@flowermusickids @joeyfox85 I think the argument is that transmission would be suppressed so much that circulation would die out. These fleeting transmissions could still happen, but wouldn't be likely to with so little virus around.

@flowermusickids@Joey Fox85我认为论点是传播会被抑制得太厉害，以至于流通会消失。这些稍纵即逝的传播仍有可能发生，但在病毒如此之少的情况下不太可能发生。

@FinchTH @Bob_Wachter @dr_kkjetelina Sure there are different ways of looking at it, that's one. Also being right in someone's face (or even a row away) requires more than the air being changed 4 mins later.

@FinchTH@Bob_Wachter@dr_kkjetelina当然有不同的方式来看待它，这就是其中之一。同时，直射某人的脸（甚至一排距离）需要的不仅仅是4分钟后换气。

@FinchTH @Bob_Wachter @dr_kkjetelina Explains this. Occupant density is a huge factor.
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@FinchTH@Bob_Wachter@dr_kjetelina解释了这一点。居住密度是一个巨大的因素。
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@FinchTH @Bob_Wachter @dr_kkjetelina https://t.co/ibFxxhdbHl

@FinchTH@Bob_Wachter@dr_kkjetelinahttps://t.co/ibFxxhdbHl

@FinchTH @Bob_Wachter @dr_kkjetelina That is an excellent analysis. Wish it had more exposure.

@FinchTH@Bob_Wachter@dr_kjetelina这是一个很好的分析。希望它有更多的曝光。

@Bob_Wachter @dr_kkjetelina Remember airlines telling you that keeping the center seats wouldn't do any good? They lied. https://t.co/U6XQielQhF

@Bob_Wachter@dr_kkjetelina还记得航空公司告诉过你保持中间座位没有任何好处吗？他们撒谎了。https://t.co/U6XQielQhF

@GuyGadboisGuyG1 @Bob_Wachter @dr_kkjetelina Also, as noted in the article, the mannequins didn't move around or turn their heads from straight forward.

@Guygadboisguig1@Bob_Wachter@dr_kkjetelina同样，正如文章中所指出的，人体模型没有来回移动或从正前方转头。

@GuyGadboisGuyG1 @Bob_Wachter @dr_kkjetelina The headline is misleading. The study actually showed about 2% chance of infection per hour with masks and much higher without.
Interestingly, the study also showed (not sure if mentioned in this article) that risk would be cut in half by keeping center seats empty.

@Guygadboisguig1@Bob_Wachter@dr_kkjetelina这个标题具有误导性。这项研究实际上显示，戴口罩每小时约有2%的感染几率，而不戴口罩的感染几率要高得多。
有趣的是，这项研究还表明（不确定本文是否提及）保持中间座位空着可以将风险降低一半。

@BeNotRandom @Bob_Wachter @dr_kkjetelina No, and addressed in the post https://t.co/TvTTzcItZl

@BeNotRandom@Bob_Wachter@dr_kkjetelina No，并在帖子中发表了地址https://t.co/TvTTzcItZl

@DavidAb10822584 So much inconsistency in testing now I think.

@DavidAb10822584我想现在测试中有太多不一致的地方了。

@wsbgnl https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@wsbgnlhttps://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@arindube Equal "prime age employment" is not the right metric. When older people leave the workforce (due to covid?) it leaves a gap which then must be filled by prime age.

@arindube平等的“黄金年龄就业”不是正确的衡量标准。当老年人离开工作岗位时（由于新冠病毒？）它留下了一个缺口，必须在黄金时代填补。

@BreezeMountains @David_LKaplan @alexmeshkin But there are bad PCR tests too. If it takes 2+ days to get result, just as useless. Not all take that long however.

@Breezemounts@David_LKaplan@alexmeshkin，但也有糟糕的PCR检测。如果需要2天以上的时间才能得到结果，那同样没用。然而，并不是所有这些都需要那么长时间。

@BreezeMountains @David_LKaplan @alexmeshkin Only if the RAT actually works. According to OP here and other sources, they don't for critical first 1-2 days of infection. They're probably okay for testing OUT of quarantine, but not great early for starting quarantine or treatment.

@Breezemounts@David_LKaplan@alexmeshkin只有在老鼠真的有效的情况下才会出现。根据这里的OP和其他消息来源，他们不需要在感染的前1-2天进行治疗。他们可能可以在隔离区外进行检测，但对于开始隔离或治疗来说，还不是很早。

@Bluefishdude @PutrinoLab https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

你的电子邮件https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@derekpierre @AdamJKucharski Come on, this is 2022. Hey siri/google set timer 20 minutes.

@derekpierre@AdamJKucharski来吧，这是2022年。嘿，siri/谷歌设置计时器20分钟。

@apmalong @AbundantLandUse CDC has not said it is good for everyone to keep masking, except in travel and healthcare. Green "Community level" (almost everywhere almost always) does not carry a masking recommendation of any kind, not even for immunocompromised.

@apmalong@AbundantLandUse CDC并没有说，除了在旅游和医疗保健领域，保持掩蔽对每个人都有好处。绿色“社区层面”（几乎无处不在，几乎总是）没有任何形式的掩蔽建议，甚至对免疫功能低下的患者也没有。

@JHWeissmann Covid vaccines and booster were authorized one at a time for the past 1.5 years. How is this different?

@在过去的1.5年里，JHWeissmann新冠病毒疫苗和助推器被授权一次接种一种。这有什么不同？

@soncharm @finn_charlene @Surgeon_General Some of the tweets were written addressed to the reader and read like a suggestion to me, but you're right that's not explicit.
"Even if you're low risk and aren’t concerned about #COVID19, you could transmit the virus to someone who isn’t so lucky"

@soncharm@finn_charlene@purposeu_General有些推文是写给读者的，读起来像是给我的建议，但你是对的，这并不明确。
“即使你的风险很低，而且不担心新冠病毒，你也可能把病毒传染给不那么幸运的人。”

@VesperAegis @David_LKaplan @alexmeshkin This was referring to the person taking the test. They're wearing proper PPE which would be much more than 18 times reduced risk, on top of being out doors.
True that people going to the test site may be at some risk or create risk for others even outdoors

@Vesperagis@David_LKaplan@alexmeshkin这是指参加测试的人。他们穿着合适的PPE，这将大大降低18倍以上的风险，再加上出门。
的确，前往试验现场的人可能会面临一些风险，或给其他人带来风险，甚至是在户外