@thereal_truther Broken some, revealed others.

@thereal_truther打破了一些，揭露了另一些。

@simpleton900 @real_lord_miles Russian troops using the driver app in their tanks for extra money.

@simpleton900@real_lord_miles俄罗斯军队在坦克中使用driver应用程序获取额外资金。

@HighbrowHaze @TheStalwart @markets Yes I agree with your point, but it's a different one.

@Highbrowshaze@TheStalwart@markets是的，我同意你的观点，但这是另一个观点。

@MaikelKoning85 @MJWorth63 @DeItaone Sending weapons to Ukraine so apparently "allowed" is subject to interpretation.

@MaikelKoning85@MJWorth63@DeItaone向乌克兰发送武器显然是“被允许的”，这需要解释。

@npkvpgmmn5 @TheStalwart @markets Small amounts yes, I'm talking about the $120 billion in reserves. Can't spend that in pawn shops.

@npkvpgmmn5@TheStalwart@markets小额是的，我指的是1200亿美元的外汇储备。不能在当铺里花。

@HighbrowHaze @TheStalwart @markets It's really not feasible to not own the ruble as long as the ruble remains the common currency in use. People are paid in ruble, pay rent in ruble, car payments, buy food, etc. Real time exchange is theoretically possible maybe but not feasible for most in practice.

@Highbrowshaze@TheStalwart@markets只要卢布仍然是使用中的通用货币，就不可能拥有卢布。人们用卢布支付，用卢布支付租金，买车，买食物等等。实时交换在理论上是可能的，但在实践中对大多数人来说并不可行。

@babyybeeb @spectatorindex For now

@BabyBeeb@ObservatorIndex

@TheStalwart @markets My question about gold is that yes, no one can take it away from you, but if no one will trade with you what good is it? You can't eat it.

@Stalwart@markets我关于黄金的问题是，是的，没有人能从你手中夺走它，但如果没有人愿意与你交易，那又有什么好处呢？你不能吃。

@HighbrowHaze @TheStalwart @markets We don't know it's not the case. Ruble still has some value, and the gold may be a big part of why.

@Highbrowshaze@TheStalwart@markets我们不知道事实并非如此。卢布仍然有一些价值，而黄金可能是其中的一个重要原因。

@betainverse @JeromeAdamsMD @CNBC Even the high end of the confidence interval, 75% IIRC, is much lower than before. The story is largely accurate without reliance on the exact (and, as you say, imprecise) numbers.

@betainverse@JeromeAdamsMD@CNBC即使是置信区间的高端，75%的IIRC，也比以前低得多。这个故事在很大程度上是准确的，不依赖确切的（正如你所说的，不精确的）数字。

@BolognaFishMD It's tribalism, hard to fix.

@BolognaFishMD这是部落主义，很难解决。

@SkogVIF @willieckerslike @chezzie67 @SebastianEPayne Before that happens, RU needs to put an aircraft in position knowing it will be shot down, potentially leading to WW3. It's brinksmanship and inherently dangerous but there is more subtlety to it than you suggest.

@SkogVIF@willieckerslike@chezzie67@SebastianEPayne在这之前，RU需要将飞机放置到位，知道它将被击落，可能导致第三次世界大战。这是一种边缘策略，本质上是危险的，但它比你想象的要微妙得多。

@andrew_lilico @DPJHodges That seems extremely subjective.

@andrew_lilico@DPJHodges似乎非常主观。

@JeromeAdamsMD It is important news, and indeed headline worthy in some form, that more vaccinated kids are going to get covid, and transmit it to family members and others. And indeed more will go to the hospital and die. But still worth getting vaxed. Nuance is hard.

@JeromeAdamsMD更多接种疫苗的儿童将感染新冠病毒，并将其传播给家庭成员和其他人，这是一条重要的新闻，在某种程度上确实值得成为头条新闻。事实上，更多的人将被送往医院并死亡。但还是值得一试。细微差别很难区分。

@JeromeAdamsMD You're right, the headline is bad, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
In fact efficacy did drop a lot, and protection against hospitalization still valuable.

JeromeAdamsMD，你说得对，标题很糟糕，但我认为真相在中间。
事实上，疗效确实下降了很多，防止住院治疗仍然很有价值。

@JeromeAdamsMD Yes and no. Efficacy has been consistently reported for symptomatic disease, not hospitalizations. This is infection, which is moving in the other direction and a bit alarmist, but expecting everyone to memory-hole disease efficacy and completely focus on hosp also not reasonable

@JeromeAdamsMD是和否。疗效一直被报道用于症状性疾病，而不是住院治疗。这就是感染，它正在朝着另一个方向发展，有点危言耸听，但期望每个人都能记住疾病的疗效并完全关注hosp也是不合理的

@lucy_guo @agrimsingh Last Updated: 02/25/2022

@lucy_guo@agrimsingh最近更新日期：2022年2月25日

@wsbgnl It may not be quite as bad as blood donors, but I'm not entirely sure.

@wsbgnl可能没有献血者那么糟糕，但我不完全确定。

@grayday211 @HawaiianApples @StarAdvertiser Most of that trend happened before the invasion.

@grayday211@Hawaiianaples@StarAdvertiser大多数这种趋势发生在入侵之前。

@wsbgnl I suspect this is biased low. It's using routine medical blood testing and that's going tilt toward those better served by medical care (i.e. higher income, etc.), who are also probably less infected. There is no adjustment in the study for income or race.

@wsbgnl我怀疑这有失偏颇。它使用的是常规医学血液检测，这将倾向于医疗服务更好的人群（即收入更高的人群等），他们也可能感染较少。研究中没有对收入或种族进行调整。