Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Mistwell]

  You mean we export the hollywood version of our culture, which is to say a corrupt, amoral, shitshow.  It did not transform China, China realized they could take on our farmed out labor at slave wages and create a "middle class", but in a nation where the poverty line is around 700 USD per year, exactly what does middle class mean?  China realized they could use greed as a powerful tool and operate much like a fascist nation now.  Freedom wise, what exactly has China changed?  They just do not have to disappear or lock as many people into concentration camps these days thanks to a quite compliant society.    China also seems to be taking more and more control of that hollywood propaganda machine...I am sure it will not be to export more american culture.  The Soviet Union was brought down for a lot of reasons, Balkanism, being an empire (with too many different cultures under one rule), and wild spending on the military at the cost of care of citizens (sound familiar?), the Soviet Union didnt collapse because of blue jeans and rock and roll.

You continue to prove, on topic after topic, that you really talk out of your ass and have no clue most of the time.  The middle class in China is very real and has very serious buying power. I know many of them. I work with them every week. Freedom-wise China changed drastically. You can now own property. You can now travel freely. You can now invest in new businesses.

Do you even fucking know a single person in China and have asked them about it? I am betting you don't. Because you're talking out of your ass based on some vague bullshit notions you've picked up from other shit talkers over the years who also don't know what the fuck they're talking about but think they can substitute knowledge with bluster.

As usual, you are a fucking moron.

None of these things you invoke -- property, travel, investment -- occur without the tacit consent of the CCP. This is borne out by the new 'social credit' score system that is used to determine yes, what you can buy, where you can live, and where you can go.

But that suits you, doesn't it Misty?

Tell us more about how 'free' China is. Tell us about how they don't suppress religions, or crack down on dissidents. Oh wait. You can't.

Ah yes, the continually moving line where the other guy has to prove perfection.  I never said or implied China had achieved perfect levels of freedom. I said China is more free thanks to the impacts of globalism, and to portray their workers as slaves is bullshit. It doesn't "suit me" in the sense of course I want MORE freedom for the people of China, but unquestionably the impact the U.S. was having on China with our free trade was promoting MORE FREEDOM for China. And unquestionable the pull-back in free trade with China has resulted in LESS FREEDOM in China. That is my point. Which you fully understood and had to use this ridiculous strawman to try and deflect from it.

The line hasn't moved in the slightest, you cocksucker.

You are stating a degree of freedom in China that does not fucking exist.

And you simply stating that's so doesn't make it so. Every freedom I mentioned is real and absolutely got better (or "more free") during our freer trade era with China. Many got worse when we pulled back from freer trade with China. That's not a coincidence.

I'll ask again, do you even know and talk to anyone in China? They can confirm what I am telling you.

I do.  Through university and my professional life, I am friends with a lot of Chinese people. Some expats now living in UK and some who returned to China.  Some of them I am close friends with.  In fact, not wanting to reveal too much personal information online but effectively they are extended family.  Full disclosure I have not had the chance to go to China (technically I passed through an airport once) nor do I speak Chinese.

I wanted to wait to comment on this topic until I had had a chance to speak to a Chinese friend who is actually on the mainland rather than one of my Chinese friends who is living in the UK (though I would also trust their opinion on this).

This person is well educated and what you might describe as new middle class in China.  I promised I would not share more information about them than this because of the obvious dangers of doing that.

I literally showed them this thread and this reply for their approval of my summation of what they said.

Their view was that to describe the Chinese people as having more freedom is a misrepresentation of the situation particularly if one is speaking to Westerners. 

In China it is true the government has permitted some of the population to do more things, start businesses etc. but they said it is important to understand that these activities benefit the government in terms of economic growth and spreading government messages/monitoring (use of internet and smart phones etc).  These activities are very much at the pleasure of the CCP government rather than a freedom as a Westerner would understand it. 

They said a better word than freedoms would be permissions.

The words they used when describing freedom and power in China were, and I will quote them, because I wrote them down

"Any power a Western government has is derived from the general population and representing them so flows up. It is understood that even when the government is exercising power the individual still has freedoms.   

In China it is the CCP, the party itself for itself, that has power.  There is no principle that says they must represent the population except the principle of power itself.  So, the power flows down. There is no sense that an individual is anymore free to do what they want than they ever were. But they have been given more permissions.  Obviously if things are made too intolerable for people, they will cause trouble. 

The fundamental legal power of the state and the government has not diminished nor has the fundamental legal freedoms of individuals improved.  However technology has allowed more connection and an understanding of what politics is like elsewhere in the world"       

I asked them to elaborate on this: They said that it was because as a matter of political principle in China there is rule by law but not rule of law.  For example, the government can still remove your right to travel or own property whenever they want for no reason.  They also pointed to continued persecution of different minority groups, religions etc which they didn't think had changed much.

As far as this person is aware there is no philosophical movement demanding freedom in China that is not heavily supressed nor have any of these groups been successful in forcing the government to provide more permissions certainly not individual freedoms. Additional permissions are very much driven by what the government wants to achieve.  They did note that because manufacturing and production is very important where workers can organise to strike (which is very dangerous if unsuccessful!) then they can leverage their power.  But again, they saw this as local or regional power politics not representation or really anything a Westerner would understand as freedom.   

They did note (maybe you would say concede) that pure Communist ideology is not pushed as much these days which means there is less ideological opposition to allowing people to do things.  Although this is as much because the super-rich in China want to be well, super rich.  Also, they said amongst the middle class there is perhaps more of a view of looking out across the world as a whole rather than being inward looking and this might start to generate a genuine desire for freedom on a more political principal basis.  For one thing there is more understanding of what happens abroad and the influence of Western educated Chinese will have an impact. 

Also as our very discussion showed the internet and the ability to communicate and connect is probably the biggest driver of any progress in China on an individual freedom front.  But many of the gains here are now probably receeding because of government awareness of what the internet can do.  Internet traffic is monitored and unfortunately Western corporations will now often cooperate with the CCP.

With regard to the word slaves, we ended up having a long discussion about what this meant as it has a wide range of connotations depending on the time period and culture.  They didn't think that it was a useful word to use in assessing how free Chinese people are either for being more or less free.  It just complicated the discussion*

Because of the above they didn't think that Trump or his administration had much impact either way on the freedoms of the Chinese people.  The Western media's own hostility towards him has probably undercut the appeal of representative democracy a bit because it is being presented as being in lockstep with the CCP's argument that democracy is dangerous.   

Finally, they didn't have a particular reason to believe the official accounts of the number of COVID cases or deaths but it is very difficult to know what has happened so couldn't speculate further.

*(In short they didn't believe there was widespread slavery in China though some effectively indentured workers and prisoners could be called this.  I disagreed because I think slavery is absolutely fundamental to Communism but this is an account of what they said not my views).

Thanks for your insights. The people I know in China, or who visit here from there, are much more in the manufacturing sector. They tell me their lives got MUCH better in terms of freedom (any measures of that term) when trade with the west was easier, and got harder in terms of freedom when things got more difficult to do trade with the west and when angry rhetoric between the two countries was taking place in terms of trade.

[Ghostmaker]

Thanks for your insights. The people I know in China, or who visit here from there, are much more in the manufacturing sector. They tell me their lives got MUCH better in terms of freedom (any measures of that term) when trade with the west was easier, and got harder in terms of freedom when things got more difficult to do trade with the west and when angry rhetoric between the two countries was taking place in terms of trade.

LOL.

Walter Duranty, call your office.

[dkabq]

Better read/watch it now before it is flushed down the memory hole:

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3219.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovSLAuY8ib8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qkXV4kmp7c

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3767.pdf (see page viii):
"Facemasks do not seal tightly to the wearer's face, do not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles, and are not considered respiratory protection."

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2017-12-20
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3994.pdf (tl:dr = no mask recommendation)

[HappyDaze]

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3767.pdf (see page viii):
"Facemasks do not seal tightly to the wearer's face, do not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles, and are not considered respiratory protection."

The purpose of wearing face masks has never been to prevent the wearer from inhaling small (i.e., airborne) particles.

[dkabq]

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3767.pdf (see page viii):
"Facemasks do not seal tightly to the wearer's face, do not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles, and are not considered respiratory protection."

The purpose of wearing face masks has never been to prevent the wearer from inhaling small (i.e., airborne) particles.

By the same token, they also are not meant to filter the wearer's exhalent, and in fact because they do not seal tightly, they don't.

Surgical Masks
Surgical masks are used as a physical barrier to protect the user from hazards, such as splashes of large droplets of blood or body fluids. Surgical masks also protect other people against
infection from the person wearing the surgical mask. Such masks trap large particles of body fluids that may contain bacteria or viruses expelled by the wearer.

Surgical masks are used for several different purposes, including the following:
• Placed on sick people to limit the spread of infectious respiratory secretions to others.
• Worn by healthcare providers to prevent accidental contamination of patients' wounds by the organisms normally present in mucus and saliva.
• Worn by workers to protect themselves from splashes or sprays of blood or bodily fluids; they may also keep contaminated fingers/ hands away from the mouth and nose from exhaling particles

tl:dr = masks filter snot and spit; respirators filter aerosols.

[Ratman_tf]

...

[Mistwell]

Better read/watch it now before it is flushed down the memory hole:

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3219.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovSLAuY8ib8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qkXV4kmp7c

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3767.pdf (see page viii):
"Facemasks do not seal tightly to the wearer's face, do not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles, and are not considered respiratory protection."

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2017-12-20
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3994.pdf (tl:dr = no mask recommendation)

Once again, for the slow kids in the back: masks REDUCE the amount of LARGER airborne particles WHICH YOU PROJECT OUTWARD as a primary means of PROTECTING OTHERS FROM YOU. They have a lesser protection ( but still somewhat meaningful ) for you from others.

Hello McFly, is this thing on? It's been about 9 months since this information went public.

The primary purpose is to protect others from you projecting the virus outward, as it reduces the radius you project outward. The majority of the infections are caused by larger particles, not smaller ones, because you need to receive a larger quantity of the virus and not just a single particle of it to actually be infected by it.

How is this not sinking in after this long? It's not a magical device, it simply REDUCES THE CHANCE YOU WILL INFECT SOMEONE ELSE. You understand "reduces" right? You understand it's not a force field, but lowers the odds someone will get it from you when you wear a mask and have the virus but are not aware you have it, right?

[dkabq]

Better read/watch it now before it is flushed down the memory hole:

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3219.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovSLAuY8ib8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qkXV4kmp7c

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3767.pdf (see page viii):
"Facemasks do not seal tightly to the wearer's face, do not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles, and are not considered respiratory protection."

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2017-12-20
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3994.pdf (tl:dr = no mask recommendation)

Once again, for the slow kids in the back: masks REDUCE the amount of LARGER airborne particles WHICH YOU PROJECT OUTWARD as a primary means of PROTECTING OTHERS FROM YOU. They have a lesser protection ( but still somewhat meaningful ) for you from others.

Hello McFly, is this thing on? It's been about 9 months since this information went public.

The primary purpose is to protect others from you projecting the virus outward, as it reduces the radius you project outward. The majority of the infections are caused by larger particles, not smaller ones, because you need to receive a larger quantity of the virus and not just a single particle of it to actually be infected by it.

How is this not sinking in after this long? It's not a magical device, it simply REDUCES THE CHANCE YOU WILL INFECT SOMEONE ELSE. You understand "reduces" right? You understand it's not a force field, but lowers the odds someone will get it from you when you wear a mask and have the virus but are not aware you have it, right?

The transmission mode (large aerosols or small aerosols) is still not settled:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/
"The most common types of viruses causing infections in the respiratory tract through aerosol transmission are influenza viruses, rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial viruses (RSVs), and parainfluenza viruses (Morawska, 2006)."
https://first10em.com/covid-19-is-spread-by-aerosols-an-evidence-review/


As for masks. Effective with respect to snot and spit from sneezing and coughing, sure; "large" aerosols, to some extent. But that extent is highly variable. I will grant you that masks do divert flow, and hence reduce the rate of aerosol travel. But then just keeping your distance has the same effect. Hence I do believe that social distancing guidelines are effective, as are reasonable number-of-people-in-a-room limitations.

I leave the details of estimated facemask effectiveness (e.g., calculation of bypass flow vs thru-mask flow, determination of particle deviation from streamflow based on Stoke's number, filter material efficiency, etc.) all with proper characterization of parameter and model uncertainty and evaluated within a proper uncertainty framework, as a exercise for the reader.

[Pat]

Once again, for the slow kids in the back: masks REDUCE the amount of LARGER airborne particles WHICH YOU PROJECT OUTWARD as a primary means of PROTECTING OTHERS FROM YOU. They have a lesser protection ( but still somewhat meaningful ) for you from others.

Hello McFly, is this thing on? It's been about 9 months since this information went public.

The primary purpose is to protect others from you projecting the virus outward, as it reduces the radius you project outward. The majority of the infections are caused by larger particles, not smaller ones, because you need to receive a larger quantity of the virus and not just a single particle of it to actually be infected by it.

How is this not sinking in after this long? It's not a magical device, it simply REDUCES THE CHANCE YOU WILL INFECT SOMEONE ELSE. You understand "reduces" right? You understand it's not a force field, but lowers the odds someone will get it from you when you wear a mask and have the virus but are not aware you have it, right?

I've explained numerous times why you're wrong. I don't know what it's not sinking in, you just repeat the same old disproved maxims and ignore the evidence. Large droplets don't seem to be the primary mode of transmission, and they're the only thing cloth or surgical mask masks have a chance of stopping. Covid-19 appears to be highly aerosolized. It's spread in small particles that quickly fill any enclosed area, and then increases in concentration. These small particles completely ignore masks, but are easily dissipated by air circulation. This explains the massive asymmetry between indoor and outdoor spread, why supermarkets and gyms aren't major locuses of transmission, and why there have been no superspreader events on airplanes. The only studies that show that show masks might have an effect involve masks like N95s being used in a clinical environment by trained professionals following strict standards. The on the public wearing masks are conclusive: Masks have no significant effect. I've linked to the papers several times in this thread.

That's why ventilation is important. That, and the growing evidence that a disproportionate percentage of all cases can be traced to superspreader events, is a strong argument in favor of shutting down large indoor gatherings, like concerts or indoor sports. But masks are utterly pointless. They're a token showing tribal affiliation and support for totalitarian central control, nothing more.

[dkabq]

FYI, N-95 "masks" qualify as respirators.
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2011-11-22-0#:~:text=Response%3A%20An%20N95%20respirator%20is,considered%20a%20filtering%20facepiece%20respirator.

Question 4: Is an N95 respirator a filtering facepiece respirator, or is it either a demand respirator or a negative pressure respirator?

Response: An N95 respirator is an air-purifying negative pressure respirator equipped with an N95 filter.  If the filter is an integral part of the facepiece, or the entire facepiece composed of the filtering medium, the respirator is also considered a filtering facepiece respirator.

[Mistwell]

Better read/watch it now before it is flushed down the memory hole:

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3219.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovSLAuY8ib8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qkXV4kmp7c

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3767.pdf (see page viii):
"Facemasks do not seal tightly to the wearer's face, do not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles, and are not considered respiratory protection."

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2017-12-20
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3994.pdf (tl:dr = no mask recommendation)

Once again, for the slow kids in the back: masks REDUCE the amount of LARGER airborne particles WHICH YOU PROJECT OUTWARD as a primary means of PROTECTING OTHERS FROM YOU. They have a lesser protection ( but still somewhat meaningful ) for you from others.

Hello McFly, is this thing on? It's been about 9 months since this information went public.

The primary purpose is to protect others from you projecting the virus outward, as it reduces the radius you project outward. The majority of the infections are caused by larger particles, not smaller ones, because you need to receive a larger quantity of the virus and not just a single particle of it to actually be infected by it.

How is this not sinking in after this long? It's not a magical device, it simply REDUCES THE CHANCE YOU WILL INFECT SOMEONE ELSE. You understand "reduces" right? You understand it's not a force field, but lowers the odds someone will get it from you when you wear a mask and have the virus but are not aware you have it, right?

The transmission mode (large aerosols or small aerosols) is still not settled:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/
"The most common types of viruses causing infections in the respiratory tract through aerosol transmission are influenza viruses, rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial viruses (RSVs), and parainfluenza viruses (Morawska, 2006)."
https://first10em.com/covid-19-is-spread-by-aerosols-an-evidence-review/


As for masks. Effective with respect to snot and spit from sneezing and coughing, sure; "large" aerosols, to some extent. But that extent is highly variable. I will grant you that masks do divert flow, and hence reduce the rate of aerosol travel. But then just keeping your distance has the same effect. Hence I do believe that social distancing guidelines are effective, as are reasonable number-of-people-in-a-room limitations.

I leave the details of estimated facemask effectiveness (e.g., calculation of bypass flow vs thru-mask flow, determination of particle deviation from streamflow based on Stoke's number, filter material efficiency, etc.) all with proper characterization of parameter and model uncertainty and evaluated within a proper uncertainty framework, as a exercise for the reader.

Seriously, you are using articles from 2006 about generic viruses when we have study after study on this specific virus from the past year which tells us the typical transmission is from larger particles?

Yes, of course distancing helps. Just as masks help.  Just as ventilation helps. And exposure time. And number of people. They all help.

So why not wear a mask? Pick out some cool ones.

[Mistwell]

Once again, for the slow kids in the back: masks REDUCE the amount of LARGER airborne particles WHICH YOU PROJECT OUTWARD as a primary means of PROTECTING OTHERS FROM YOU. They have a lesser protection ( but still somewhat meaningful ) for you from others.

Hello McFly, is this thing on? It's been about 9 months since this information went public.

The primary purpose is to protect others from you projecting the virus outward, as it reduces the radius you project outward. The majority of the infections are caused by larger particles, not smaller ones, because you need to receive a larger quantity of the virus and not just a single particle of it to actually be infected by it.

How is this not sinking in after this long? It's not a magical device, it simply REDUCES THE CHANCE YOU WILL INFECT SOMEONE ELSE. You understand "reduces" right? You understand it's not a force field, but lowers the odds someone will get it from you when you wear a mask and have the virus but are not aware you have it, right?

I've explained numerous times why you're wrong. I don't know what it's not sinking in, you just repeat the same old disproved maxims and ignore the evidence. Large droplets don't seem to be the primary mode of transmission, and they're the only thing cloth or surgical mask masks have a chance of stopping. Covid-19 appears to be highly aerosolized. It's spread in small particles that quickly fill any enclosed area, and then increases in concentration. These small particles completely ignore masks, but are easily dissipated by air circulation. This explains the massive asymmetry between indoor and outdoor spread, why supermarkets and gyms aren't major locuses of transmission, and why there have been no superspreader events on airplanes. The only studies that show that show masks might have an effect involve masks like N95s being used in a clinical environment by trained professionals following strict standards. The on the public wearing masks are conclusive: Masks have no significant effect. I've linked to the papers several times in this thread.

That's why ventilation is important. That, and the growing evidence that a disproportionate percentage of all cases can be traced to superspreader events, is a strong argument in favor of shutting down large indoor gatherings, like concerts or indoor sports. But masks are utterly pointless. They're a token showing tribal affiliation and support for totalitarian central control, nothing more.

You continue to be wrong on this Pat and you've never been able to support your claims with studies which actually support the claims you make about them. Yes, you can ALSO get it from smaller particles, and yes ventilation matters, but that does not mean large particles don't matter and don't transmit it and are not a primary means of transmitting it which can be helped by masks. LINK TO CDC CITING STUDIES MASKS WORK

Also my wife got it from a supermarket and supermarkets have in fact been one traceable, provable transmission location here in Los Angeles.

But bottom line, masks help to reduce the spread of your larger particles to others, which does in fact pose more risk to others, so pick out a cool one you like and wear it you fucking stubborn partisan fool.

[Pat]

You continue to be wrong on this Pat and you've never been able to support your claims with studies which actually support the claims you make about them. Yes, you can ALSO get it from smaller particles, and yes ventilation matters, but that does not mean large particles don't matter and don't transmit it and are not a primary means of transmitting it which can be helped by masks.

Also my wife got it from a supermarket and supermarkets have in fact been one traceable, provable transmission location here in Los Angeles.

But bottom line, masks help to reduce the spread of your larger particles to others, which does in fact pose more risk to others, so pick out a cool one you like and wear it you fucking stubborn partisan fool.

I've linked many studies, including the only large randomized control study on covid-19 and masks (conclusion: masks don't work), and until now you've linked zero. Since you seem to like the CDC, here's a study from May by the CDC that says wearing masks doesn't help with influenza. And here's the European CDC, who in the last month changed from saying masks have zero effect to maybe they have a small effect. It's worth reading, because it's current and tries to summarize the information available prior to the pandemic (universal consensus that masks don't work), to now (a few studies maybe, but so far the data is pretty much crap).

More than 98% of superspreader cases occurred indoors. If large particles were the primary mode of transmission, then there would be more outdoor spread in places like stadiums where people are packed together, which simply hasn't happened.

And yes, supermarkets do spread the disease. So do schools. But both are spreading them at rates far lower than expected. That's the whole point. It's absolutely absurd to argue based on whether cases exist or not, because we're talking about rates of transmission, not about the disease magically disappearing. It's like me saying that masks don't work because I know someone who wore a mask and caught the disease -- that's a garbage argument, whatever side you're standing on.

[HappyDaze]

You continue to be wrong on this Pat and you've never been able to support your claims with studies which actually support the claims you make about them. Yes, you can ALSO get it from smaller particles, and yes ventilation matters, but that does not mean large particles don't matter and don't transmit it and are not a primary means of transmitting it which can be helped by masks.

Also my wife got it from a supermarket and supermarkets have in fact been one traceable, provable transmission location here in Los Angeles.

But bottom line, masks help to reduce the spread of your larger particles to others, which does in fact pose more risk to others, so pick out a cool one you like and wear it you fucking stubborn partisan fool.

I've linked many studies, including the only large randomized control study on covid-19 and masks (conclusion: masks don't work), and until now you've linked zero. Since you seem to like the CDC, here's a study from May by the CDC that says wearing masks doesn't help with influenza. And here's the European CDC, who in the last month changed from saying masks have zero effect to maybe they have a small effect. It's worth reading, because it's current and tries to summarize the information available prior to the pandemic (universal consensus that masks don't work), to now (a few studies maybe, but so far the data is pretty much crap).

More than 98% of superspreader cases occurred indoors. If large particles were the primary mode of transmission, then there would be more outdoor spread in places like stadiums where people are packed together, which simply hasn't happened.

And yes, supermarkets do spread the disease. So do schools. But both are spreading them at rates far lower than expected. That's the whole point. It's absolutely absurd to argue based on whether cases exist or not, because we're talking about rates of transmission, not about the disease magically disappearing. It's like me saying that masks don't work because I know someone who wore a mask and caught the disease -- that's a garbage argument, whatever side you're standing on.

Your studies are largely focused on protective effects, not on source control. The latter is, admittedly, harder to test (both practically and ethically).

[dkabq]

Seriously, you are using articles from 2006 about generic viruses when we have study after study on this specific virus from the past year which tells us the typical transmission is from larger particles?

Yes, of course distancing helps. Just as masks help.  Just as ventilation helps. And exposure time. And number of people. They all help.

So why not wear a mask? Pick out some cool ones.

Yes. A 2006 article as-quoted in a 2020 article. But here are some more recent articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151430/
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3739
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30514-2/fulltext

I suspect that both "large" and "small" aerosols are transmission mechanisms.

I despise the mask mandates because, even if masks provided some (debatable) reduction in transmission, their implementation by fiat is unacceptable and their specifics are patently stupid. When they tell me that I have to wear a mask outside when there is nobody around, they are telling me they are full of shit.