Agreed that it matters a lot how crowded the store is and how much talking occurs, and that your assumptions seem more realistic.
Some adjustments that come to mind:
It seems like it’d make sense to assume that people in the grocery store are slightly more risky than average, with the assumption that less risky people are less likely to grocery shop indoors and more risky people are more likely to grocery shop indoors. Perhaps using the 10k healthcare or social worker option for risk profile instead of the 7k average person in your area.
I see a pretty significant amount of people not covering their nose with their mask, so maybe “their mask” should be more like 1⁄3 the risk instead of 1⁄4 the risk.
For “your mask”, I don’t know too much about the stuff about how to fit your mask, but my best guess would be to assume it’s more like 1⁄5 the risk instead of 1⁄10.
I agree it’s much closer to “not talking” than “normal conversation”, but some talking does occur. Maybe it’d make sense to use 1⁄4 instead of 1⁄5.
Ballparking it, and assuming a few other minor adjustments, maybe the truth is something like 3x what your estimate is. (It’d be great if the calculator let you make such adjustments inline.)
Agreed that it matters a lot how crowded the store is and how much talking occurs, and that your assumptions seem more realistic.
Some adjustments that come to mind:
It seems like it’d make sense to assume that people in the grocery store are slightly more risky than average, with the assumption that less risky people are less likely to grocery shop indoors and more risky people are more likely to grocery shop indoors. Perhaps using the 10k healthcare or social worker option for risk profile instead of the 7k average person in your area.
I see a pretty significant amount of people not covering their nose with their mask, so maybe “their mask” should be more like 1⁄3 the risk instead of 1⁄4 the risk.
For “your mask”, I don’t know too much about the stuff about how to fit your mask, but my best guess would be to assume it’s more like 1⁄5 the risk instead of 1⁄10.
I agree it’s much closer to “not talking” than “normal conversation”, but some talking does occur. Maybe it’d make sense to use 1⁄4 instead of 1⁄5.
Ballparking it, and assuming a few other minor adjustments, maybe the truth is something like 3x what your estimate is. (It’d be great if the calculator let you make such adjustments inline.)
To make in-line adjustments, grab a copy of the spreadsheet (https://www.microcovid.org/spreadsheet) and do anything you like to it!