4 ms·
I don't understand how the conclusion in the title can be drawn based on the data presented in the paper. Basically, the researchers sampled 2 outdoor location
by fairity 6y ago
I don't understand how the conclusion in the title can be drawn based on the data presented in the paper.
Basically, the researchers sampled 2 outdoor locations, and found low viral loads. Why is it reasonable to conclude that all outdoor non-crowded areas are safe?
I assume that not all outdoor environments are created equal. Variables like weather, wind, humidity, and population density probably all play a large factor in transmissibility. Certainly, more than 2 samples are required before making such a generalized conclusion?
- nextaccountic 6y agoThat's the last statement of the conclusion sections of the paper: > Considering a typical inhalation rate of about 1 m3/h, as average between rest and light exercise (Adams, 1993), the concentrations would be low to spread the contagion via airborne transmission even assuming the mentioned increase of a factor 2.
- fairity 6y agoYes, but the viral load measurements they're using were taken at only 2 different locations. I don't see why you would, then, feel confident in making a generalized statement about all locations.
- ummonk 6y agoThe paper was about aerosolized virus. The title here misleadingly implies any kind of outdoor transmission (including droplet not just aerosol transmission) is unlikely.