>>12208855>When analysing the effectiveness of masks we should assume that smaller exhaled particles have an easier time passing trough the masks. As such looking only at big particulates and saying "wow, so effective" paints an entirely skewed picture.Not if aerosols aren't the primary means of transmission in the majority of cases.
>We can assume that fine particulate aerosols can carry infectious amounts of covid-19 by looking at mass spreader events. Several of these occur in closed indoor spaces and the likes where where the visitors are spaced out over time.I'm aware of a few major spreading events that are frequently mentioned. One is the choir practice, in which case singing will produce a large amount of aerosols (but also project droplets farther), other singers will have increased breathing and their mouths wide open, and there was a meal afterward. From this event alone, we can't even say if aerosols were the major means of transmission, it could have been caused by droplets or fomites during the meal. The other events were in factories with significant air currents, which would have allowed droplets that would ordinarily fall to the ground to be carried over much greater distances.
>Because not everyone with covid produces the fine quality aerosol mist.Are you not contradicting your own argument, then? If only 25% of people are a risk for spreading aerosols, but droplets are a risk with everyone, then masks that block droplets but not aerosols would be quite effective.
>Sure it's not measels level of infectious but that still doesn't exclude aerosol spread.It's not. Again, one infected student could infect the entire class within a day. We've seen nothing like that with SARS-CoV-2 with the exception of a few super spreader events that all had explanations for spread besides aerosols.
