[DocSavage87]

Getting back to the deterministic vs stochastic / super-spreader characteristics of this pandemic, I wonder if gathering size is even more important for the US in particular.  Most K-12 classes are less than 50.  This is what Sweden has been limiting all gatherings to.  The combo of larger gatherings / poor ventilation / indoor / close proximity with little mask wearing and longer duration -- these all are things that US does more of than other countries as far as I can tell. As the prevalence of infection increases, like happening in US now, the chances of one or more infectious people in a crowd increases.  I'm pessimistic about what's going to happen this winter.

---

The rich remote working inhabitants had very low infection rates compared to their Latin-X neighbors.  So testing should be focused in those areas and made less burdensome (e.g., they shouldn't worry about their info being shared or used for non-medical reasons).  But another point he made was the social net so they could take off work when they were symptomatic, because many of these people don't have the option of just calling in sick.

While this is an issue, at least in  San Mateo County a much larger issue is that often there are many other people in the household. It is impossible to isolate in that condition, even if you have sick pay. Further, the population doesn't trust the County (or government in general) enough to accept other accommodation if offered. Naturally the other people in the household are contacts and should quarantine. They also can not/do not, for the same reasons. This has been an ongoing problem all along.

I think what you say makes a lot of sense for a deterministic spread pattern.  However, I'm starting to wonder if families get it (aside from impact on elderly or susceptible members) how much this impacts the overall spread.  If super-spreader events are much more significant, the biggest risk is an actively infectious person winds up in a location that's very bad -- poor ventilation, crowded, long duration, etc -- perhaps as a service worker.  The worst scenario is someone who is working in nursing facilities or places like that. Kids aren't going to concerts and I would think they hang out in small groups of friends.  Elderly aren't the active spreaders.

[DocSavage87]

Getting back to the deterministic vs stochastic / super-spreader characteristics of this pandemic, I wonder if gathering size is even more important for the US in particular.  Most K-12 classes are less than 50.  This is what Sweden has been limiting all gatherings to.  The combo of larger gatherings / poor ventilation / indoor / close proximity with little mask wearing and longer duration -- these all are things that US does more of than other countries as far as I can tell. As the prevalence of infection increases, like happening in US now, the chances of one or more infectious people in a crowd increases.  I'm pessimistic about what's going to happen this winter.

---

The rich remote working inhabitants had very low infection rates compared to their Latin-X neighbors.  So testing should be focused in those areas and made less burdensome (e.g., they shouldn't worry about their info being shared or used for non-medical reasons).  But another point he made was the social net so they could take off work when they were symptomatic, because many of these people don't have the option of just calling in sick.

While this is an issue, at least in  San Mateo County a much larger issue is that often there are many other people in the household. It is impossible to isolate in that condition, even if you have sick pay. Further, the population doesn't trust the County (or government in general) enough to accept other accommodation if offered. Naturally the other people in the household are contacts and should quarantine. They also can not/do not, for the same reasons. This has been an ongoing problem all along.

I think what you say makes a lot of sense for a deterministic spread pattern.  However, I'm starting to wonder if families get it (aside from impact on elderly or susceptible members) how much this impacts the overall spread.  If super-spreader events are much more significant, the biggest risk is an actively infectious person winds up in a location that's very bad -- poor ventilation, crowded, long duration, etc -- perhaps as a service worker.  The worst scenario is someone who is working in nursing facilities or places like that. Kids aren't going to concerts and I would think they hang out in small groups of friends.  Elderly aren't the active spreaders.