What I said is 100% accurate to what you just linked, though. Here are some other things from a quick search: https://www.discovermagazine.com/he...bout-covid-19s-infectious-dose-and-viral-load It's not clear that viral load even correlates to severity generally, so it stands to reason that it is not known whether the amount of exposure correlates to the severity of the infection.
I'm kidding you, I think we mostly agree but you're being a bit pedantic. Viral load matters in whether your immune system can fight it off or is overwhelmed. If you get enough to get sick your sick. How bad depends on a lot of personal variables. I don't think info is implying degrees of sickness based on viral load but rather viral load is a factor to whether you get sick OR not.
I think of it kind of like a mild poison, drink a little may not really notice, drink more and get sick throw up and recover, drink a whole bunch and die.
Generally speaking, viral load should affect severity of infection as well as how contagious the infected is, but it's really quite complicated. I think part of what we are seeing is folks coming to terms with needing to rethink or express nuance where broad generalities have become accepted almost as fact.
Agree with all this and we're dealing with individual, unique immune responses from immune to death for a given exposure. We have a pretty good idea who the vulnerable population is, protect those and the rest need to get on with gettin on. Locking down everyone is insane and presents it's own dangers.
If we can't manage to play baseball games, it would seem we are screwed. Which, I think we knew....but willful hope/ignorance.
I'm still firmly in the "They can't afford to play, but they can't afford not playing" camp. I'm interested to see to what lengths they will go to to get that $$$.
Same reason out of conf games are evidently more dangerous than in conference. And same reason 2nd graders are going back full here, but if you are 3rd grade, you cant.
