3 ms·

I appreciate the distinction you're making here. I don't have enough facts to prove or disprove it. But, I'd like to ask: are you suggesting that aerosolized d

I appreciate the distinction you're making here. I don't have enough facts to prove or disprove it. But, I'd like to ask: are you suggesting that aerosolized droplets cannot be seriously spreading this disease because they will evaporate almost instantly? I ask because there is quite a bit of research suggesting that aerosolized droplets are spreading the disease, and can hang int the air for a substantial period of time. Do you think this is wrong? If it is wrong, why do you believe people are suggesting aerosolized transmission?

lmilcin 6y ago
Well... I am not suggesting anything. There are two types of viruses: airborne and not airborne. Airborne can survive for some time outside bodily fluids. Aerosol == bodily fluid that is still liquid. It is just in the form of very small droplets that are now drying out. Depending on conditions this lasts very shortly. It spreads the virus, of course, but aerosol dries out quickly and viruses that are not airborne die (well.. viruses do not live in the usual sense, basically their proteins get damaged). Of course if somebody coughs in your direction some of the aerosol can be inhaled or reach your retina or get on your hands and you can get infected. No, I am not suggesting droplets cannot spread the disease, the opposite is true. Droplets are much better transmitter of disease if they can reach the target.