Note that “survived as an [artificially-generated] aerosol” does not mean that aerosols are generated in substantial numbers in realistic scenarios, nor does it say anything about how infectious the aerosol route is. (Also note that the “3 hour” figure in the preprint’s original abstract was grossly misleading; the preprint has been updated to remove it. The real figure implied by their data is longer.)
For what it’s worth, even if aerosol transmission were proven (which it has not been), I’d still assume that breathing in close contact is higher-risk.
SARS-1 and SARS-2 both seem to spread mostly via close contact and large-droplets.
Note that “survived as an [artificially-generated] aerosol” does not mean that aerosols are generated in substantial numbers in realistic scenarios, nor does it say anything about how infectious the aerosol route is. (Also note that the “3 hour” figure in the preprint’s original abstract was grossly misleading; the preprint has been updated to remove it. The real figure implied by their data is longer.)
Appreciate the added information.
For what it’s worth, even if aerosol transmission were proven (which it has not been), I’d still assume that breathing in close contact is higher-risk.
SARS-1 and SARS-2 both seem to spread mostly via close contact and large-droplets.