@AstorAaron @Fyodor32768 Now, there are people doing things like this, nothing close to a reasonable fit. That's useless of course. https://t.co/wHj9Ive6vG
@AstorAaron@Fyodor32768现在，有人在做这样的事情，没有什么接近合理的匹配。那当然没用。https://t.co/wHj9Ive6vG
用户 aeon(@ AeonCoin) 的最新消息
@AstorAaron @Fyodor32768 Pass rates for the better N95 designs can be 90% or higher (of course, all have some pass rate). So someone who hasn't fit tested and has a reasonable fit will probably pass. Someone who definitely failed didn't.
@AstorAaron@Fyodor32768对于更好的N95设计，通过率可以达到90%或更高（当然，所有产品都有一定的通过率）。因此，那些没有通过测试且合身程度合理的人可能会通过考试。一个绝对失败的人没有。
@Fyodor32768 @AstorAaron The virus count is at least 100 times what a person would put out in a very small room.
It's also not comparing fit test with non-fit test. All of the subjects fit tested. It compares the ones who passed with the ones who failed.
@Fyodoro32768@AstorAaron病毒数量至少是一个人在一个非常小的房间里扑灭病毒的100倍。
它也没有比较适合测试和不适合测试。所有受试者都符合测试要求。它比较了通过考试的人和失败的人。
@kkostadinov @TheStalwart Not going to happen. Works for oil because (under unusual circumstances) someone wants to get rid of it because it has storage cost.
@科斯塔季诺夫@TheStalwart不会发生。对石油有效是因为（在特殊情况下）有人想把它处理掉，因为它有储存成本。
@kkostadinov @TheStalwart It can go down another 97%, multiple times.
@kkostadinov@TheStalwart它可以再下跌97%，多次。
@krugermacro If *everything* is worth so much less, maybe $100 would be a lot.
@克鲁格马罗：如果所有东西的价值都这么低，那么100美元可能就太多了。
@TheStoicCoiner @_hanshan_ True casual mining is only useful for very small amounts, but at least it is possible without buying equipment.
@真正的休闲采矿只对非常小的数量有用，但至少在不购买设备的情况下是可能的。
@MullingMueller @lookner Yeah, numerous ways to do that.
@MullingMueller@lookner是的，有很多方法可以做到这一点。
@kprather88 @farid__jalali @Bob_Wachter The other thing people are missing is that regular huge surges and getting sick with a new spin-the-wheel mutated virus every few months is the alternative. It's not "back to normal".
@kprather88@farid__jalali@Bob_Wachter人们还缺少的另一件事是，每隔几个月就会出现一次常规的巨浪，并因一种新的旋转车轮变异病毒而患病。这不是“恢复正常”。
@Marco_Piani @Noahpinion China might win by being less likely to make a mistake.
@Marco_Piani@Noahpinion China可能会因为不太可能犯错而获胜。
@Lujan588 @SimonAJoosten1 @kvongoeler @beansprouts_mom @drShaneLandry @NjbBari3 @JIDJournal @brosseau_lisa @HuffmanLabDU @CAPPEM2 @PPEtoheros @masknerd It was detected but at lower level than worse fitting. Not sure "high" is a valid characterization as the goal of the experiment was comparative.
@Lujan588@SimonAJoosten1@kvongoeler@beansprouts_mom@drShaneLandry@NjbBari3@JIDJournal@brosseau_lisa@HuffmanLabDU@CAPPEM2@PPEtoheros@masknerd检测到了该信号，但其水平低于最差拟合。不确定“高”是一个有效的表征，因为实验的目标是比较性的。
@kvongoeler @SimonAJoosten1 @beansprouts_mom @drShaneLandry @NjbBari3 @JIDJournal @brosseau_lisa @HuffmanLabDU @CAPPEM2 @PPEtoheros @masknerd We just don't know how applicable this is to realistic situations in terms of quantity of exposure and such.
@kvongoeler@SimonAJoosten1@beansprouts_mom@drShaneLandry@NjbBari3@JIDJournal@brosseau_lisa@HuffmanLabDU@CAPPEM2@PPEtoheros@masknerd我们只是不知道这在暴露量等方面对现实情况有多适用。
@kvongoeler @SimonAJoosten1 @beansprouts_mom @drShaneLandry @NjbBari3 @JIDJournal @brosseau_lisa @HuffmanLabDU @CAPPEM2 @PPEtoheros @masknerd As noted above the "failed" masks did appear to have subjectively "good" fit, yes still detected infiltrated virus, which is somewhat unsettling as it approximates people w/o access to fit testing using N95s and following advice to have a "good" fit.
@kvongoeler@SimonAJoosten1@beansprouts_mom@drShaneLandry@NjbBari3@JIDJournal@brosseau_lisa@HuffmanLabDU@CAPPEM2@PPEtoheros@masknerd如上所述，这些“失败”的口罩在主观上看起来确实“良好”合身，是的，仍然检测到了渗透病毒，这有点令人不安，因为它近似于人们无法使用N95进行合身测试，并遵循“良好”合身的建议。
@SimonAJoosten1 @kvongoeler @beansprouts_mom @drShaneLandry @NjbBari3 @JIDJournal @brosseau_lisa @HuffmanLabDU @CAPPEM2 @PPEtoheros @masknerd How many virons does a contagious human pump out? Do we know?
@SimonAJoosten1@kvongoeler@beansprouts_mom@drShaneLandry@NjbBari3@JIDJournal@brosseau_lisa@HuffmanLabDU@CAPPEM2@PPEtoheros@masknerd一个有传染性的人类会产生多少病毒？我们知道吗？
@SimonAJoosten1 @kvongoeler @beansprouts_mom @drShaneLandry @NjbBari3 @JIDJournal @brosseau_lisa @HuffmanLabDU @CAPPEM2 @PPEtoheros @masknerd Scientists generally understand this context. What happened with the pandemic is that a lot of this science got taken out of context and injected into the sphere of public discussion, often carelessly or deliberately misframed. I don't know of a precedent on the same scale.
@SimonAJoosten1@kvongoeler@beansprouts_mom@drShaneLandry@NjbBari3@JIDJournal@brosseau_lisa@HuffmanLabDU@CAPPEM2@PPEtoheros@masknerd科学家通常理解这一背景。这场大流行所发生的事情是，许多这门科学被断章取义，并被注入公众讨论的领域，往往是漫不经心或故意装模作样。我不知道有这样的先例。
@LynBates16 @Cakeislovely @JWStol @danielgoyal This assumes all else being equal and also lack of mixing. Neither is true.
Also, mask compliance in Scotland was never that high (per IHME composite of real time mask usage polls). It peaked near 70% briefly which is very meh. https://t.co/RXCgp5TMM9
@LynBates16@Cakeislovely@JWStol@danielgoyal这假设所有其他条件都是平等的，也没有混合。两者都不是真的。
此外，苏格兰的口罩合规性从来没有这么高（根据IHME实时口罩使用调查的综合数据）。它曾短暂达到接近70%的峰值，这是非常低的。https://t.co/RXCgp5TMM9
@PlasticFull @robwiss I'll think about that.
What I'm saying is that CFM/dBA will essentially ALWAYS favor higher CFM, right? Because the useful range of CFM is much wider than dBA. Depending on how used, may not matter, but I think can do better.
@PlasticFull@robwis我会考虑的。
我想说的是，CFM/dBA基本上总是倾向于更高的CFM，对吗？因为CFM的实用范围比dBA宽得多。取决于如何使用，可能不重要，但我认为可以做得更好。