@whole1day @NBarton @RealSexyCyborg @DrLeanaWen @denise_dewald Lobbyists or not, most people most places don't support a total ban. They do support a public indoor smoking ban.
That being said, this is starting to shift as values change and the number of smokers declines, and various countries are enacting and considering bans.
@不管是否有说客，大多数人和大多数地方都不支持全面禁止。他们确实支持公共室内禁烟。
尽管如此，随着价值观的改变和吸烟者数量的下降，这一趋势开始发生变化，各个国家都在制定和考虑禁令。
@whole1day @NBarton @RealSexyCyborg @DrLeanaWen @denise_dewald Smoking isn't banned in most countries that don't produce tobacco. Indoor smoking in public is banned many places.
@在大多数不生产烟草的国家，全天@NBarton@RealSexyCyborg@DrLeanaWen@denise_dewald吸烟并没有被禁止。许多地方禁止在公共场所室内吸烟。
@Y_Cornelius_1 @AliHMokdad @IHME_UW It's not the same model.
@Y_Cornelius_1@AliHMokdad@IHME_UW这不是同一个模型。
@andrew_lilico Third, if the total burden (severity times frequency) of covid does approach that of flu, which hasn't happened yet, unless flu remains highly suppressed, that's a doubling of an already important burden.
@andrew_lilico第三，如果新冠病毒的总负担（严重程度乘以频率）确实接近尚未发生的流感，除非流感仍然受到高度抑制，否则这将是已经很重要的负担的两倍。
@andrew_lilico Second, flu does matter. In addition to being very unpleasant, it causes people to miss work or school, sometimes makes them severely ill or dead. Bad flu outbreaks often stress hospitals and sometimes close schools.
@安德鲁·利利科第二，流感很重要。除了非常令人不快之外，它还会导致人们错过工作或学校，有时还会使他们严重生病或死亡。严重的流感疫情经常给医院带来压力，有时甚至关闭学校。
@andrew_lilico When bad flu (non-pandemic) is "rising", it's still not likely to infect anywhere near as many people. That's an important factor in "matters", not just severity.
@andrew_lilico当严重流感（非大流行）正在“上升”时，它仍然不太可能感染到任何接近这么多人的地方。这是“重要”的一个因素，而不仅仅是严重性。
@benedictecallan @bylenasun @CitizenCohn @CDCgov @yabutaleb7 Not according to CDC!
@benedictecallan@bylenasun@CitizenCohn@CDCgov@yabutaleb7根据疾病预防控制中心的说法不是这样的！
@alissa914g @1960Carol @Lawrence There are no questions they care about. They know she's getting confirmed on more or less if not exactly a party-line vote. The entire process has devolved to grandstanding.
@alissa914g@1960Carol@Lawrence他们不关心任何问题。他们知道，即使不完全是党派立场的投票，她也或多或少得到了确认。整个过程都变成了哗众取宠。
@wsbgnl How many of those things can be done "with and for people" with no funding?
@wsbgnl在没有资金的情况下，这些事情中有多少可以“为人民”完成？
@chillmorticia @c5nt5r__l5ft1st @tstaub @Robertyb @TenaflyRobin @60Minutes The premise is that if you build new and desirable high income housing, it reduces high income people competing for older middle income property and bidding up the rents.
@chillmorticia@c5nt5r__l5ft1st@tstaub@Robertyb@TenaflyRobin@60分钟前提是，如果你建造新的理想的高收入住房，它会减少高收入人群争夺较老的中等收入房产并抬高租金。
@gregggonsalves @POTUS @WhiteHouse Considering that every administration has downplayed every surge, I'm not sure this alleged new poling data is doing anything more than confirmation bias.
@gregggonsalves@POTUS@WhiteHouse考虑到每届政府都淡化了每一次增兵，我不确定这一所谓的新极化数据所起的作用不仅仅是确认偏见。
@dustinevan @Noahpinion Uniform inflation really wouldn't be but there is a lot of commodity inflation faster than wages which is why real wages have dropped.
@dustinevan@Noahpinion统一通胀率确实不会，但大宗商品通胀率比工资上涨速度快很多，这就是实际工资下降的原因。
@nomanautomata @Noahpinion They never are. They're designed to be clickbait.
@Nomanutomata@Noahpinion他们从来都不是。它们被设计成点击诱饵。
@benedictecallan @bylenasun @CitizenCohn @CDCgov @yabutaleb7 High is only triggered at 200 cases per 100k AND increased hospitalizations (a lagging indicator).
@benedictecallan@bylenasun@CitizenCohn@CDCgov@yabutaleb7 High仅在每10万人中有200例病例和住院人数增加时触发（滞后指标）。
@Birdyword @kjoules You can get a sense from the size of the confidence intervals. None of them are exceptionally wide, so the sample sizes aren't very small.
@Birdyword@kjoules你可以从置信区间的大小中得到一种感觉。它们都不是特别宽，所以样本量不是很小。
@HughThunkIt @CassandraTSLAQ @justthefacts85 The point is, lack of confirmation didn't prevent role from being filled with utter political stooges.
It may seem tempting to view confirmation as an opportunity for politicization but the politicization's already there, and checks and balances serves a genuine purpose.
@HughThunkIt@CassandraTSLAQ@justfact85重点是，缺乏确认并没有阻止这个角色被完全的政治走狗占据。
将确认视为政治化的机会似乎很有诱惑力，但政治化已经存在，制衡是真正的目的。
@HughThunkIt @justthefacts85 Well, the details may differ but at least two administrations where any sort of independence or scientific integrity of CDC were utterly undermined by the white house. It seems systemic.
@HughThunkIt@justthefact85嗯，细节可能有所不同，但至少有两届政府的CDC的任何独立性或科学完整性都被白宫彻底破坏。这似乎是系统性的。
@HughThunkIt @justthefacts85 I'm not sure being an at-will presidential appointee is actually less politicized.
@HughThunkIt@justthefact85我不确定随意被总统任命的人实际上没有那么政治化。