@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets I'm not arguing in favor of any policy, I'm saying that assessment of development, manufacturing, and availability of vaccines is an element of every pandemic plan, as are community mitigation measures.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 我并不赞成任何政策，我是说评估疫苗的开发、制造和可用性是每个大流行计划的一个要素，社区缓解措施也是如此。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets You better go read them again. Every plan includes some elements of that.
They did not include elimination as in Australia, because it wasn't seen as feasible. That's obviously wrong. Or at least changed (we now have much better high volume testing than decades ago, for example)

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 你最好再读一遍。每个计划都包含其中的一些要素。
他们没有像澳大利亚那样包括消除，因为它被认为不可行。这显然是错误的。或者至少改变了（例如，我们现在的大容量测试比几十年前要好得多）

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets Pandemic influenza vaccines might be more effective, I guess that's a specific strain.
But in any case the plans do include them. There is always discussion of timeline, availability and allocation of vaccines. Every single plan.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 大流行性流感疫苗可能更有效，我猜这是一种特定的毒株。
但无论如何，计划确实包括它们。总是有关于疫苗的时间表、可用性和分配的讨论。每一个计划。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets Influneza vaccines aren't very effective.
And every influenza pandemic plan I read (several) did consider availability of vaccines. So, no, you're making shit up.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 流感疫苗不是很有效。
我读过的每一个流感大流行计划（几个）都考虑了疫苗的可用性。所以，不，你在胡说八道。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets That situation isn't plausible. There is no certainty on who is going to die and how likely nor how they might be saved.
If you set up more plausible hypotheticals like harvesting an vital organ from a child to save an adult, the answer is obviously no. but that's not covid.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 这种情况不可信。无法确定谁会死，有多大可能以及如何获救。
如果你建立更合理的假设，比如从一个孩子身上摘取一个重要器官来拯救一个成年人，答案显然是否定的。但这不是covid。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets There's no generalizable answer. It's all tradeoffs of costs vs benefits which means it depends on the situation. There's nothing specific about this in terms of pandemics, societies make life an health resource tradeoffs constantly.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 没有可概括的答案。这是成本与收益的所有权衡，这意味着它取决于情况。就流行病而言，这没有什么特别的，社会不断地将生命作为健康资源的权衡。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets Times change. Clearly rapid vaccine development is feasible now. It was done successfully a half a dozen different places.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 时代变了。显然，快速的疫苗开发现在是可行的。它在六个不同的地方成功完成。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets I'm not answering because I already told you that these sorts of polices are always a matter of tradeoffs, cost vs benefit.
Vaccines didn't take 5 years, that's the reality.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 我没有回答，因为我已经告诉过你，这些政策总是一个权衡、成本与收益的问题。
疫苗不需要5年，这就是现实。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets Sorry, not playing.
Recognize that benefit of 90% efficacy vaccines is clearly not "pointlessly pushing into the future", or don't. The choice between seeing reality or not is yours.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 抱歉，没玩。
认识到 90% 效力疫苗的好处显然不是“毫无意义地推向未来”，或者不是。是否看到现实是你的选择。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets Go right ahead and ignore the part about 90% efficacy vaccines.
Again, delaying death is all that any "life saving" measure or policies ever do. Whether justified or beneficial is always a question of tradeoffs.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 继续，忽略关于 90% 功效疫苗的部分。
同样，延迟死亡是任何“拯救生命”措施或政策所做的一切。是否合理或有益始终是一个权衡的问题。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets Pushing infections past availability of vaccine with ~90% efficacy against death is enormously better, but even if it weren't, pushing infections, sickness and death into the future is still successful mitigation. We never fully escape death, our goal is to delay it.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 将感染推向具有约 90% 对死亡效力的疫苗的可用性要好得多，但即使不是这样，将感染、疾病和死亡推向未来仍然是成功的缓解措施。我们永远不会完全逃脱死亡，我们的目标是延迟它。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets They absolutely mitigated the effects of covid, some more effectively than others. Australia more effectively than most.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 他们绝对减轻了 covid 的影响，有些比其他的更有效。澳大利亚比大多数国家更有效。

@KrauthBen @AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets Trolls gotta troll.
We need to take the L as well. After all we engaged with what wasn't even if competent effort.

@KrauthBen @AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 巨魔必须巨魔。
我们也需要取L。毕竟，我们从事的工作即使有能力也做不到。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets No one is asking for it in the name of covid.
Essentially every society in the world decided that the impact of covid (10-20x of flu in fatality, plus consideration of non-fatal impacts on hospitalization, etc.) was large enough to incur costs. The magnitude matters.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 没有人以 covid 的名义要求它。
基本上，世界上每个社会都认为新冠病毒的影响（流感致死率的 10-20 倍，加上考虑对住院治疗的非致命影响等）足以产生成本。量级很重要。

@AusThinkingGirl @KrauthBen @taipan168 @covidtweets It's exactly what you are arguing.

@AusThinkingGirl @KrauthBen @taipan168 @covidtweets 这正是你在争论的问题。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets No one believes that. Next.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 没有人相信。下一个。

@AusThinkingGirl @KrauthBen @taipan168 @covidtweets Not interested in playing.

@AusThinkingGirl @KrauthBen @taipan168 @covidtweets 没兴趣玩。

@AusThinkingGirl @KrauthBen @taipan168 @covidtweets The cost compared to what. No high income country failed to take mitigating measures. None.
The notion that costs could be avoided exists only in your head. Enjoy the fantasy.

@AusThinkingGirl @KrauthBen @taipan168 @covidtweets 与成本相比。没有一个高收入国家未能采取缓解措施。没有任何。
可以避免成本的想法只存在于您的脑海中。享受幻想。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets No it doesn't remain the same at all. Cost benefit is going to pencil out very differently when the benefit is 10-20x larger.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 不，它根本不一样。当收益大 10-20 倍时，成本收益的计算方式将非常不同。

@KrauthBen @AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets It also ignores that time shifting is ITSELF a benefit, it means people are living longer. (Yes of course vaccines reduce death as well.)

@KrauthBen @AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 它还忽略了时移本身就是一种好处，这意味着人们的寿命更长。 （是的，当然疫苗也可以减少死亡。）