www.lesswrong.com/posts/92fkEn4aAjRutqbNF/how-colds-spread
1 correction found
All of the studies that tested conditions more similar to the real world found no transmission via small particle aerosols.
The review you cite includes a more-naturalistic study that did report transmission via airborne droplet nuclei. So it is incorrect to say all real-world-like studies found no such transmission.
Full reasoning
The 2023 systematic review you cite does not limit positive airborne evidence to the two 1960s prisoner aerosol-inoculation studies.
In Table 1, the review includes Lovelock et al. (1952) as a “Study of the transmission of the common cold under conditions similar to those of normal social interaction.” In that study's “Exposure to infected droplet nuclei” arm, the room was divided by a partition, air was mixed with a fan, donors sat on one side, healthy volunteers sat on the other, and “2 colds developed in 25 volunteers exposed to droplet infection.”
That is a study the review analyzed, it was explicitly described as resembling normal social interaction, and it did observe transmission by an airborne droplet-nuclei route. So the categorical statement that all of the more-real-world studies found no small-particle transmission is contradicted by the review's own evidence summary.
1 source
- Transmission route of rhinovirus - the causative agent for common cold. A systematic review
Table 1 lists study 50 as a “Study of the transmission of the common cold under conditions similar to those of normal social interaction.” In the “Exposure to infected droplet nuclei” arm, “2 colds developed in 25 volunteers exposed to droplet infection.” The room was divided by a partition and a fan ensured good mixing of the air.