@Noahpinion Why? Because it "sounds low"? It has to depend on the business model right?
I don't think we can assume that 1.5% is the "right" margin.

@不知道为什么？因为它“听起来很低”？它必须取决于商业模式，对吗？
我认为我们不能假设1.5%是“正确”的利润率。

@Noahpinion Is that too high or too low?

@那是太高还是太低？

@LazarusLong13 @happyhexer Psaki is a condesending spin doctor. That is NOT at all what CDC needs. Look at public health messages from Singapore and probably other places instead.

@LazarusLong13@happyhexer Psaki是一名医生。这根本不是疾控中心需要的。看看新加坡和其他地方的公共卫生信息。

@pv_mk @yaneerbaryam Distances matter due to dilution, as long as there isn't accumulation over a period of time with no ventilation.

@pv_mk@yaneerbaryam距离因稀释而重要，只要在没有通风的情况下一段时间内没有累积。

@yaneerbaryam https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@亚尼尔巴亚姆https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@justthefacts85 "Quarantine healthy people" = right wing and covid denier talking point.

@只是事实85“隔离健康人”=右翼和新冠病毒否认者的谈话要点。

@alexmeshkin Well, look at the companies "selling tests" to the USG. They're all middlemen gougers, just like the PPE.

@好吧，看看那些向美国政府“出售测试”的公司。他们都是中间人，就像PPE一样。

@vzlui @jfeldman_epi Count days to when CDC told people to take their masks off. (It's just over 100.)

@vzlui@jfeldman_epi计算疾病预防控制中心要求人们摘下口罩的天数。（刚好超过100英镑。）

@juli_bg_bs Probably not, but who knows.
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@juli_bg_可能没有，但谁知道呢。
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@andyorin @nxthompson Reported cases and actual infections aren't the same at all.

@andyorin@nxthompson报告的病例和实际感染根本不一样。

@nxthompson covidestim isn't updated for Omicron and isn't reliable at this point https://t.co/gYQGscrp6y

@nxthompson covidestim未针对Omicron进行更新，目前不可靠https://t.co/gYQGscrp6y

@TheStalwart It is in more cities. Not all are public, but some are reported here:
https://biobot.io/data/

@在更多的城市，它是最稳定的。并不是所有的都是公开的，但这里有一些报道：
https://biobot.io/data/

@abarber1 @HeadAsploding @Andy_Bloch You can make the case it still should be done in terms of variable costs of care, as with existing wellness incentives, or lifestyle choice penalties on various types of insurance, but I wouldn't expect that to help with surge.

@abarber1@HeadAsploding@Andy_Bloch你可以证明，就可变护理成本而言，仍然应该这样做，就像现有的健康激励措施一样，或者对各种类型保险的生活方式选择惩罚一样，但我不认为这有助于激增。

@HeadAsploding @Andy_Bloch @abarber1 That's an understatement. Since the surge supply is essentially inelastic, the price necessary to reduce demand in this way is likely to be so high that many become either uninsured or are subsidized, and even then it still doesn't "work".

@HeadAsploding@Andy_Bloch@abarber1这是一种轻描淡写的说法。由于激增的供给本质上是非弹性的，因此以这种方式减少需求所需的价格可能会很高，以至于许多人要么没有保险，要么得到补贴，即使如此，它仍然“不起作用”。

@Andy_Bloch @HeadAsploding @abarber1 That addresses the mundane cost fairness issue of vaccinated subsidizing unvaccinated, but it doesn't address the surge issue of the flood of unvaxed repeatedly disrupting healthcare, including care for things having nothing to do with covid. https://t.co/IjIk1B3iKr

@Andy_Bloch@HeadAsploding@abarber1解决了接种疫苗补贴未接种疫苗的普通成本公平问题，但它没有解决未接种疫苗的泛滥不断扰乱医疗保健的激增问题，包括与新冠病毒无关的护理问题。https://t.co/IjIk1B3iKr

@Marco_Piani I don't know about this one. Some come with rights, some don't.

@马可·皮亚尼我不知道这件事。有些人有权利，有些人没有。

@RickABright @CDCgov @CDCDirector @washingtonpost @bylenasun @rachel_roubein It won't be clear. It'll be horribly muddied with implicit discouragement ("if you can tolerate" etc.)

@RickABright@CDCgov@cdcedirector@washingtonpost@bylenasun@rachel_roubein这还不清楚。它会被暗含的沮丧弄得一团糟（“如果你能容忍”等等）

@Kang86858653 @ErikSolheim Yes, it's called pool testing. Done in the US as well, on rare occasion when test positive rate is low.
Your English is okay. Regards.

@Kang86858653@ErikSolheim是的，这叫做池测试。在美国也做过，很少在检测阳性率低的情况下。
你的英语还可以。当做

@sri_srikrishna @JudahWorldChamp Good to see CDC is finally getting the respect they deserve.

@sri_srikrishna@JudahWorldChamp很高兴看到CDC终于得到了他们应得的尊重。

@OzzyAussieOtty https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

@ozzyaussieottyhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/r...