@OmicronData @BallouxFrancois @gadboit There may be an effect on infection, but with piss poor US uptake rates and little to no outreach to improve uptake there is no chance of significantly affecting transmission.

@OmicronData @BallouxFrancois @gadboit 可能会对感染产生影响，但由于美国的吸收率很低，而且几乎没有外展活动来提高吸收率，因此不可能显着影响传播。

@PlainolBlackman @JReinerMD Exactly. For example, they'd argue, probably truthfully in practice, that it is a lot of work to update data on a web site when it should all be automated.

@PlainolBlackman @JReinerMD 正是。例如，他们认为，在实践中可能是真实的，当网站上的数据应该全部自动化时，更新网站上的数据需要做很多工作。

@LauraRisen @wsbgnl To be fair, a lot can. It's not universal though.

@LauraRisen @wsbgnl 公平地说，很多都可以。虽然它不是通用的。

@0bj3ctivity @MichaelSFuhrer That is to say, you won't get 100% reduction even with 100%-ish masks and even with 100%-ish compliance with indoor masking if people are taking them off in e.g. restaurants. But you probably would get more than 20%.

@0bj3ctivity @MichaelSFuhrer 也就是说，即使使用 100% 的口罩，甚至 100% 的室内口罩合规性，如果人们在例如餐馆。但你可能会得到超过 20%。

@0bj3ctivity @MichaelSFuhrer Not all of the reportedly low effectiveness of masks in reducing overall transmission comes from the low quality of the masks themselves. Some of it comes from transmission happening in unmasked settings.
(cont)

@0bj3ctivity @MichaelSFuhrer 据报道，并非所有口罩在减少整体传播方面的低效都来自口罩本身的低质量。其中一些来自在未屏蔽环境中发生的传播。
（续）

@NuritBaytch @michaelzlin @EricTopol It seems like a meaningful metric specifically with regard to treatments.

@NuritBaytch @michaelzlin @EricTopol 这似乎是一个有意义的指标，特别是关于治疗。

@SolNataMD @ibrake4ants I know. Essentially it was, perhaps poorly written.

@SolNataMD @ibrake4ants 我知道。从本质上讲，它可能写得不好。

@SolNataMD @ibrake4ants Where is this low prevalence of which you speak?
https://biobot.io/data/ https://t.co/CT8ojM5Xme

@SolNataMD @ibrake4ants 您所说的这种低流行率在哪里？
https://biobot.io/data/ https://t.co/CT8ojM5Xme

@LauraRisen @wsbgnl Jha is misleading that "people" can go to CVS or Walgreens. Only if their insurance plan has those retail outlets as partners. Otherwise there may be a different path (sometimes hard to navigate).

@LauraRisen @wsbgnl Jha 误导“人们”可以去 CVS 或 Walgreens。只有当他们的保险计划有这些零售店作为合作伙伴时。否则可能会有不同的路径（有时难以导航）。

@LauraRisen @wsbgnl All Americans with private insurance or Medicare are entitled to 8 free tests per month. How you get that depends on your insurance. Many can get directly from a pharmacy or health plan web site but some have to buy out of pocket and apply for reimbursement. Poorly publicized.

@LauraRisen @wsbgnl 所有拥有私人保险或医疗保险的美国人都有权每月进行 8 次免费测试。你如何得到它取决于你的保险。许多人可以直接从药房或健康计划网站获得，但有些人必须自费购买并申请报销。宣传不佳。

@wsbgnl @nailatrahman No PPE is going to work well for Ebola

@wsbgnl @nailatrahman 没有 PPE 对埃博拉病毒有效

@Liberalism2021 @paulalexlewis @DonaldWelsh16 @ironandwine11 I showed you the data, draw your own conclusions.

@Liberalism2021 @paulalexlewis @DonaldWelsh16 @ironandwine11 我给你看了数据，得出你自己的结论。

@Liberalism2021 @paulalexlewis @DonaldWelsh16 @ironandwine11 I most certainly did not say they're fully vaxed. Vax rate in elderly is poor.

@Liberalism2021 @paulalexlewis @DonaldWelsh16 @ironandwine11 我当然没有说他们完全疯了。老年人的Vax率很低。

@coniinthegarden @squirrelpalooza @TheCBDiva @wsbgnl NZ did do centralized isolation and quarantine, and it was effective (very occasional breaches doesn't mean not effective). What it didn't do was mass testing.

@coniinthegarden @squirrelpalooza @TheCBDiva @wsbgnl NZ 确实做了集中隔离和隔离，而且很有效（非常偶然的违规行为并不意味着无效）。它没有做的是大规模测试。

@coniinthegarden @squirrelpalooza @TheCBDiva @wsbgnl The primary intervention right now is mass testing to isolation, and it was always measured as a very effective intervention everywhere used (even NZ). So your point is a good one.

@coniinthegarden @squirrelpalooza @TheCBDiva @wsbgnl 目前的主要干预措施是从大规模测试到隔离，它总是被衡量为在任何地方（甚至新西兰）使用的非常有效的干预措施。所以你的观点很好。

@srsjeff @xeegeex @Noahpinion About 15% of SF is GLBT but it's harder to find data that breaks that down in detail.

@srsjeff @xeegeex @Noahpinion 大约 15% 的 SF 是 GLBT，但很难找到详细分解它的数据。

@FinchTH @joaquinlife Hey 96% harmless.

@FinchTH @joaquinlife 嘿 96% 无害。

@Fritz844 OK, your tweet was unclear is all. Cheers.

@Fritz844 好的，你的推文不清楚。干杯。

@Fritz844 It's not really random. It's a well known and well funded anti-CCP group.

@Fritz844 这不是真的随机。这是一个知名且资金雄厚的反中共组织。

@Fritz844 I did not. I thought you were referring to the poster, which is not state media.

@Fritz844 我没有。我以为你指的是海报，不是官方媒体。