@sejwatson @apmalong @sameo416 Not sure that means more per particle. It may mean there are sufficiently more of the smaller particles to add up to more total virus. It may be the former, but not clear from the slide you just quoted.
@sejwatson @apmalong @sameo416 不确定这是否意味着每个粒子更多。这可能意味着有足够多的较小颗粒加起来构成更多的病毒总数。可能是前者，但从您刚刚引用的幻灯片中并不清楚。
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin To improve the situation you might layer risk-reducing measures in some way. Multiple layers of low risk reduction can equal a high reduction. But this becomes a comms problem. "Testing is [usefully] more safe" is different from "testing is useful as a layer".
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin 为了改善这种情况，您可能会以某种方式分层降低风险措施。多层低风险降低可以等同于高风险降低。但这变成了一个通讯问题。 “测试[有用]更安全”不同于“测试作为一个层有用”。
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin To be more clear, there is a level of risk reduction that is too low to be useful because the failure rate is so high the outcome is effectively the same on a similar time scale. Where that is, I don't know. 90% might not be that. 30% risk reduction certainly would be.
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin 更清楚地说，风险降低水平太低而无用，因为失败率如此之高，结果在相似的时间尺度上实际上是相同的。那是哪里，我不知道。 90%可能不是这样。 30% 的风险当然会降低。
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin OK, 90% is a specific quantification at least. It would suggest ten dinners having similar risk to one dinner without, for better or worse. I wonder if Alex would agree with the quantification and also how he much he would claim PCR would reduce risk in this setting.
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin 好的，至少 90% 是一个特定的量化。这表明十顿晚餐与一顿不吃晚餐的风险相似，无论好坏。我想知道亚历克斯是否会同意量化，以及他会在多大程度上声称 PCR 会降低这种情况下的风险。
@MarvinH2_G2 @ShamezLadhani @AmerAcadPeds I very much doubt the part about 90% of kids being infected outside school, except in the narrow case of during the period of time when schools were remote or schools with excellent protocols (unusual most places). I don't understand how anyone thinks this is remotely credible.
@MarvinH2_G2 @ShamezLadhani @AmerAcadPeds 我非常怀疑关于 90% 的孩子在校外被感染的部分，除非是在学校偏远或学校有良好协议的时期（大多数地方不寻常）。我不明白为什么有人认为这是遥不可及的。
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin Yes I read that back in 2020.
But the situation is different now. Society isn't going to test everyone any time soon, so we're left with individual measures and decision making, but decision making is hard without good quantification of risk relative to a goal.
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin 是的，我在 2020 年读过。
但现在情况不同了。社会不会很快对每个人进行测试，所以我们只剩下个人的措施和决策，但是如果没有对与目标相关的风险进行良好的量化，决策就很难。
@Noahpinion That wasn't the biggest problem with what Oz did, in fact it was arguably a social good in terms of education (many people really did learn from Oz). The bad thing, which you could easily avoid, was pushing supplements and other quackery.
@Noahpinion 这不是 Oz 所做的最大问题，事实上，它可以说是教育方面的社会福利（很多人确实向 Oz 学习）。您可以轻松避免的坏事是推销补充剂和其他庸医。
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin I *think* what Alex is saying here, comes down to "Don't do this, it is likely to fail". And secondarily that PCR would be at least meaningfully "less" likely to fail. I have no idea if he is correct. But apart from correctness, this seems to be in the FORM of actionable advice.
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin 我*认为* Alex 在这里所说的，归结为“不要这样做，它可能会失败”。其次，PCR 将至少有意义地“减少”失败的可能性。我不知道他是否正确。但除了正确性之外，这似乎是可操作建议的形式。
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin Yes, this has numerous other factors. Prevalence, ventilation, duration, number of people, etc, etc.
Though I would say a "sufficient" protocol to accomplish the goal ("low" risk of failure) shouldn't overly sensitive to the factors.
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin 是的，这还有许多其他因素。患病率、通风量、持续时间、人数等。
尽管我会说实现目标的“足够”协议（“低”失败风险）不应该对这些因素过于敏感。
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin Good questions.
What the hypothetical "I" wants to know is, if I have dinner parties where everyone is taking a test, say weekly, how likely am "I" going to get sick (or infected and become part of a chain)? I don't really care about "PCR" in practice, that's just another test.
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin 好问题。
假设的“我”想知道的是，如果我举办晚宴，每个人都参加测试，比如每周一次，那么“我”生病（或被感染并成为连锁店的一部分）的可能性有多大？在实践中我并不真正关心“PCR”，那只是另一个测试。
@RandallBurns5 @michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin You can certainly estimate it. I'm pretty sure he's just saying it's complicated and depends on multiple factors.
I say conveying that is a useful way to empower decision making is critical, even if hard.
@RandallBurns5 @michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin 你当然可以估计。我很确定他只是说这很复杂并且取决于多种因素。
我说传达这是一种授权决策的有用方式是至关重要的，即使很难。
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin As far as the other point, sure there can be parameters. But clearly a test with a sensitivity of 10% will reduce risk much less than a test with sensitivity of 90%, under the same conditions. There has to be ways to effectively convey this. Obviously comms often non-trivial.
@michaelmina_lab @alexmeshkin 至于另一点，确定可以有参数。但显然，在相同条件下，灵敏度为 10% 的测试所降低的风险远低于灵敏度为 90% 的测试。必须有办法有效地传达这一点。显然，通讯通常很重要。