Hacker News Reader

Perhaps simplistic advice is better than no advice.

The way I see it, the advice we're given is not so much geared towards safety of the individual as to slowing the spread of the infection, basically lowering R0. They could say five meters, but that is impractical, so would be universally ignored. So the idea would be to settle for a recommended distance that seems practical, while lowering the risk of infection to a reasonable degree.

Let's face it: Whether you or I get through this unharmed, is of little or no significance compared to what will happen on a larger scale.

As noted in the bright yellow box at the top of the page, this is an unreviewed, and as you note unreplicated, preprint. Don't place too much weight on it.

Also note that it describes aerosol concentrations as "undetectable" in the patient-use areas where samples were collected.

Isn't this virus transmitted via droplets, not aerosols?

No - it's transmitted by both according to the experts https://metafact.io/factchecks/1490-are-aerosols-the-dominan...