Wait, but don’t all these experiments have serious confounders? Mild lab induced colds, adults instead of highly infectious children, (importantly) probably poor ventilation, as I didn’t see a mention in either the article or the references that they handle that properly. And also, from the article itself, it says that viruses transmitted even when hand-to-face wasn’t possible. Also, maybe the framing would have benefited if you made clear that aerosols vs large particles is in fact ‘large particles vs small particles’. Plus, aren’t there famously viruses that transmit via aerosols? Covid being the main one that comes to mind? And aren’t the articles a little dated? Weren’t the ’80s working with a fomite-centric model (the same outdated model you briefly mentioned) and doesn’t that make these studies much less reliable for drawing strong conclusions today?
If the article tries to prove common colds are more likely to spread via big particles, the article itself seems to just show that the studies are methodologically incapable of answering the questions it set out to answer.
Wait, but don’t all these experiments have serious confounders? Mild lab induced colds, adults instead of highly infectious children, (importantly) probably poor ventilation, as I didn’t see a mention in either the article or the references that they handle that properly. And also, from the article itself, it says that viruses transmitted even when hand-to-face wasn’t possible. Also, maybe the framing would have benefited if you made clear that aerosols vs large particles is in fact ‘large particles vs small particles’. Plus, aren’t there famously viruses that transmit via aerosols? Covid being the main one that comes to mind? And aren’t the articles a little dated? Weren’t the ’80s working with a fomite-centric model (the same outdated model you briefly mentioned) and doesn’t that make these studies much less reliable for drawing strong conclusions today?
If the article tries to prove common colds are more likely to spread via big particles, the article itself seems to just show that the studies are methodologically incapable of answering the questions it set out to answer.