> Interesting thing to me is recirculated air vs. contained air.
The paper that started this thread notes that the only people who got infected in the indoor restaurant scenario they studied were the ones in the airflow path. Nobody else did, even though they were all in the same room with the same contained air. So this one study, at least, seems to indicate that just having contained air is lower risk; it's being in the airflow path of recirculated air that is higher risk.
That said, there is nothing in the paper that says that having uncontained air outdoors is not even lower risk than contained (but not recirculated) air.
The paper that started this thread notes that the only people who got infected in the indoor restaurant scenario they studied were the ones in the airflow path. Nobody else did, even though they were all in the same room with the same contained air. So this one study, at least, seems to indicate that just having contained air is lower risk; it's being in the airflow path of recirculated air that is higher risk.
That said, there is nothing in the paper that says that having uncontained air outdoors is not even lower risk than contained (but not recirculated) air.