I'll amend my point. The virus in the primary form it is transferred from person to person in respiratory droplets falls quickly to the floor. Particles of it may remain in the air, those particles haven't been proven to cause infection in humans.
I am not going back and forth with you. And I will leave it at the following comments as long as you keep showing an inability to break down your own arguments. Breaking it down shows the logical gaps.
Now some quick points and I will leave you to connect the dots.
1. There is no virus "primary form" of transferal. The virus is the virus. If you mean medium, the medium is the same. The difference is one of size of the medium. Big drops are called "droplets". Small droplets are referred to as "aerosols". Aerosols are just droplets which are small enough to be suspended in the air.
2. Particles of "it" do not remain in the air. The virus is, like in the droplet case is suspended in a medium. The same medium (range /types in principle) in fact. Are free-floating virus particles out there? Possibly I haven't looked at it. But at those sizes with that low mass breaking tension would be a massive problem.
3. In the video when he says "particles" he is referring to the medium with the virus in it.
4. At no point did he rule it out. He suggested that it was a possibility. Adding that
together with the other studies I provided is wholly consistent and together they lead us to the conclusion that aerosolised transmission can occur. This is simple logic.
5. Medium is some form of fluid. Sputum, phlegm, water, saliva .. etc
6. Your use of "hasn't been proven to" is misplaced.
For example:
It hasn't "been proven" that CV infects people while they are eating ice-cream.
It hasn't been proven that CV infects people while they are shagging big-butt Mary Sue.
It hasn't been proven that CV infects people while they are posting on the coli.
In other words you don't just add random qualifiers and state it "hasn't been proven".
You work from the principles of science and break in down into the known mechanical steps and analyze from there.
So in response my three fatuous examples the question would be "scientifically speaking what effect would Big Butts
, ice-cream
and thecoli
forum have on the mechanics that we know". Likewise with aerosols you need to establish based on known or probable mechanics why aerosolisation would rule transmission out.
--
Your rational is all over the place which is why you are trying to dance around the clear evidence that I have provided.
Once again: Droplets and Aerosols are fundamentally the same. The difference is size - of the medium and (most
likely) the viral load.
If you collect those aerosols (by any means) and breathe them in then the virus will have 100% have entered your body.
Apologies for the switching between US/UK spelling on occasion. I will try and cut it out.