@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 10-20x difference in mortality is a good reason to not try to make different things seem alike. They're not.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 10-20 倍的死亡率差异是一个很好的理由，不要试图让不同的事物看起来相似。他们不是。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets And again, when you're comparing Australia, what matters is the DIFFERENCES in policies and the DIFFERENCES in outcomes.
Comparing against some fantasy situation that only exists in your head is not useful.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 同样，当您比较澳大利亚时，重要的是政策的差异和结果的差异。
与仅存在于您脑海中的某些幻想情况进行比较是没有用的。

@i_petersen One problem with this argument is what I will call the fallacy of decomposition. Mask mandate is not the only possible measure, and each individually may reduce transmission incrementally, say 20% (and infections even less). But add them up and the reduction is far larger.

@i_petersen 这个论点的一个问题是我称之为分解的谬误。强制戴口罩并不是唯一可能的措施，每个单独的措施都可以逐步减少传播，比如说 20%（感染甚至更少）。但是把它们加起来，减少的幅度要大得多。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets All those things happened elsewhere too. PLUS the earlier (and likely far more) covid deaths.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 所有这些事情也发生在其他地方。加上更早的（并且可能更多）covid 死亡。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets Those actual "variations" are what produced AT LEAST two additional life years for covid victims plus probably lot more due to vax/therapeutics.
You're comparing against some sort of fantasy and even there you don't know what the comparitive outcomes would look like in 50 years.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 这些实际的“变化”为covid受害者带来了至少两年的额外生命，而且由于vax /治疗可能更多。
您正在与某种幻想进行比较，即使在那里您也不知道比较结果在 50 年后会是什么样子。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets Maybe. It will only be possible to make that case in 50 years or so. As of this point you're just making shit up.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 也许吧。只有在 50 年左右的时间里才有可能做到这一点。在这一点上，你只是在胡说八道。

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets Someone who dies from covid in 2022 vs 2020 lived two years longer.
Yes there are tradeoffs but what you're claiming is just not true at all in terms of overall mortality rate.
MANY more people died in non-elimination countries in 2020-2021.

@AusThinkingGirl @taipan168 @covidtweets 在 2022 年与 2020 年死于新冠病毒的人比 2020 年多活了两年。
是的，有一些权衡，但就总体死亡率而言，您所声称的根本不是真的。
2020-2021 年，更多的人死于非消除国家。

@taipan168 @AusThinkingGirl @covidtweets This is of course true but even if it weren't, people living two years longer is still an advantage. Cumulative deaths without regard to time is not a thing. The average deaths per life over a long enough period is always one.

@taipan168 @AusThinkingGirl @covidtweets 这当然是真的，但即使不是这样，人们多活两年仍然是一个优势。不考虑时间的累积死亡不是一回事。在足够长的一段时间内，每条生命的平均死亡人数始终为 1 人。

@wsbgnl As usual there is really only one subgroup that is against.
Why is this subgroup driving policy?

@wsbgnl 像往常一样，实际上只有一个小组反对。
为什么这个亚组推动政策？

@GYamey @jenfns You're stunned because you (and everyone else) are being gaslit day in day out.
It is an effective propaganda technique to tell people that "everyone thinks _____" so that anyone who thinks differently considers themself a outlier and self-censors to fit in.

@GYamey @jenfns 你惊呆了，因为你（和其他所有人）每天都在加油。
告诉人们“每个人都认为_____”是一种有效的宣传技巧，这样任何想法不同的人都会认为自己是一个局外人，并自我审查以适应。

@itshullabalulu @EnemyInAState I think still supposed to be two shots but 1/5 dose each, intradermal.

@itshullabalulu @EnemyInAState 我认为仍然应该是两次注射，但每次注射 1/5 剂量，皮内注射。

@EnemyInAState @itshullabalulu Most are only getting one dose too

@EnemyInAState @itshullabalulu 大多数人也只服用一剂

@PotatoClose Lovely. Great that you are such a better person. 🙄✌️

@PotatoClose 可爱。太好了，你是一个更好的人。 🙄✌️

@Noahpinion First term yes. Second term no.

@Noahpinion 第一个学期是的。第二学期没有。

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths I'm giving you hard data on the climate impact, and yet you ignore it, so you have no idea what you're talking about and can only resort to personal attacks. Congratulations.

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 我正在给你关于气候影响的硬数据，但你却忽略了它，所以你不知道你在说什么，只能诉诸人身攻击。恭喜。

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths Also the 500 KWh/y estimate on that site is very wrong for a classroom. Maybe reasonable for 24/7 operation but classroom time is about 1000 h/year, so actual KWh is more like 50 KWh. Electricity is about 0.2 Kg CO2 per KWh. Again, this just isn't significant. Stop trolling.

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 此外，该站点上 500 KWh/y 的估计对于教室来说是非常错误的。 24/7 运行可能是合理的，但课堂时间约为 1000 小时/年，因此实际千瓦时更像是 50 千瓦时。电力约为每千瓦时 0.2 公斤二氧化碳。同样，这并不重要。停止拖钓。

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths Yes there is SOME carbon impact, but look, when it is so much less than lighting, HVAC, transpiration, cooking, and other normal costs, it's just not significant. I'm sorry you don't want to believe it.

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 是的，有一些碳影响，但是看，当它远低于照明、HVAC、蒸腾、烹饪和其他正常成本时，它并不重要。对不起，你不想相信。

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths Also, the 500 KWh/y estimate on that site is absurdly high, at least for a classroom. Maybe for 24x7 but classroom time is about 1000 hours per year, so that's <100 KHW/year per cleaner. Cost is just very low. It really is.

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 此外，该站点上 500 KWh/y 的估计值高得离谱，至少对于教室而言。也许是 24x7，但课堂时间大约是每年 1000 小时，所以

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths Again, consider cost vs benefit. Electricity ~20p/KWh. 500 KWh/y is less than the cost of even one sick day, and one sick day avoided is a very, very low estimate, and further ignores any human cost from illness.

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 再次考虑成本与收益。电 ~20p/KWh。 500 千瓦时/年甚至比一个病假的成本还要低，避免一个病假是一个非常、非常低的估计，并且进一步忽略了疾病带来的任何人力成本。

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths That is one "LED light bulb", which is not remotely enough for a classroom. Lighting would usually be hundreds of watts and an air cleaner <100 watts, more efficient models even less.

@PotatoClose @PSQ17266 @Kit_Yates_Maths 那是一个“LED 灯泡”，对于教室来说远远不够。照明通常为数百瓦和空气净化器