@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
(Rationale: droplets sink fast and only briefly infect people in the vicinity, aerosol stays airborne much longer)
You've got to balance that against the enormously greater potential for a droplet to infect if it actually makes contact. I don't know why that sort of factor balancing act seems to break so many people's brains, but it clearly does…
Yeah, it's just not done with the usual "avocado is good for you, meat is bad for you" logic. Not that this logic was ever correctly describing reality, but usually nobody cared as magazines got their pages filled and it wouldn't do much harm if people acted on the simplified version.
From time to time it's important to get the details right, though. Working hypotheses here is that droplets are the driving factor in the exponential phase and/or without social distancing (i.e. if you have a reasonable probability of an infected person talking/singing/shouting to you within droplet range) while aerosols/super-spreading become the driving factor when prevalence in the population is low and/or social distancing is widely practiced already.