This is a good point, and would explain how there could be a threshold effect on initial dosage. On the bright side, if this is true, it would make inoculation

This is a good point, and would explain how there could be a threshold effect on initial dosage. On the bright side, if this is true, it would make inoculation against the disease fairly easy: give a measured light dose, and reliably generate a mild case. On the not-so-bright side, while it is a theory, I don't think it is anywhere near proven. If you've come across it, I'd love to see more evidence that this theory is true. I'm starting to double down on my "just plain wrong" interpretation. The author of this article says repeatedly that one can be safe by simply avoiding extended exposure: "Again, assuming every virus is inhaled, it would take ~5 minutes of speaking face-to-face to receive the required dose." "In these situations there is not enough time to achieve the infectious viral load when you are standing 6 feet apart or where wind and the infinite outdoor space for viral dilution reduces viral load." "You would have to be in their airstream for 5+ minutes for a chance of infection." I think this article is full of bad, dangerous, and unproven advice. I think the author has confused population level statistical risk (where reduced exposure can reduce R0 below 1 thus preventing epidemic spread) with personal risk (where exposure to a deadly disease can be deadly).