@Liberalism2021 @paulalexlewis @DonaldWelsh16 @ironandwine11 Has nothing to do with the first 2-3 years. China could have reopened after vaccinating (contrary to oft-repeated bullshit, their vaccines are fine w/3 doses) if it wanted and would still have had a better economy with less disruption of life than just about anywhere in the West.

@Liberalism2021 @paulalexlewis @DonaldWelsh16 @ironandwine11 与前 2-3 年无关。中国本可以在接种疫苗后重新开放（与经常重复的废话相反，他们的疫苗只需 3 剂就可以了），如果它想要并且仍然会拥有比西方几乎任何地方更少的生活干扰和更好的经济。

@IleneYoutz3 @DemsKeys @DWUhlfelderLaw @RemoveRon Okay, but it would also be okay if people build if they want in extremely high risk areas, but with no regulated insurance and no taxpayer disaster money.

@IleneYoutz3 @DemsKeys @DWUhlfelderLaw @RemoveRon 好的，但是如果人们想要在极高风险地区建造，但没有受监管的保险和纳税人的灾难资金，也可以。

@siilinoor @CoronaReduit @chefofmembers @ChGefaell Be aware this isn't even for the full year. It is a cherry picked four month period out of each year.

@siilinoor @CoronaReduit @chefofmembers @ChGefaell 请注意，这甚至不是全年。这是每年四个月的樱桃采摘期。

@CoronaReduit @ChGefaell https://t.co/vDXOnsKHIl

@CoronaReduit @ChGefaell https://t.co/vDXOnsKHIl

@Liberalism2021 @paulalexlewis @DonaldWelsh16 @ironandwine11 This is really stupid, okay. Don't post that misleading propaganda again. https://t.co/iPIRbi2W6V

@Liberalism2021 @paulalexlewis @DonaldWelsh16 @ironandwine11 这真的很愚蠢，好吧。不要再发布那种误导性的宣传。 https://t.co/iPIRbi2W6V

@paulalexlewis @Liberalism2021 @DonaldWelsh16 @ironandwine11 Not even six months. Wuhan was on lockdown for 2.5 months, the rest of China had already reopened. In fact, China was being held up in the West as a model of "reopening", despite different (and much less effective) measures both before and after reopening.

@paulalexlewis @Liberalism2021 @DonaldWelsh16 @ironandwine11 甚至不到六个月。武汉封城2.5个月，中国其他地区已经重新开放。事实上，尽管在重新开放之前和之后采取了不同（而且效果要差得多）的措施，但中国在西方一直被视为“重新开放”的典范。

@MichaelSFuhrer You can probably even modify this somewhat. If you know a place has extremely good ventilation, and reasonable distancing, that's probably okay too even without a mask, at least a big risk reduction if not entirely.

@MichaelSFuhrer您甚至可以对此进行一些修改。如果您知道一个地方通风良好且距离合理，那么即使不戴口罩也可能没问题，至少可以大大降低风险，如果不是完全的话。

@MichaelSFuhrer You really don't have to be privileged to wear a high quality well-fitting mask at work (and elsewhere indoors) and not eat in restaurants or socialize (w/o mask) indoors. It's a choice, and many don't choose it, but it's not because they can't.

@MichaelSFuhrer 您真的不必有特权在工作（和室内其他地方）佩戴高质量合身的口罩，而不是在餐厅吃饭或在室内社交（不戴口罩）。这是一种选择，许多人不选择它，但这并不是因为他们不能。

@MichaelSFuhrer You don't need to eliminate an industry for any individual to not use it! The point is that it is definitely quite feasible for an individual to reduce exposure vs average that much (and some likely do it without even trying!).
Quite different question from society overall.

@MichaelSFuhrer 您不需要消除任何个人不使用它的行业！关键是，对于个人而言，减少与平均水平相比绝对是完全可行的（有些人甚至可能没有尝试就做到了！）。
与整个社会完全不同的问题。

@DrEricDing This seems pretty reasonable though. You're not getting free unlimited energy, you're just getting energy at closer to the previous rates.

@DrEricDing 这似乎很合理。你没有得到免费的无限能量，你只是以更接近以前的速度获得能量。

@ChaimKev @1bravewave @nuclearball @DrEricDing @SarahBurris @Acosta @DWUhlfelderLaw Not feasible, you don't empty out a whole state every time there is an approaching storm anywhere. Often they miss, lose strength, or aren't that large. You need more specific info to be actionable. This one was a monster.

@ChaimKev @1bravewave @nuclearball @DrEricDing @SarahBurris @Acosta @DWUhlfelderLaw 不可行，每次任何地方都有风暴逼近时，您不会清空整个州。他们经常错过，失去力量，或者没有那么大。您需要更具体的信息才能采取行动。这是一个怪物。

@MichaelSFuhrer I think most can half by wearing a high quality well fitting mask at work. Of course it depends on the nature of work but that's likely > half of daily contacts right there (assuming low/typical restaurant use, not a high user eating out daily). Of course, don't want to is true..

@MichaelSFuhrer 我认为大多数人可以通过在工作中戴上高质量的合身面罩来减半。当然，这取决于工作的性质，但这很可能

@MichaelSFuhrer Yes I actually included that qualifier about household but deleted it due to char limit.

@MichaelSFuhrer 是的，我实际上包括了关于家庭的限定词，但由于字符限制而将其删除。

@MichaelSFuhrer Meanwhile, someone at a shared workplace has many daily contacts right there, a few restaurant meals per week with many likely contact each time, plus incremental mid-risk contacts while shopping, transit, etc.

@MichaelSFuhrer 同时，共享工作场所的某人每天都有很多接触，每周有几顿饭，每次可能接触很多，加上购物、过境等时增加的中等风险接触。

@MichaelSFuhrer Think of it this way: How many medium- to high-risk contacts would a typical person have per day/week/whatever compared to someone behaving as above? The ratio is >>6x. Working from home, you might contact 0 people most work days, or perhaps a few low risk when out w/good mask.

@MichaelSFuhrer 这样想：与上述行为的人相比，一个典型的人每天/每周/无论有多少中高风险联系人？比率是

@MichaelSFuhrer If you are working from home AND avoiding restaurants (and similar), AND wearing a high quality well fitting mask everywhere else, you're probably reduced risk by MUCH more than 83% compared to "average" which is doing basically nothing.

@MichaelSFuhrer 如果您在家工作并且避免去餐馆（和类似场所），并且在其他任何地方都戴着高质量的合身口罩，那么与基本上什么都不做的“平均”相比，您的风险可能降低了 83% 以上。

@AlisonNolan9 @tylerblack32 @GidMK Interesting.

@AlisonNolan9 @tylerblack32 @GidMK 有趣。

@alanrew @JohnWest_JAWS @konstructivizm Actual source for the photo https://www.esa.int/Science_Ex...

@alanrew @JohnWest_JAWS @konstructivizm 照片的实际来源 https://www.esa.int/ Science_Ex...

@JeffBullard16 @Liberalism2021 @alexmeshkin It's useful for people to understand the reality of how they work regardless of what the public does. There are valid points and dumb ones. "No good without fit testing" is a dumb one.

@JeffBullard16 @Liberalism2021 @alexmeshkin 无论公众做什么，人们了解他们如何工作的现实都是有用的。有有效的点和愚蠢的点。 “没有适合性测试就没有好处”是愚蠢的。

@WillRuger What corner? The border back to Russia is open, no?

@WillRuger 什么角落？回俄罗斯的边境是开放的，不是吗？