Reshare as often as you want!
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
Thank you for making this, it's easily the best explanation of all this I've read. But this statement doesn't seem true to me. The US is already opening up, state by state, without any of the measures we need. We've wasted our first "reset" and we'll need another.pic.twitter.com/Z9kBQaH6kY
-
And I can't bare the thought of having to do this again.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is brilliant. Thank you. Now if only we could get everyone to go through this explorable explanation. Will pass it on to as many people as I can.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your R0=2.2 number is based off a single study. Much better to use a meta-analysis's results. This meta-analysis says R0 = 3.3. https://www.jpmph.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3961/jpmph.20.076 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is fantastic. There should be a campaign (in the vein of "flatten the curve") to promote R<1. I would love to see R as a media metric on par with weather. R=1.03? Might be a good day to stay home still for anyone who can. R=0.4, I suppose I'll go catch a movie!
-
Sadly, we can only know the weather from around two weeks ago because of incubation period
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Your claim that masks are ineffective at protecting the wearer is incorrect. You are citing a study that measured fit factors between 2.5 and 9.6. The OSHA requirement is 100. A fit factor of 2.5 means you're only blocking 1 - 1/2.5 = 60% of the particles coming at you.
-
A fit factor of 9.6 means you're only blocking 89.6% of the particles. That's not medical-grade protection, but it's perfectly acceptable for a civilian.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

30 min play/read