@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths Also you don't need two in every room. Two in each *classroom* was used in the Italy study. Classrooms are high occupancy. In other sorts of facilities you might need one per room or not at all. Not needed or can be phased out w/good facility HVAC, but that's not a baseline.

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 你也不需要每个房间两个。意大利研究中使用了每个*教室*中的两个。教室占用率很高。在其他类型的设施中，您可能每个房间都需要一个或根本不需要。不需要或可以通过良好的 HVAC 设施逐步淘汰，但这不是基准。

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths The carbon impact is low, it's much less than lights. How long to manufacture, I don't know, but much longer if you don't start. They're certainly available in large quantities, many schools, offices, restaurants, gyms, homes, etc. did install them and there weren't big shortages

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 碳影响很低，远低于灯光。生产多久，我不知道，但如果你不开始，时间会更长。它们当然可以大量使用，许多学校、办公室、餐馆、健身房、家庭等都安装了它们，而且没有大的短缺

@apmalong @FinchTH Not clear that individual engagement that is contrary to prevailing norms is at all similar to people engaging with a different set of societal norms if offered.

@apmalong @FinchTH 不清楚与现行规范相反的个人参与与参与不同社会规范的人是否完全相似。

@georgimarinov @FinchTH The 10-15k would definitely not be ignorable, but it is much harder to predict some aspects HOW it would not be ignored, and also less clear about 1000-2000/d.
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@georgimarinov @FinchTH 10-15k 绝对不会被忽略，但是很难预测某些方面如何不会被忽略，而且对于 1000-2000/d 也不太清楚。
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@rolandlisf @sbmeunier @MaryKang23 @AdrianaRezal Yes it's in the story along with tourist volume (85% vs 83.5%), office occupancy (40% vs 37.5%), median apartment rents (still higher in SF), office vacancy (21.5% vs 21.7%).
Also "Many Manhattan storefronts remain empty" which is close to what he wrote.
So yeah clickbait.

@rolandlisf @sbmeunier @MaryKang23 @AdrianaRezal 是的，它与游客量（85% 对 83.5%）、办公室入住率（40% 对 37.5%）、公寓租金中位数（旧金山仍然更高）、办公室空置率（21.5%）一起出现在故事​​中与 21.7%）。
此外，“许多曼哈顿店面仍然空无一人”，这与他所写的很接近。
所以是的点击诱饵。

@PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths Exactly. If weather isn't suitable, close the windows and use air cleaners.
Suitably configured windows have to be large enough and located to create ventilation throughout the whole room. Hard to know without a study. Even then, still inconsistent depending on breeze.

@PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 完全正确。如果天气不合适，请关闭窗户并使用空气净化器。
适当配置的窗户必须足够大，并且位于可以在整个房间内创造通风的位置。不学习很难知道。即便如此，依然依风而行。

@PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths If the classroom has suitably configured windows, AND the windows are open (weather permitting) AND there is sufficient breeze, then yes the filters don't do much and could be turned off. But the former is not always the case. So filters in every classroom is a baseline.

@PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 如果教室有适当配置的窗户，并且窗户是打开的（天气允许的话）并且有足够的微风，那么是的，过滤器不会做太多并且可以关闭。但前者并非总是如此。因此，每个教室的过滤器都是一个基线。

@PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths Windows open works to improve ventilation, sometimes. Filtering works regardless.
Yes VERY modest cost vs people being sick. One or two extra sick days per year pays for itself, and the number will be much larger than that considering teachers, parents, and missed learning.

@PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 有时打开窗户可以改善通风。无论如何过滤都有效。
是的，与生病的人相比，成本非常低。每年一到两个额外的病假是值得的，而且这个数字会比考虑到老师、家长和错过的学习的数字要大得多。

@PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths They're legal products that are safe. Cost is modest. Health rules? The rule is: If you want people to be healthy, use them.
Opening windows also, but isn't needed (also less consistent benefit since it depends on wind).

@PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 它们是安全的合法产品。成本适中。卫生规则？规则是：如果您希望人们健康，请使用他们。
也可以打开窗户，但不需要（也不太一致的好处，因为它取决于风）。

@PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths It is if the setting is suitable for plug in air cleaners. Italy study showed two cleaners per classroom = 80% lower transmission. Of course there are other ways to improve indoor air, but that's an easy baseline.

@PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 如果设置适用于插入式空气净化器。意大利的研究表明，每个教室有两名清洁工 = 传播率降低了 80%。当然还有其他方法可以改善室内空气，但这是一个简单的基准。

@andyaschmidt @enoughofthis4 @HomeSchoolWales @ChristosArgyrop Yes environment both natural and built up as well.

@andyaschmidt @enoughofthis4 @HomeSchoolWales @ChristosArgyrop 是的，环境既自然，也有人建造。

@__philipn__ @wsbgnl Yeah that's what I was suggesting in the last line.
If true, that would also be seemingly important, unless you are content to marginalize those "certain populations".

@__philipn__ @wsbgnl 是的，这就是我在最后一行中的建议。
如果属实，那似乎也很重要，除非您满足于将那些“某些人群”边缘化。

@Valuemancer @mayazi @iang_fc The orbs are designed to guard against spoofing. How effective that is I don't know.

@Valuemancer @mayazi @iang_fc 这些球体旨在防止欺骗。效果如何我不知道。

@__philipn__ @wsbgnl Even on it's own, the phrase "in certain populations, the risk may be cumulative" is odd, because I can't see how it could ever not be in any population (again, unless covid cures previous long covid or per-infection risk drops to zero).
Maybe misstated "risk may increase"

@__philipn__ @wsbgnl 即使就其本身而言，“在某些人群中，风险可能是累积的”这句话也很奇怪，因为我看不出它怎么可能不会出现在任何人群中（同样，除非新冠病毒治愈了之前长期的新冠病毒或每次感染的风险降至零）。
可能误报“风险可能增加”

@wsbgnl The first part (not highlighted) is odd. Even if risk decreases on each exposure it can still be cumulative, and indeed would be unless someone thinks that getting covid again will cure previous long covid, or if risk drops immediately to zero (not claimed). So still odd.

@wsbgnl第一部分（未突出显示）很奇怪。即使每次暴露的风险降低，它仍然可以累积，并且确实会累积，除非有人认为再次感染新冠病毒将治愈之前长期的新冠病毒，或者风险立即降至零（未声明）。所以还是很奇怪。

@R1lesDavis @PotatoClose @Noahpinion Vaccines aren't very good at protecting against infections (earlier last year they were better). So you end up with many cases but relatively low rate of hospitalizations and deaths, which they are still good at protecting against.

@R1lesDavis @PotatoClose @Noahpinion 疫苗在预防感染方面并不是很好（去年早些时候它们更好）。因此，您最终会遇到很多病例，但住院率和死亡率相对较低，而他们仍然擅长预防。

@R1lesDavis @PotatoClose @Noahpinion This is still debated. But without question delta was more deadly than the variants that came before so there is certainly not a steady evolution toward being less deadly.
https://www.reuters.com/busine...

@R1lesDavis @PotatoClose @Noahpinion 这仍然存在争议。但毫无疑问，delta 比之前的变种更致命，因此肯定不会朝着不那么致命的方向稳步发展。
https://www.reuters.com/busine...

@PotatoClose @R1lesDavis @Noahpinion That's not 'artificially' high, it's actual dead people. Population fatality rate matters too, not just IFR. IFR of rabies w/o vax is near 100%, but not that concerning at all even without vax because very unlikely to get it.

@PotatoClose @R1lesDavis @Noahpinion 这不是“人为”高，实际上是死人。人口死亡率也很重要，而不仅仅是 IFR。没有 vax 的狂犬病的 IFR 接近 100%，但即使没有 vax，也完全不相关，因为不太可能得到它。

@dianaberrent Not a fan of admin covid response but on this they deserve a little more credit.
8 free tests per month from insurance. <10% uninsured is an important gap but not a huge one.
Testing guidance after exposure is once after 5 days.

@dianaberrent 不是管理员 covid 响应的粉丝，但在这一点上，他们应该得到更多的信任。
每月 8 次来自保险的免费测试。

@danaparish @WHCOS @POTUS Because they failed to stop it. Taking the win means memoryholing the the loss.

@danaparish @WHCOS @POTUS 因为他们没能阻止它。赢得胜利意味着记住损失。