@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 One last thing. Her characterization of that study is very questionable. She said viral loads drop "quickly" in vaccinated but look closely at the graph. They don't even drop below unvaccinated AT ALL until 5 days. 5 days is a lot of potential transmission, probably most of it.

@最后一件事是最好的。她对那项研究的描述非常可疑。她说，在接种疫苗的人群中，病毒载量“迅速”下降，但仔细观察图表。直到5天，它们甚至都不会降到未接种疫苗的水平以下。5天是很多潜在的传播时间，可能是大部分时间。

@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 That study was delta, BTW, and immune evasion at the level of infection (and almost certainly transmission) is much higher now, although it did start to happen with delta too.

@Bestin PNW_@drlucymcbride@kprather88该研究是delta，顺便说一句，在感染水平上的免疫逃避（几乎可以肯定是传播）现在要高得多，尽管它也开始发生在delta身上。

@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 Asymptomatic is interesting because its pretty vague (is that tickle in my throat a 'symptom' or do I just need a drink of water) and also poorly understood. At this point it looks like almost everyone infected becomes symptomatic and many vaccinated get infected and transmit.

@Bestinepnw_@drlucymcbride@kprather88无症状很有趣，因为它非常模糊（喉咙发痒是一种“症状”还是我只需要喝水），而且人们对它的理解也很差。在这一点上，似乎几乎所有感染者都会出现症状，许多接种疫苗的人会被感染并传播。

@JayJay15989605 @ChadGoldsmith @DrLeanaWen @CDCgov @CDCDirector That looked like just the opposite to me. Standing up to politicians and manipulative "opinion shapers" trying to tell us what to think.

@JayJay15989605@ChadGoldsmith@DrLeanaWen@CDCgov@cdcedirector在我看来正好相反。直面政客和操纵性强的“意见塑造者”，试图告诉我们该怎么想。

@s_murphy_md @DrLeanaWen The CDC county metric guidelines don't apply to schools (also other high risk congregate setting, such as prisons, homeless shelters, healthcare, etc.)

@s_murphy_md@DrLeanaWen疾控中心县指标指南不适用于学校（以及其他高风险聚集场所，如监狱、无家可归者收容所、医疗保健等）

@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 If it were up to me, I would have dropped cloth masks by now to at least surgical or probably some sort of mild public use standard respirator like KF94 or KF80. I mean cloth was a field improvisation w/low supplies in 2020. Okay, but no longer needed.

@如果由我决定的话，我现在会把布口罩扔到至少是外科手术或可能是某种温和的公共用途标准口罩上，比如KF94或KF80。我的意思是，布料在2020年是一种现场即兴创作，供应量很低。好吧，但不再需要了。

@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 No one should be surprised that cloth masks have low effectiveness. There is a continuum and when masks are used, people end up in a mix of masks, that have a mix of effectiveness. It's a complicated call if mandating whether to set the minimum higher, but minimum ≠ actual.

@在Pnw_@drlucymcbride@kprather 88中，布制口罩的效果很低，这一点不应让任何人感到惊讶。这是一个连续体，当使用口罩时，人们最终会混合使用各种口罩，效果也会有所不同。如果强制要求是否将最小值设置得更高，那么这是一个复杂的决定，但是≠ 真实的

@rhyswithersp00n @DrLeanaWen Nothing changed. There was always BOTH an effect of source control and and effect of protection, which are in synergy. Yeah, some idiots said otherwise in early 2020, but that was two years ago, we've moved on.

@Rhyswerssp00n@DrLeanaWen没有任何变化。始终存在着源代码控制和保护的效果，它们是协同作用的。是的，有些白痴在2020年初说了相反的话，但那是两年前的事了，我们继续前进。

@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 It's not even linear either. If you get 10% more masking, most interactions are still just direct protection or source control, not compound effect of both (only 1% of random interactions in this case)

@在Pnw_@drlucymcbride@kprather88中，它甚至不是线性的。如果你得到10%以上的掩蔽，大多数交互仍然只是直接保护或源代码控制，而不是两者的复合效应（在这种情况下，只有1%的随机交互）

@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 It wasn't that small. You have to look more closely and see that their intervention was "encouraging masking". The increase in masking was small but when you scale the transmission effect it comes to about 25% IIRC. Reducing R by 25% at population level usually a huge difference.

@BestinPNW_@drlucymcbride@kprather88它没那么小。你必须更仔细地观察，看到他们的干预是“鼓励掩饰”。掩蔽的增加很小，但当你缩放传输效果时，它会达到约25%的IIRC。在人口水平上将R降低25%通常是一个巨大的差异。

@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 The Bangladesh study she's citing showed more effect from surgical masks. So, exactly what I said, continuum of effectiveness.

@Bestinepnw_@drlucymcbride@kprather 88她引用的孟加拉国研究显示，口罩的效果更好。所以，正如我所说的，持续有效性。

@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 This is especially true when combined with filtration ventilation. You still need to mitigate close range transmission. Stopping direct plumes of air into someone's face gives the air handling time to work.

@Bestinepnw_@drlucymcbride@kprather88当与过滤通风相结合时，尤其如此。你仍然需要减少近距离传播。阻止空气直接进入某人的面部，可以让空气处理有时间工作。

@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 That's not evident at all. There is a continuum of effectiveness and a minimum standard that is more than nothing and less than an N95 is perfectly plausible.

@BestinthePNW_ @drlucymcbride @kprather88 这一点都不明显。有一个连续性的有效性和一个大于没有和小于 N95 的最低标准是完全合理的。

@drlucymcbride @kprather88 @BestinthePNW_ 'Endemic virus', as you know, does not specify level of prevalence or impact. The decisions we make on how we as host humans shape our lived environment influence what 'endemic' actually looks like.
Do we want higher impact endemic or lower impact?

@众所周知，drlucymcbride@kprather88@BestinthePNW_u“地方性病毒”并没有具体说明流行程度或影响程度。我们作为宿主如何塑造我们的生活环境的决定会影响“地方病”的实际外观。
我们想要更高的影响还是更低的影响？

@drlucymcbride @kprather88 @BestinthePNW_ The question here is wearing a mask, Lucy, not giving up work, play, caregiving, or worshiping. Wearing a mask. That's it.
Why is that a big ask, for most people, when and where the risk level is high? The risk level is not constant across time or activity.

@drlucymcbride@kprather88@BestinthePNW_u这里的问题是戴着面具，露西，不要放弃工作、玩耍、照顾或崇拜。戴着面具。就这样。
为什么对大多数人来说，这是一个很大的问题，风险水平在何时何地都很高？风险水平在时间或活动中不是恒定的。

@IanRicksecker @JeromeAdamsMD @Capt3958 Capacity thresholds make sense, sure.

@IanRicksecker@JeromeAdamsMD@Capt3958容量阈值是有意义的，当然。

@Nate_Cohn All but 21% want "some" mandates or requirements.
Which mandates or requirements do they want?

@Nate_Cohn除了21%之外，其他所有人都想要“一些”授权或要求。
他们想要什么授权或要求？

@Nate_Cohn How do you interpret this? https://t.co/ZMYRTDgiVR

@Nate_Cohn你是怎么解释的？https://t.co/ZMYRTDgiVR

@BestinthePNW_ @kprather88 @drlucymcbride Nothing is 100%, but you don't need 100% to have a benefit.
Masks are needed if there is close contact and prevalence stays high. No realistic ventilation will stop close range transmission.

@BestInPNW_@kprather88@drlucymcbride没有什么是100%，但你不需要100%就能获得好处。
如果有密切接触且患病率较高，则需要戴口罩。没有实际的通风将阻止近距离传输。

@drlucymcbride @kprather88 Seems like it would be good idea to get those things done before reducing existing safety measures. I went through your list and as far as I can tell, almost none of them are done to any significant degree, distribution of testing maybe (probably still real barriers).

@drlucymcbride@kprather88似乎最好在减少现有安全措施之前完成这些工作。我浏览了你的列表，据我所知，几乎没有一个测试达到了显著的程度，可能是测试的分布（可能仍然是真正的障碍）。