Totally!Even in places with good contact-tracing programs (emphatically not the US), what's the success rate on identifying the source of infections? I've read less than 50%, (but that wasn't well-sourced, so I'd be happy to learn otherwise if that's the case).
Assuming even 20% of cases come from unidentified spread, let alone 50%, wouldn't it stand to reason that some of that percentage comes from activities that are lower-risk but not zero-risk and have probably been producing some cases, albeit at a low-enough rate that it makes tracking the exact source difficult or impossible?
I've been struggling with how to think of those "less than 50%", in other words, "lower" transmission risk. That's why I'm doing everything I can to keep as much distance from people as I practically can. We just don't know.
I keep thinking about avalanche dangers. Some say, even the best got caught out. So no guarantee. But experience tells us if we practice safe bc travel, we minimize the risk without eliminate it completely. Well, Covid danger is kind of similar. We can't be 100% safe because there's that x% that we never figure out how it happened. But by following best practice, we remove those other risk we KNOW. We stay "safer" albeit not completely 100% safe.
We know the virus is transmitted by breath. So more distance is safer. The shorter time in shared air space, also better. Keeping the mask on is like increasing the distance and reducing the time sharing air. If both party keep their mask on, that's twice the reduction of transmission potential.
I will share a chair if I see practically everyone is keeping their mask on while riding up. But if I see half the people taking their mask off, I'm not going to share chair with anyone else. And if that makes the line grow longer, that's just too bad. Or you all can choose to keep the mask on and we all get up the mountain just a bit sooner.