"By assuming that the respiratory droplets are mixed uniformly through an indoor space..."
... Is this a reasonable starting point? Social distancing assumes the distribution is not uniform. You would think the researchers would try measuring the distribution first instead of just assuming that a priori.
Edit: Haha, I'm struggling to understand the point of this study when they state something like this:
"These models are all based on the premise that the space of interest is well mixed; thus, the pathogen is distributed uniformly throughout. In such well-mixed spaces, one is no safer from airborne pathogens at 60 ft than 6 ft."
Airflow in buildings is a complex topics and needs to be modeled with complex computer simulations to get right as "intuitive" assumptions can sometimes be very far of the reality.
Any single source of heat, like heaters, laptops or even your body heat is influencing this.
There are companies which do such analysis for hospitals to make sure/reduce the risk that Covid from Covid patients infect non-Covid patients over air flow.
(Best would be an airlock between areas, but lets be realistic especially when they get many Covid patients this is often not possible).
Either way it's completely unrealistic assumption.
Still from all what I know about air (subtile) flow (which is not much) the end conclusion of: "wearing mask indoors is quite effective, maybe more then social distancing". Might still be true, assuming you don't strictly social distance etc.. Because not being ever in the same apartment as an affected person is definitively better then being there with a mask ;=).
A example of how waring a mask indoors might unexpectedly help is that you body heat creates a minimal updraft, minimal but then the virus water droplets are also supper light wight. So if you combine a air conditioning/filter system which pulls out air (not uncommon for hospitals) with a mask and that effect the mask will cause the remaining airosoles to be "closer" to you as they where at least slowed down even if they escaped and the minimal updraft + vacuuming air filter system will with that have a higher chance to "pull out" the virus before any one can get affected by it. Or at least that is what I heard from some people of which I forgot the name of which do indoor air flow simulations.
In an enclosed space mixing will eventually occur. The question is; how fast? So if social distancing initially works then there would come a time where it does not. If the mixing is fast enough in practice then this model might not be effected all that much if it predicts significant risk later.
Borders on fraud, when such a strong unproven assumption gets transformed into a "guideline", which will then be disseminated and reported to a wider audience which isn't inclined to look into the details.
... Is this a reasonable starting point? Social distancing assumes the distribution is not uniform. You would think the researchers would try measuring the distribution first instead of just assuming that a priori.
Edit: Haha, I'm struggling to understand the point of this study when they state something like this: "These models are all based on the premise that the space of interest is well mixed; thus, the pathogen is distributed uniformly throughout. In such well-mixed spaces, one is no safer from airborne pathogens at 60 ft than 6 ft."