@michaelmina_lab @YouAreLobbyLud You're always exaggerating how long PCR tests take. Sometimes they take days or longer (including much longer), but I've also gotten results back in less than a day. The really slow tests are terrible, the faster ones less so. Reality = nuance on this.
@michaelmina_lab@Youarelobylud你总是夸大PCR检测需要多长时间。有时需要几天或更长的时间（包括更长的时间），但我也在不到一天的时间内得到了结果。真正慢的测试很糟糕，快的测试就不那么糟糕了。现实=这方面的细微差别。
@HFentonMudd @myrabatchelder I suspect these are not self-administered tests, but rather rapid tests don't for workplace screening, at pharmacies, and such.
@Hventonmudd@Myrabatcheld我怀疑这些不是自我管理的测试，但快速测试不适用于工作场所筛查、药店筛查等。
@geo_b42 @misternaxal @JohnJHarwood @PatrickRuffini That's bad in terms of net seats. If want to win the most seats you prefer a narrower margin in each one rather than packing more of your voters into fewer districts. It's better for incumbents though, and shifts the party to the right since it means primary race > general
@geo_b42@misternaxal@Johnjarwood@PatrickRuffini这在净座率方面很糟糕。如果你想赢得最多的席位，你宁愿在每一个席位上都有一个较小的差距，而不是把更多的选民塞进更少的选区。不过，这对在任者来说更好，因为这意味着初选>；全体的
@ZankFrappa2 @UBI4UandI @JuliaRaifman @kaitlancollins No it isn't. It is the relationship between how busy and level of ventilation.
@ZankFrappa2@UBI4UandI@JuliaRaifman@kaitlancollins不，不是。这是繁忙程度和通风水平之间的关系。
@LazarusLong13 I'd put loosely woven black cloth over the filters like a speaker. Nevertheless, nice work as-is.
@LazarusLong13我会像扬声器一样在过滤器上盖上一块编织松散的黑布。尽管如此，还是干得不错。
@ScottHarrisID @SimplyNess79 @greg_travis Show how this happens with vaccines and not repeated infections.
@ScottHarrisID@Simplynes79@greg_travis展示了疫苗而非反复感染是如何发生这种情况的。
@cseesit @joeyfox85 You want something blowing filtered air directly on your face (some ideas elsewhere in the thread). Trying to filter your small part of a large room may help to an extent, but much less so.
@cseesit@Joey Fox85你想要什么东西把过滤过的空气直接吹到你的脸上（在帖子的其他地方有一些想法）。尝试过滤大房间中的一小部分可能会有所帮助，但效果要差得多。
@RadCentrism @Stephengm99 Yes both the misinformation and the, somewhat, move away from it, are largely top down.
The effect of the misinformation was vast. I doubt people deciding to do it to save N95s had any idea at the time what they were going to cause.
@RadCentrism@Stephengm99是的，错误信息和某种程度上的偏离，基本上都是自上而下的。
错误信息的影响是巨大的。我怀疑那些决定这么做来拯救N95的人当时是否知道他们会造成什么后果。
@Stephengm99 @RadCentrism Amazed at how many small stores won't open the door even during good weather. Apart from covid it's likely bad business too. People more likely to walk in if the door is open.
@Stephengm99@RadCentrism惊讶于有多少小商店即使在天气好的时候也不开门。除了新冠病毒，这可能也是一个糟糕的生意。如果门开着，人们更有可能走进来。
@RadCentrism Looks a like to polling in favor of mask mandates, remote school during surges, etc, except party split reversed of course.
I guess interpreting polls isn't trivial.
@Radcentralism看起来像是支持面具授权、激增期间的远程学校等的民调，当然，党派分裂逆转除外。
我想解读民意调查并不是一件小事。
@RadCentrism @Stephengm99 My experience with both public and some workplace safety professionals is that a lot genuinely still don't know and think clear barriers work, etc.
It takes time for information to disseminate. It takes even longer when you have to "undisseminate" the bad information first
@RadCentrism@Stephengm99我与公众和一些工作场所安全专业人士的经验是，很多人仍然不知道并认为明确的障碍是有效的，等等。
信息传播需要时间。如果你必须先“消除”坏信息，那就需要更长的时间
@flowermusickids @BallouxFrancois I'm wondering which these had schools "only for well off" and which had schools which were disrupted or closed more often.
@flowermusickids@BallouxFrancois我想知道这些学校中哪些是“只为富人”开设的，哪些学校更经常被打乱或关闭。
@justrollings @Gab_H_R Monica, is that you?
@justrollings@Gab_H_R Monica，是你吗？
@juli_bg_bs Is it MUCH lower now (like 1/100 or such)? Looked to be leveling off a bit, but unclear if that is noise.
@juli_bg_b现在是不是低了很多（比如1/100左右）？看起来有点平稳，但不清楚这是否是噪音。
@AShihipar He's just wrong about what it means to be rational
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...
@DLeonhardt This is a misstatement of rationality. People have different subjective views of health and other risks. One persons risk tolerance being different from another's is not irrational.
What WOULD be irrational is if people CLAIMED that younger were at higher individual risk.
@Ashippar他对理性的理解是错误的
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...
@这是对理性的错误陈述。人们对健康和其他风险有不同的主观看法。一个人的风险承受能力不同于另一个人并不是非理性的。
不合理的是，如果人们声称年轻人的个体风险更高。
@DLeonhardt This is a misstatement of rationality. People have different subjective views of health and other risks. One persons risk tolerance being different from another's is not irrational.
What WOULD be irrational is if people CLAIMED that younger were at higher individual risk.
@这是对理性的错误陈述。人们对健康和其他风险有不同的主观看法。一个人的风险承受能力不同于另一个人并不是非理性的。
不合理的是，如果人们声称年轻人的个体风险更高。
@juli_bg_bs Still looks a lot higher than pre-december.
@juli_bg_bs看起来仍然比12月前高得多。
@lindblad_glenn @Infoseepage @AnaCabrera @nataliexdean Inactivated polio vaccines are exactly like that.
@lindblad_glenn@info渗流@AnaCabrera@nataliexdean脊髓灰质炎灭活疫苗就是这样。
@lindblad_glenn @Infoseepage @AnaCabrera @nataliexdean Probably due to the higher dosage. I've never quite understood how we ended up with Moderna having 3x the dosage of Pfizer.
In any case, they're not 'ineffective'. Don't spread misinformation.
@lindblad_glenn@info渗流@AnaCabrera@nataliexdean可能是因为剂量更高。我一直都不太明白我们怎么会让摩德纳的剂量是辉瑞的3倍。
无论如何，它们都不是“无效的”。不要传播错误信息。