@Tuliodna @meganranney If it is anything like other places using that method of reporting, date-of-death statistics show low numbers for recent days, which then fill in later.
Visualization of the principle:
https://twitter.com/zorinaq/st...

@Tuliodna@Meganraney如果它和其他使用这种报告方法的地方有什么区别的话，死亡日期统计数据显示最近几天的数字很低，之后再填写。
原则的可视化：
https://twitter.com/zorinaq/st...

@Tuliodna @meganranney What is distribution of reporting time? i.e. what portion of deaths that occurred today would normally be reported the same day, and when would we expect the rest to be reported?

@Tuliodna@Meganraney报告时间的分布是什么？i、 e.今天发生的死亡中，通常哪部分会在同一天报告，其余的将在什么时候报告？

@DOTsGtGrandbaby @IanRicksecker @mehdirhasan @nhannahjones @tylerblack32 @sdschools There are particle counters but it seems more complicated to count particles of different sizes and know which ones are important.
Nice thing about CO2 is low CO2 -> particle accumulation must be low (filtration is a bonus). With mid or high CO2 plus filtration, less clear.

@DOTsGtGrandbaby@IanRicksecker@mehdirhasan@nhannahjones@tylerblack32@sdschools有粒子计数器，但计算不同大小的粒子并知道哪些粒子是重要的似乎更复杂。
二氧化碳的好处是低二氧化碳->；颗粒积累必须低（过滤是一个额外的好处）。中高二氧化碳加过滤，不太清晰。

@IanRicksecker @DOTsGtGrandbaby @mehdirhasan @nhannahjones @tylerblack32 @sdschools It's a proxy for the portion of human emissions that can't be effectively filtered. Without filters, that's the same thing, but once filtered are introduced the relationship becomes a lot more complicated.

@IanRicksecker@DOTsGtGrandbaby@mehdirhasan@nhannahjones@tylerblack32@sdschools这是无法有效过滤的人类排放部分的代表。没有过滤器，这是同样的事情，但一旦引入过滤，关系就会变得复杂得多。

@DOTsGtGrandbaby @IanRicksecker @mehdirhasan @nhannahjones @tylerblack32 @sdschools CO2 doesn't measure filtration. It gives you a baseline rate of fresh outside air which could likely correlate with airborne transmission risk in the absence of filtration. Filtration makes the matter more complicated.

@DOTsGtGrandbaby@IanRicksecker@mehdirhasan@nhannahjones@tylerblack32@sdb不测量过滤。它为你提供了室外新鲜空气的基准速率，在没有过滤的情况下，这可能与空气传播风险相关。过滤使事情变得更复杂。

@DrSeaPerle In what way is US stringency increasing? That is odd data.

@Seaperle博士，美国的紧缩政策是以什么方式增加的？这是奇怪的数据。

@mdfuerstenberg @yaneerbaryam @nytimes Total population infection rate in "high covid" places fact extremely high (much higher than reported confirmed infections).
The only ones not infected have either been extremely lucky or more careful than is being described.

@mdfuerstenberg@yaneerbaryam@nytimes“高新冠”地区的总人口感染率非常高（远高于报告的确诊感染）。
唯一没有被感染的人要么非常幸运，要么比目前描述的更加小心。

@wsbgnl "Force"

@wsbgnl“力量”

@Aintropy @DavidLewis61 @JamesSurowiecki The old site covid19-projections had pre-mitigaton R estimates, NYC was by far the highest in the country. Travel from Europe was a factor, but fast spread upon arrival was a factor too.

@Aintropy@DavidLewis61@JamesSurowiecki旧站点covid19预测有预缓解R估计，纽约是迄今为止全国最高的。来自欧洲的旅行是一个因素，但到达后的快速传播也是一个因素。

@Aintropy @DavidLewis61 @JamesSurowiecki "Indoors" doesn't mean the same thing. Being a crowded bus and being alone in a car are both 'indoors' but very different. People step out of their apartments in NYC into a shared hallway, shared elevator, etc.
Also urban groceries are more crowded.

@Aintropy@DavidLewis61@JamesSurowiecki“室内”的意思不一样。拥挤的公交车和独自一人在车里都是“室内”的，但却截然不同。人们走出他们在纽约的公寓，走进一条共用的走廊、共用的电梯等。
此外，城市食品杂货店也更加拥挤。

@JamesSurowiecki @XelaPhila Not hard to look at death rates before vaxes came on the scene at all and most if not all of those lowest states will still be among the lowest.

@JamesSurowiecki@XelaPhila不难看出Vax出现之前的死亡率，如果不是所有这些最低的州，大多数州仍然是最低的。

@HilNorth @ashishkjha That's going to find more cases, and generally measure background rates vs only acute rates, so it still fits. Wider net on testing = lower positivity.

@HilNorth@ashishkjha将发现更多病例，通常会测量背景发病率而不是急性发病率，所以它仍然适用。测试时更宽的网络=较低的阳性率。

@HilNorth @ashishkjha The graphs show positivity rate (share of tests that are positive). Higher positivity suggests more cases not counted (only the most obvious and serious cases being counted).

@HilNorth@ashishkjha图表显示阳性率（阳性检测的比例）。阳性率越高，表示未统计的病例越多（仅统计最明显和最严重的病例）。

@AudryEve @carita_paige @SolliesSurgery @ASlavitt He's discussing a new California policy announced by a politician for whom he is an advisor. Everything done by politicians is political.

@Audryev@carita_paige@SolliesSurgery@ASlavitt他正在讨论一位政治家宣布的加州新政策，他是该政策的顾问。政客们所做的一切都是政治性的。

@wsbgnl Missing, incomplete, or outdated data from FL, NY, and TX is a huge deal, those being three of the biggest states.

@来自佛罗里达州、纽约州和德克萨斯州的wsbgnl数据缺失、不完整或过时是一个巨大的问题，这三个州是最大的三个州。

@AudryEve @carita_paige @SolliesSurgery @ASlavitt Not only doesn't he mention NY but he doesn't mention any of the other states on the chart either.
You may disagree the significance of his California Florida comparison, but that's all it was. NY w/ or w/o NYC is irrelevant.

@Audryev@carita_paige@SolliesSurgery@ASlavitt他不仅没有提到纽约，也没有提到图表上的任何其他州。
你可能不同意他与加利福尼亚-佛罗里达州进行比较的重要性，但仅此而已。纽约和/或没有纽约是无关的。

@AudryEve @carita_paige @SolliesSurgery @ASlavitt No, he just compared California, which as the subject of the thread (due to the announcement of the new strategy) with one other contrasting place, Florida. There was nothing to suggest a comprehensive comparison.

@Audryev@carita_paige@SolliesSurgery@ASlavitt不，他只是将作为主题的加利福尼亚州（由于新战略的宣布）与另一个对比鲜明的地方佛罗里达州进行了比较。没有任何证据表明要进行全面的比较。

@BubbaBooey @DailyJLee Buck stops at the top. Excuses don't count.

@BubbaBooey@DailyJLee巴克站在顶端。借口不重要。

@DailyJLee @NoyesJHumphrey Not an original idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

@DailyJLee@NoyesJHumphrey不是原创创意
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

@carita_paige @AudryEve @SolliesSurgery @ASlavitt It was left out because he wasn't talking about NY at all. He was talking about CA which announced its strategy shift and where is listed as an advisor. It was comparing to Florida, with a different strategy. Comparing to NY would be pointless, and wasn't in the thread.

@carita_paige@AudryEve@SolliesSurgery@ASlavitt被遗漏了，因为他根本没在谈论纽约。他说的是CA宣布其战略转变，以及在哪里被列为顾问。它与佛罗里达州相比，有着不同的战略。与纽约相比是毫无意义的，而且不在考虑范围之内。