@therealrthorat @Robbbie_Strange @StuartMill1776 @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait January 2021
https://www.nea.org/advocating... https://t.co/pdxpgXLoQO

@therealrthorat @Robbbie_Strange @StuartMill1776 @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 2021 年 1 月
https://www.nea.org/advocating... https://t.co/pdxpgXLoQO

@Jeffislouie @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait January 2021. No, they did not claim you could not get it or transmit it initially. It was only later that studies demonstrated that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://t.co/NA6OaxN0mk

@Jeffislouie @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 2021 年 1 月。不，他们没有声称您最初无法获取或传输它。只是后来研究证明了这一点。
https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://t.co/NA6OaxN0mk

@therealrthorat @Robbbie_Strange @StuartMill1776 @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait This was February 2021, and people were already talking about annual boosters. That was before any of the talk of vaccines stopping infection. I agree on the point that the infection-stopping aspect was overplayed. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...

@therealrthorat @Robbbie_Strange @StuartMill1776 @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 这是 2021 年 2 月，人们已经在谈论年度助推器。那是在任何关于疫苗阻止感染的讨论之前。我同意阻止感染方面被夸大的观点。 https ://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...

@NJoIdaR @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait Flu shots are vaccines, and have always been vaccines. 'Influenza vaccine' is the official name, mostly in the form of an inactivated virus, a form of vaccine. Always has been. Flu shot is a casual term.

@NJoIdaR @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 流感疫苗是疫苗，而且一直是疫苗。 “流感疫苗”是官方名称，主要是灭活病毒的形式，是疫苗的一种形式。一直都是。流感疫苗是一个随意的术语。

@therealrthorat @Robbbie_Strange @StuartMill1776 @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait I don't agree. It was stated from the start that there would likely be variants and need for updates/boosters, as with flu shots. If you only heard they would be perfectly effective forever, you weren't paying attention. Efficacy was stated based on condition at the time.

@therealrthorat @Robbbie_Strange @StuartMill1776 @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 我不同意。从一开始就说明可能会有变体并且需要更新/增强剂，就像流感疫苗一样。如果您只听说它们将永远有效，那您就没有注意。功效是根据当时的情况而定的。

@Permabaked @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait Depends on context. There were some studies that showed 100% effective against death for example (no one died). But with a large enough group of people (millions), it wouldn't be 100%. Efficacy against death was still very, very high with the original variant, high 90s.

@Permabaked @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 取决于上下文。例如，有一些研究显示 100% 有效对抗死亡（没有人死亡）。但如果有足够多的人（数百万），它就不会是 100%。原始变体的抗死亡功效仍然非常非常高，高达 90 年代。

@StuartMill1776 @Robbbie_Strange @therealrthorat @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait You have no evidence anyone was misleading anyone, and especially not that politicians were misled even in private briefings. You just don't. It's easy to fling baseless accusations, doesn't make them so.

@StuartMill1776 @Robbbie_Strange @therealrthorat @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 你没有证据表明有人误导了任何人，尤其是政客们甚至在私人简报中也被误导了。你只是不这样做。提出毫无根据的指控很容易，但事实并非如此。

@T_Robertsonian @kylamb8 @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait Nobody claimed that. That's not the same as being wrong about efficacy. Efficacy is just a number. You do a study, you get a number. I don't think any of those studies were wrong on efficacy, which is what DeSantis is claiming.

@T_Robertsonian @kylamb8 @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 没有人这么说。这与对功效的错误看法不同。功效只是一个数字。你做一个研究，你会得到一个数字。我认为这些研究中的任何一项在功效方面都没有错，这正是 DeSantis 所声称的。

@SobkowiczC @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait It was bad judgement and lack of foresight on how it was explained. That's not the same thing about being wrong about efficacy at the time. Efficacy is just a number. You study, you get a number. I don't think the studies were wrong.

@SobkowiczC @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 这是错误的判断和对如何解释的缺乏远见。这与当时对功效的错误看法不同。功效只是一个数字。你学习，你得到一个数字。我不认为这些研究是错误的。

@WSpunkmeyer @greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait None of that is true. Actual immunity is more subtle and a matter of degree and multiple aspects than absolute immune or not immune. You gain some immunity by recovering from covid, that's why it is usually less severe the next time. But people still get it repeatedly.

@WSpunkmeyer @greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 这些都不是真的。与绝对免疫或不免疫相比，实际免疫更为微妙，是程度和多方面的问题。通过从新冠病毒中恢复，您可以获得一些免疫力，这就是为什么下次它通常不那么严重的原因。但人们仍然反复得到它。

@greggwbarnes @WSpunkmeyer @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait Any gripes you have with the policy has noting to do with being right or wrong about efficacy, and schools being closed has little to do with that either since much of that happened before vaxes and most school kids never got vaxed.

@greggwbarnes @WSpunkmeyer @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 您对该政策的任何抱怨都与有效性的正确或错误有关，而关闭学校与此无关，因为其中大部分发生在vaxes和大多数学校之前孩子们从来没有被打过。

@WSpunkmeyer @greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait Also, "multiple times" is more a function of the virus. Some give strong immunity, some don't. People getting covid multiple times has little to do with vax, happens without vax, happened in 2020. It's the nature of the virus.

@WSpunkmeyer @greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 此外，“多次”更多是病毒的功能。有的免疫能力强，有的没有。人们多次感染新冠病毒与 vax 无关，没有 vax 就发生了，发生在 2020 年。这是病毒的本质。

@WSpunkmeyer @greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait The main reason people don't get polio despite most in developed countries using a vax that does not stop infection is polio largely eliminated by a combination of public health measures and previously using a more effective vax. That may change with polio starting to spread now.

@WSpunkmeyer @greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 尽管大多数发达国家使用不能阻止感染的vax，但人们没有感染脊髓灰质炎的主要原因是脊髓灰质炎在很大程度上是通过公共卫生措施和以前使用更有效的vax的组合来消除的.随着脊髓灰质炎现在开始传播，这种情况可能会改变。

@WSpunkmeyer @greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait It's not work or not work. For one thing, covid vax very effective at preventing severe disease and death. That counts as "work". For another, it's a matter of degree. Flu vax don't prevent much infection either, and millions get flu anyway, but still accepted to work.

@WSpunkmeyer @greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 这不管用还是不行。一方面，covid vax 在预防严重疾病和死亡方面非常有效。这算作“工作”。另一方面，这是一个程度的问题。流感疫苗也不能预防太多感染，无论如何都有数百万人感染流感，但仍然接受工作。

@greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait Vaccines are immunity boosters. That's what they do. They vary in effectiveness. Measles or smallpox vaccine on the one hand, very effective, flu shots are shit on the other. Covid vax somewhere in the middle.

@greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 疫苗是免疫增强剂。他们就是这样做的。它们的有效性各不相同。麻疹或天花疫苗一方面非常有效，另一方面流感疫苗很糟糕。 Covid vax 在中间的某个地方。

@greggwbarnes @BertThere @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait Everything a politician does is political. They get science advice but that's a consideration at most

@greggwbarnes @BertThere @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 政治家所做的一切都是政治性的。他们得到科学建议，但这最多是一个考虑因素

@WSpunkmeyer @greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait That's how vaccines work, especially the inactivated polio vaccine which is known not to stop infection. There are people being infected with polio in NY right now. Healthcare workers with a high risk of exposure are getting boosters.

@WSpunkmeyer @greggwbarnes @benny171a @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 这就是疫苗的工作原理，尤其是已知不能阻止感染的灭活脊髓灰质炎疫苗。纽约现在有人感染小儿麻痹症。暴露风险高的医护人员正在接受助推器。

@BigDongDeSantis @srbryson @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait That's literally how science works. If that's uncomfortable you, cope.
This isn't studying something timeless like the properties of electrons (even there understanding changes), it's a natural environment with many moving parts.

@BigDongDeSantis @srbryson @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 这就是科学的运作方式。如果这让你感到不舒服，那就应付吧。
这不是研究像电子特性这样永恒的东西（即使在那里理解变化），它是一个有许多活动部件的自然环境。

@AckTeacher @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait @AlexBerenson No he didn't. He settled his case.

@AckTeacher @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait @AlexBerenson 不，他没有。他解决了他的案子。

@AckTeacher @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait No, I don't think think people against taking it were all studying the trial data. Come on.

@AckTeacher @TrumpUndead @jonathanchait 不，我不认为反对服用它的人都是在研究试验数据。来吧。