@JHowardBrainMD Lag is an issue here.

@JHowardBrainMD滞后是这里的一个问题。

@FixSheltersNow @alexmeshkin @vet_dot The poll mentioned the job market as a top issue was just last week. If I see it again, I will post it here. Agree inflation canceling out wages and about perception.

@FixSheltersNow@alexmeshkin@vet_dot这项民意调查刚刚在上周提到就业市场是一个首要问题。如果我再看到它，我会把它贴在这里。同意通货膨胀抵消了工资和对认知的影响。

@FixSheltersNow @alexmeshkin @vet_dot He can do that, but he can't actually "fix" inflation without completely reversing his policy stance on the economy, and the virus too. Because a large part of inflation and supply chain disruptions are labor shortage, and that is due to people being dead or sick with long covid.

@FixSheltersNow@alexmeshkin@vet_dot他可以做到这一点，但如果不彻底改变他对经济和病毒的政策立场，他实际上无法“解决”通货膨胀。因为通货膨胀和供应链中断的很大一部分是劳动力短缺，这是由于人们因长期新冠病毒而死亡或患病。

@FixSheltersNow @alexmeshkin @vet_dot Most people (as in 90%+) are not policy experts of economy experts. They vote largely based on perception of competence and on the country going in the right/wrong way. Failures by administration not only on the virus but also Afghanistan undermined that. More jobs won't fix it.

@FixSheltersNow@alexmeshkin@vet_dot大多数人（如90%+）不是经济专家的政策专家。他们的投票很大程度上基于对能力的看法以及国家的正确/错误做法。政府不仅在病毒问题上的失败，而且在阿富汗也破坏了这一点。更多的工作并不能解决这个问题。

@FixSheltersNow @alexmeshkin @vet_dot "Focus on the top issues" does not necessarily improve perception or approval or votes. See polling suggesting the economy and job market as top issue. Focusing on improving those is making inflation worse.
What people SAY they want is not the same as what they want.

@FixSheltersNow@alexmeshkin@vet_dot“关注最重要的问题”并不一定能改善人们的看法、认可或投票。将表明经济和就业市场的民调视为首要问题。专注于改善这些状况正在加剧通胀。
人们说他们想要的和他们想要的不一样。

@FixSheltersNow @alexmeshkin @vet_dot It isn't not only for the reason I said but also because there isn't much the administration can actually do about inflation or gas prices. In fact, prioritizing economic activity has likely made inflation worse.

@FixSheltersNow@alexmeshkin@vet_dot这不仅是因为我说的原因，也是因为政府在通货膨胀或油价方面实际上无能为力。事实上，优先考虑经济活动可能会让通胀恶化。

@FixSheltersNow @alexmeshkin @vet_dot It's not that simple. What people think are the top issues does not directly translate into policy nor into approval of the governing party. Case in point is high polling on people being concerned about "the job market" when it is the strongest pretty much ever in history

@FixSheltersNow@Alexmeskin@vet_dot其实没那么简单。人们认为最重要的问题并不能直接转化为政策，也不能直接转化为执政党的认可。一个很好的例子是，当“就业市场”几乎是历史上最强劲的时候，人们对它的关注度很高

@AGoldsmithEsq @alexmeshkin https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@agoldsmithesq@alexmeshkinhttps://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@JoshuaDHunter @alexmeshkin Has that strategic reserve been restocked?
What happens if there is a brand new airborne pandemic next week?

@JoshuaDHunter@alexmeshkin该战略储备是否已重新进货？
如果下周有一场全新的空气传播大流行会发生什么？

@LazarusLong13 @CermwgpSue @DrEricDing @CDCDirector It's good for bookings.

@LazarusLong13@CermwgpSue@drericing@cdc director这对预订很好。

@MarvinH2_G2 @chrischirp @guardian Nobody knows this. It's just another flavor of hopium smoke to puff.

@MarvinH2_G2@chrischirp@guardian没有人知道这一点。这只是另一种味道的啤酒花烟雾。

@convenwisdom @alexmeshkin @michaelmina_lab That would be useful information if accurate. Really sad that this isn't rigorously tested and widely reported.

@这将是有用的信息，如果准确的话。真的很遗憾，这没有经过严格的测试和广泛的报道。

@DrTomFrieden Everyone circulating in public is exposed to covid.
If you've been home alone for the past two weeks, yeah you're not a putting the cancer patient next to you in the pharmacy, at a workplace, on transit, etc. at risk.
Everyone else, mask up.

@Tomfrieden博士每个在公共场合传播的人都会接触到新冠病毒。
如果你在过去两周里一直独自在家，是的，你不会让你旁边的癌症患者在药房、工作场所、运输途中等处于危险之中。
其他人都要伪装起来。

@gadboit @juli_bg_bs @Stockdog23 Also, not really essential to reach zero. South Korea never did, and never really locked down. But it maintained "low" levels all the way to vaccine. Getting from high to low levels with lockdown and then maintaining to vaccine/treatments w/o ongoing lockdown is fine.

@gadboit@juli_bg_bs@Stockdog23也不是达到零的必要条件。韩国从来没有这样做过，也从来没有真正被封锁过。但在接种疫苗的过程中，它一直保持着“低”水平。从高水平到低水平进行封锁，然后在不进行封锁的情况下维持疫苗/治疗是可以的。

@alexmeshkin @michaelmina_lab @convenwisdom Was asking about Cue, not antigen.

@alexmeshkin@michaelmina_lab@Convenwist询问的是线索，而不是抗原。

@gadboit @juli_bg_bs @Stockdog23 3. It's absolutely possible to start with substantial spread and reach zero. Melbourne had a large second wave (reaching similar rates of community spread that US had mid-waves, much higher than Europe) and then reduced to zero. Taiwan did w/moderate delta wave, which is harder.

@gadboit@juli_bg_bs@Stockdog23 3。绝对有可能从大幅价差开始，然后达到零。墨尔本经历了一次大的第二波（达到了与美国中波相似的社区传播率，远高于欧洲），然后降至零。台湾出现了中等强度的三角洲波，难度更大。

@gadboit @juli_bg_bs @Stockdog23 No that doesn't make sense.
1. You can get vaccines/treatments. Even one would be worthwhile. In fact there were like 10 in year.
2. You won't get to herd immunity in three weeks with this sort of virus, but you can get there over a longer period. Longer flattening makes sense.

@gadboit@juli_bg_bs@Stockdog23不，这没有道理。
1.你可以接种疫苗/接受治疗。即使是一个也值得。事实上，一年大约有10个。
2.感染这种病毒的人在三周内无法获得群体免疫，但你可以在更长的时间内获得群体免疫。更长时间的扁平化是有意义的。

@gadboit @juli_bg_bs @Stockdog23 No way you get to herd immunity in three weeks with this sort of virus.

@gadboit@juli_bg_bs@Stockdog23你不可能在三周内获得这种病毒的群体免疫。

@michaelmina_lab @convenwisdom @alexmeshkin Is it as sensitive as PCR?

@michaelmina_lab@Convenwist@alexmeshkin它和PCR一样敏感吗？

@gadboit @juli_bg_bs @Stockdog23 The problem with "three weeks to flatten the curve" is where did three weeks come from? It seems made up politically. What is it trying to accomplish? Again, Melbourne took three months, not three weeks, but it was based on a goal (getting to zero) not a calendar.

@gadboit@juli_bg_bs@Stockdog23“用三周时间让曲线变平”的问题是，三周从何而来？这似乎是政治编造的。它想要实现什么？同样，墨尔本花了三个月，而不是三周，但它是基于一个目标（实现零）而不是日历。