on the way out, or a least decline. What nasty is causing problems in a few months we don't know yet (it could be a resurgent BA5, but may not be).

@mrbcpa99 @MelpomeneMel @AshishKJha46 BA1 和 BA5 之间存在显着的交叉免疫，但疫苗可能会改善它。
此外，BA5 正在退出，或者至少下降。在几个月内我们还不知道是什么令人讨厌的问题（它可能是复兴的 BA5，但可能不是）。

@TRyanGregory @MichaelSFuhrer @JMFischer The question rests on whether you define the herd immunity threshold in terms of R_0 or R_eff. Customarily it's the former, but the distinction is a bit sloppy in this thread (which assumes the latter, but not so clearly).

@TRyanGregory @MichaelSFuhrer @JMFischer 问题在于您是否根据 R_0 或 R_eff 定义群体免疫阈值。通常它是前者，但这个线程中的区别有点草率（假设后者，但不是那么清楚）。

@JHowardBrainMD It assumes stable conditions where the consequences of inaction are both well understood and benign. Otherwise, you must shift to a preponderance of (even noisy) evidence and risk management framework.
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@JHowardBrainMD 它假设在稳定的条件下，不作为的后果既被充分理解又是良性的。否则，您必须转向使用优势（甚至是嘈杂的）证据和风险管理框架。
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@ovjocm @mildanalyst That was poorly written: "asymptomatic apart from a rash" = symptomatic.

@ovjocm @mildanalyst 写得不好：“除皮疹外无症状”=有症状。

@JustinFlood @Atipico1996 Summer 2021 was a peak (Delta) although 2020 wasn't. Vaccination was a lot more effective in 2021, and there were more measures in place to reduce transmission.

@JustinFlood @Atipico1996 2021 年夏季是一个高峰（三角洲），尽管 2020 年不是。疫苗接种在 2021 年更加有效，并且采取了更多措施来减少传播。

@MullingMueller @gdemaneuf @AndrewNoymer Well, there's no subway that goes between Manhattan and Staten Island.

@MullingMueller @gdemaneuf @AndrewNoymer 嗯，曼哈顿和史泰登岛之间没有地铁。

@amandalhu https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.026...

@amandalhu https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.026...

@amandalhu You need 20-30 CFM CADR per student to replicate the conditions of the Italy study showing an 80% reduction in infection rate (cited in the paper as 10-14 L/sec). With your numbers that going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 W +/-, or about 1 kWh/day. So pennies.

@amandalhu 每个学生需要 20-30 CFM CADR 才能复制意大利研究的条件，表明感染率降低了 80%（论文中引用为 10-14 L/秒）。您的数字将在 100 W /- 附近，或约 1 kWh/天。所以几分钱。

@justthefacts85 It is a drug that reduces hospitalization or death by about 90% in high risk unvaccinated people. Most of the people taking it now are vaccinated.

@justthefacts85 这是一种可将未接种疫苗的高危人群的住院或死亡减少约 90% 的药物。现在大多数服用它的人都接种了疫苗。

@Dasu91571379 @simon_ree More plausible theory, though still as speculative as this entire "pattern", is that some other economic event was likely going to be happen but the pandemic overshadowed it, possibly deferred due to fresh flood of cheap money in March 2020.

@Dasu91571379 @simon_ree 更合理的理论虽然仍然与整个“模式”一样具有投机性，但可能会发生其他一些经济事件，但大流行掩盖了它，可能由于 2020 年 3 月新一轮廉价资金的涌入而推迟。

@FinchTH It depends how much and how fast it declines.
Also "good news" compared to what?

@FinchTH 这取决于它下降的幅度和速度。
还“好消息”比什么？

@michaelzlin But rebounds are rare!
2%!

@michaelzlin 但篮板很少见！
2%！

@FinchTH We can, narrowly speaking, infer why. The official answer would be that it was only tested as a booster. This makes no sense, of course, but when you operate with blinders of protocol, that's where you end up.

@FinchTH 狭义地说，我们可以推断出原因。官方的回答是它只作为助推器进行了测试。当然，这是没有意义的，但是当您使用协议的盲点进行操作时，这就是您最终的结果。