Once again you're missing and/or dodging the point: masks aren't supposed to protect you, they're supposed to protect others from you and the gunk that comes out of your mouth and nose when you breathe, cough and sneeze, something the Danish study does not address.
How is it NOT addressing this? Also, how would this be a concern when outdoors, keeping distance? Remember, it's
dose + time. It would be very rare to catch a virus, any virus, simply by being in someone's "air traffic" in passing. It needs to be prolonged, consistent, in a closed environment, for the chances of catching a virus to increase in probability. Natural outdoor elements are not conducive to such scenarios.
(even an airplane won't qualify due to the air filtering systems in place)
Indoors, in a closed environment with low ceilings and minimal ventilation, surrounded by others: here is where the probability increases as air circulates and has markedly less opportunity for ESCAPE. But even here, a CLOTH mask will not BLOCK virus particles from entering your airstream.
a mask CAN, needless to say, block the much larger 'globules' that you reference above: it will minimize instances where someone coughing and/or sneezing (expectorating) near you may pass that along when nearby or in a closed space. But these are RARE scenarios. And most that are ill should be, and are, staying home. (Otherwise, most who cough or sneeze will cover their mouths/nose, in any event, with their hands/arms).
Again: masks are not justifiable outdoors for those that are not sick or symptom-less. It's simply silly outdoors. Indoors, in close quarters with others, and low ceilings/ventilation, I can understand it.
The lack of a BALANCED approach is lunacy.
Signing off on this thread.
If you are sitting in a well ventilated space, with few people, the risk is low.
If I am outside, and I walk past someone, remember it is “dose and time” needed for infection. You would have to be in their airstream for 5+ minutes for a chance of infection. While joggers may be releasing more virus due to deep breathing, remember the exposure time is also less due to their speed. Please do maintain physical distance, but the risk of infection in these scenarios are low.
...
Social distancing rules are really to protect you with brief exposures or outdoor exposures. 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. The effects of sunlight, heat, and humidity on viral survival, all serve to minimize the risk to everyone when outside.
When assessing the risk of infection (via respiration) at the grocery store or mall, you need to consider the volume of the air space (very large), the number of people (restricted), how long people are spending in the store (workers - all day; customers - an hour). Taken together, for a person shopping: the low density, high air volume of the store, along with the restricted time you spend in the store, means that the opportunity to receive an infectious dose is low. But, for the store worker, the extended time they spend in the store provides a greater opportunity to receive the infectious dose and therefore the job becomes more risky.
Commonality of outbreaks
The reason to highlight these different outbreaks is to show you the commonality of outbreaks of COVID-19. All these infection events were indoors, with people closely-spaced, with lots of talking, singing, or yelling. The main sources for infection are home, workplace, public transport, social gatherings, and restaurants. This accounts for 90% of all transmission events. In contrast, outbreaks spread from shopping appear to be responsible for a small percentage of traced infections. (Ref)
Importantly, of the countries performing contact tracing properly, only a single outbreak has been reported from an outdoor environment (less than 0.3% of traced infections).
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-ri ... avoid-them
