@DavidGollogly @michaelmina_lab @YouAreLobbyLud @DailyJLee They miss infectious cases. This is known, and it's not even necessarily a bad thing, taken in the right context (catching some or most infectious cases is often better than catching none). But it also shouldn't be oversold.

@DavidGollogly@michaelmina_lab@Youarelobylud@DailyJLee他们错过了感染病例。这是众所周知的，在正确的背景下，这甚至不一定是坏事（感染一些或大多数传染性病例通常比不感染要好）。但它也不应该卖过头。

@wheatpond Military spending is more debatable but police spending at least needs to be considered on some sort of population basis. Large countries need more police than small, all else being equal.

@惠特庞德的军费开支更具争议性，但警察开支至少需要在某种人口基础上加以考虑。在其他条件相同的情况下，大国比小国需要更多的警察。

@vvalkyri @BoomSardonic @michaelmina_lab @YouAreLobbyLud @DailyJLee I'm not sure there is a single report of welded doors since early 2020. Perhaps it's completely suppressed but seems doubtful (wasn't successfully suppressed even then). It seems to be mostly travel restrictions and mass testing, as you say.

@vvalkyri@BoomSardonic@michaelmina_lab@YouAreLobbyLud@DailyJLee我不确定自2020年初以来是否有一份关于焊接门的报告。也许它被完全抑制了，但似乎很可疑（即使在那时也没有被成功抑制）。正如你所说，这似乎主要是旅行限制和大规模测试。

@michaelmina_lab @DonEford @YouAreLobbyLud @DailyJLee I don't know what is being considered, or not considered that some would prefer or suggest. But it does seem like a false choice to say the alternative is the status quo with rapid tests or the status quo without tests, and maybe the rapid tests are being oversold in that context

@michaelmina_lab@DonEford@Youarelobylud@DailyJLee我不知道有人在考虑什么，也不知道有人会更喜欢或建议什么。但是，说替代方案是有快速测试的现状还是没有测试的现状似乎是错误的选择，在这种情况下，快速测试可能被夸大了

@wsbgnl @perdidostschool I'm reasonably confident they feel victimized by that, and not embarrassed.

@wsbgnl@perdidostschool我有理由相信他们会因此而感到受害，而不是尴尬。

@DonEford @michaelmina_lab @YouAreLobbyLud @DailyJLee He's in Australia.

@DonEford@michaelmina_lab@Youarelobylud@DailyJLee他在澳大利亚。

@michaelmina_lab @DonEford @YouAreLobbyLud @DailyJLee They work less well for creating a "safe" gathering of N people. It is far more likely that the gathering contains someone contagious and is not in fact safe when N is higher and ALSO when prevalence is higher.

@michaelmina_lab@DonEford@YouAreLobbyLud@DailyJLee他们在创建N人“安全”聚会方面做得不太好。更可能的情况是，聚会中有传染性的人，而且在N较高以及流行率较高时，实际上并不安全。

@MontyBoa99 @whstancil @chargrille That is ancient data, July 2021, before most of delta and certainly before any of omicron.

“MuntBoa99”WHSTANCIL @查格雷尔，这是古老的数据，2021年7月，在大多数三角洲之前，肯定在OmiCon之前。

@whstancil If you're talking about the US, the vaccinated population isn't "much" larger. It's about 2x larger.

@whstancil如果你说的是美国，接种疫苗的人口并不“多”。大约大两倍。

@michaelmina_lab @YouAreLobbyLud @DailyJLee That seems like EXACTLY what he set out to say, but there might be some loss of focus there, I agree.
A long time ago, Ed Yong called it a "A Serial Monogamy of Solutions". Too many are still trapped in that spiral. https://t.co/gVryFHZi4M

@michaelmina_lab@youarelobylud@DailyJLee这似乎正是他要说的，但我同意，可能会有一些注意力不集中。
很久以前，Ed Yong称之为“一系列解决方案的一夫一妻制”。太多人仍被困在这一螺旋中。https://t.co/gVryFHZi4M

@ashishkjha Open, but often with vaccine requirement.

@ashishkjha开放，但通常需要疫苗。

@DailyJLee @YouAreLobbyLud e.g. the fake-safe gathering where "everyone is negative" but that's not enough testing with too much prevalence and too little sensitivity.

@DailyJLee@youarelobylud例如，假安全集会，在那里“每个人都是阴性的”，但这还不够，检测的普遍性太高，敏感性太低。

@DailyJLee @YouAreLobbyLud There are thresholds where if not passed more isn't much better and then if passed, more becomes a lot better. That's part of the debate in this thread, I think.
True of much of the pandemic response, in fact, and true of many of the debates over pandemic response.

@DailyJLee@youarelobylud有一些阈值，如果不通过，越多越好，如果通过，越多越好。我认为，这是这条线索辩论的一部分。
事实上，大流行应对措施的很多方面都是如此，关于大流行应对措施的许多辩论也是如此。

@YouAreLobbyLud @DailyJLee @michaelmina_lab Agree.

@YouAreLobbyLud@DailyJLee@michaelmina_实验室同意。

@DailyJLee @YouAreLobbyLud Supported isolation would help, of course. It's been made to work around the world even without the mass testing. Lots of things can work if you do enough well enough and not if you half ass too much.

@DailyJLee@youarelobylud支持的隔离当然会有所帮助。即使没有大规模测试，它也能在世界各地运行。如果你做得足够好，很多事情都能奏效，但如果你做得太过火，就不行了。

@DailyJLee @YouAreLobbyLud In his paper I believe they acknowledge and account for that some people won't isolate. It still works if you stop "enough" transmission. There was a margin for error in their original model (it barely worked with 1x/wk testing but suggested 2x/wk) but again, not w/⬆️ variants.

@DailyJLee@Youarelobylud在他的论文中，我相信他们承认并解释了一些人不会孤立。如果停止“足够”的传输，它仍然有效。他们的原始模型有一定的误差（它几乎不适用于1x/wk测试，但建议2x/wk），但同样，不是w/⬆️ 变种。

@Craig_A_Spencer @bhrenton Makes sense when you see the striking rate of decline and consider that these reported statistics are often lagged by several days. https://t.co/sqHwc9TJq8

当你看到下降的惊人速度，并认为这些报告的统计数字往往滞后了好几天时，Brruton就有道理了。https://t.co/sqHwc9TJq8

@DailyJLee @YouAreLobbyLud The premise made sense a year or two ago but the theory was never updated for more transmissible strains and lower test sensitivity, so I'm not sure it even theoretically could work now.

@DailyJLee@Youarelobylud这个前提在一两年前是有意义的，但该理论从未因更多的可传播菌株和较低的检测灵敏度而更新，因此我甚至不确定它现在在理论上是否可行。

@DailyJLee @YouAreLobbyLud Sort of true if you're using the tests as a point defense. For the past two years Mina wanted to use the tests to reduce enough of the transmission to crash prevalence, which makes everyone much safer.

@DailyJLee@youarelobylud如果你把测试作为一种点防御，那就有点像真的。在过去的两年里，米娜希望利用这些测试来减少足够多的传播，从而使每个人都更加安全。

@beef6464 @JuliaRaifman It doesn't have to be "greater". Spread is the sum of all places where spread occurs, not the maximum or average. A community with spread outside schools which then adds a somewhat lesser total quantity of spread inside schools has more total spread, not less.

@beef6464@JuliaRaifman它不必“更伟大”。价差是发生价差的所有地方的总和，而不是最大值或平均值。一个在学校外传播的社区，如果在学校内传播的总数量稍小，那么它的总传播量就更大，而不是更少。