The costs of masking in 1:1 -- in terms of lost social benefits—strike me as much higher than the costs of masking in a 1:many presentation (if you’re not the presenter).
I’m not current on what an infective dose is in 2025, but it’s not obvious to me that the risk reduction from distance/non-direction in the quiet-room scenario is greater than the risk reduction from (e.g.) 98-99% fewer people who might be infectious in the 1:1 scenario.[1]This study from 2023 suggests that the dose from a person who walks into a room will be high enough within minutes to infect someone else in the room. So I’d be hesitant to assign a massive risk reduction without more evidence.
The costs of masking in 1:1 -- in terms of lost social benefits—strike me as much higher than the costs of masking in a 1:many presentation (if you’re not the presenter).
I’m not current on what an infective dose is in 2025, but it’s not obvious to me that the risk reduction from distance/non-direction in the quiet-room scenario is greater than the risk reduction from (e.g.) 98-99% fewer people who might be infectious in the 1:1 scenario.[1] This study from 2023 suggests that the dose from a person who walks into a room will be high enough within minutes to infect someone else in the room. So I’d be hesitant to assign a massive risk reduction without more evidence.
Of course, there may be other people around to account for in the 1:1 scenario.