@lunarstudio @Arlington_Dad @AltenbergLee @jamie_weisman Big change (doubled) since the 90s as I cited in the other reply.

@lunarstudio @Arlington_Dad @AltenbergLee @jamie_weisman 正如我在另一个回复中所引用的那样，自 90 年代以来发生了巨大变化（翻了一番）。

@Arlington_Dad @AltenbergLee @lunarstudio @jamie_weisman https://www.nature.com/article... https://t.co/HfItFEYgby

@Arlington_Dad @AltenbergLee @lunarstudio @jamie_weisman https://www.nature.com/article ... https://t.co/HfItFEYgby

@anildash @csuwildcat Replace with LVT+VAT which are much easier to enforce.

@anildash @csuwildcat 替换为更容易执行的 LVT 增值税。

@apmalong It's not confusion, it's lies, propaganda, and bandwagoning.

@apmalong 这不是混乱，而是谎言、宣传和跟风。

@Michael59503746 @x3r0gxx Literally true.
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@Michael59503746 @x3r0gxx 确实如此。
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@patsfanns2012 @zerohedge https://www.atlantafed.org/cqe...

@patsfanns2012 @zerohedge https://www.atlantafed.org/cqe...

@GYamey @nessumsarkirneh @AndrewEwing11 @Lujan588 For a start, don't do what the UK is doing!
I don't know if it is possible to eliminate, but I think so (or close).
Would Omicron continue to circulate if indoors had the same transmission as outdoors? I don't think so. I also think that's achievable with excellent vent/filt.

@GYamey @nessumsarkirneh @AndrewEwing11 @Lujan588 首先，不要做英国正在做的事情！
我不知道是否可以消除，但我认为可以（或关闭）。
如果室内与室外具有相同的传输，Omicron 会继续传播吗？我不这么认为。我也认为这可以通过出色的通风/过滤来实现。

@Marco_Piani And Israel, Germany, and Slovenia.
But, please, stop the insane lockdowns!

@Marco_Piani 和以色列、德国和斯洛文尼亚。
但是，请停止疯狂的封锁！

@Marco_Piani Speaking of which, using South Korea as evidence in support of shielding/GDB. We can just call that...interesting.
https://www.semanticscholar.or... https://t.co/9FKG3yxUsc

@Marco_Piani 说到这，用韩国作为支持屏蔽/GDB 的证据。我们可以称之为...有趣。
https:// www.semanticscholar.or... https://t.co/9FKG3yxUsc

@Marco_Piani It's pretty debatable which explanation is more charitable.

@Marco_Piani 哪个解释更慈善还值得商榷。

@Marco_Piani Indeed that is curious isn't it. In the case of people doing sloppy work and getting things wrong "by accident", you would expect the conclusions to differ from reality in terms of policy implications in both directions, yet....
Small sample size but...

@Marco_Piani 确实很奇怪不是吗。在人们做事草率并“意外”出错的情况下，您会期望结论在两个方向的政策影响方面与现实有所不同，但是......
样本量小但...

@Marco_Piani Well, the motivated reasoning points right in the same direction there doesn't it???

@Marco_Piani 好吧，动机的推理指向同一个方向，不是吗？？？

@Marco_Piani The unspoken side was that it was always bullshit meant to run interference against imposing costs on asset owners and businesses.
The lack of any concrete specific policy proposals or any modeled implementation reveals that it was not intended or expected to be implemented.

@Marco_Piani 不言而喻的一面是，它总是胡说八道，旨在干扰对资产所有者和企业施加成本。
缺乏任何具体的具体政策建议或任何示范实施表明它并非有意或预期会实施。

@sol_orwell @Westegnen @thereal_truther @BallouxFrancois @adamjkucharski @JamesWard73 That curve is cumulative. Though area under the curve matters in terms of years of life lost.
I don't think people really think carefully about claiming that reducing actual people's lifespans by 2.5 years "didn't really matter".

@sol_orwell @Westegnen @thereal_truther @BallouxFrancois @adamjkucharski @JamesWard73 该曲线是累积的。尽管曲线下的面积在生命损失年数方面很重要。
我认为人们并没有认真考虑声称将实际人的寿命减少 2.5 年“并不重要”。

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason You don't see much surface transmission in rigorously traced outbreaks either. It probably happens but was never a large factor. Agree, though, UV would be more significant there.

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason 在严格追踪的爆发中，您也看不到太多的表面传播。它可能会发生，但从来都不是一个重要因素。同意，不过，紫外线在那里会更重要。

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason There are places like New Zealand that sequenced every case during outbreaks and tied them to a location. That was never outdoors. It's extremely, extremely rare.
Also, again, you gave the 6 minutes for one log reduction. Lingering 6+ minutes = airborne.

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason 像新西兰这样的地方在爆发期间对每个病例​​进行了排序，并将它们与一个位置联系起来。那从来不是在户外。这是非常非常罕见的。
此外，您再次给了 6 分钟来减少一个对数。逗留6分钟=空降。

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason No, or you'd see an obvious increase at night. You don't.

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason 不，否则你会在晚上看到明显的增加。你没有。

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason Also, even if it were UV, infection by short range droplets would be too fast (much less than 6 minutes, and 90% inactivation isn't that much anyway).

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason 另外，即使是紫外线，短程飞沫感染也会太快（不到 6 分钟，而且 90% 的灭活也不算多）。

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason We don't see a lot of outdoor transmission at night either. It's not UV.

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason 我们在晚上也没有看到很多户外传播。这不是紫外线。

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason Droplets would transmit at least nearly as well, or even just as well, outdoors. We don't see that happening.
There is no explanation for the enormous gap in transmission between indoors and (not) outdoors other than inhaled aerosols that quickly dissipate outdoors.

@edwardteach75 @selise @GYamey @angie_rasmussen @SaskiaPopescu @BogochIsaac @KindrachukJason 液滴在户外传播至少几乎一样，甚至一样好。我们没有看到这种情况发生。
除了在室外迅速消散的吸入气溶胶外，没有任何解释可以解释室内和（非）室外之间传播的巨大差距。