Intéressant. Reste à valider cette thèse.

C'est bien ce qu'ils cherchent à faire: vailder l'hypothèse. Mais comme ils l'expliquent justement, ce n'est pas si anodin... On ne peut pas sacrifier des volontaires juste pour l'étude. :-)

Pour le reste, le bon sens est d'application, ils en tiennent parfaitement compte. Notamment en parlant de "dose", pour laquelle une comparaison avec un phénomène cumulatif n'est absolument pas d'application. Ici nous somme face à un phénomène lié au premier contact, et les réactions engendrées dans les heures qui suivent. Ensuite le système immunitaire change de toute façon les données de l'analyse!

=> = dose au premier contact, si seuil atteint, sinon reporté au contact suivant, etc.

Worded this way, I fully agree. But here the article is not about claiming it, it's about starting a study to analyze if yes-or-no we could count on this for the next steps of the management.

Regarding the points you mention, I also fully agree on the fact not to make the mask mandatory. And the recent switch in the official management in Belgium is also going in the same direction: relying on people and common sense.
For now, I can already tell I saw some changes in the behaviors in public places.... People pay more attention and take more precautions than when the government was pushing "rules to respect".
(This change happened this week, following the joining of a psychologist in the team of decision makers.)

A lest aspect is left with a little gap, according to me: the lack of education for a part of the population... Here I'm not sure everything is fine on the ethical point of view.
- May we abandon people who are not able to understand those basic concepts?
- May we let them kill themselves because they were not educated with a minimal scientific level?
- Yet more important, may we let them kill their relatives because of the lack of precautions they take?

These are side effects, yes. But anyway, the problem exist, especially concentrated in some local places...

For me and me relatives, no problem. But that's an egoist view then...

=> Maybe the group of victims is not the same, maybe the count is not the same. It would also require a... study. ;-)