I’m surprised at the “on during presentations, off during 1:1s” advice. My intuition is the opposite because of the volume of droplets and aerosols directed right at you by a speaking person in a 1:1. That seems more dangerous than sitting in a quiet room with many people just lightly breathing through their noses not directed at anyone. If you do all your 1:1s outside, I can see how this flips, but maybe you should say the recommendation depends on that.
This is assuming you go to 3-4 presentations and have ~20 1:1s.
The real solution is of course for ASB to provide us with 500 of those chlorine misters.
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.
I’m surprised at the “on during presentations, off during 1:1s” advice. My intuition is the opposite because of the volume of droplets and aerosols directed right at you by a speaking person in a 1:1. That seems more dangerous than sitting in a quiet room with many people just lightly breathing through their noses not directed at anyone. If you do all your 1:1s outside, I can see how this flips, but maybe you should say the recommendation depends on that.
This is assuming you go to 3-4 presentations and have ~20 1:1s.
The real solution is of course for ASB to provide us with 500 of those chlorine misters.
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.