Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
OK, so it appears that some are arguing that viruses tend to spread more easily in less dense suburban areas, and perhaps rural areas than dense urban areas?
Can you explain the scientific facts that support that theory?
|
I don't think anyone said. But I DO expect that in a few weeks or months we'll see that a lot of suburban and rural areas have some of the highest per-capita infection rates. The New York Times
has a map showing per-capita infection rates, and there are lots of off-the-beaten path rural-looking areas well-represented.)
Big cities being the early hostpots makes sense--they're hubs of travel, both domestic and international. But it doesn't follow that they're necessarily more prone to spreading infection in the long run. Besides transit, admittedly, urban density doesn't place people in close and meaningful contact in the way that facilitates viral spread. Fleeting sidewalk interactions are unlikely to be a meaningful source of infection. And things like crowded housing, public gatherings, stores, restaurants and bars are as present in less-dense places as in dense cities. Evne in NYC, Queens and Staten Island have higher rates of infection than Manhattan, so there's definitely not a direct correlation between density and disease.
It'll be interesting to see what the data shows in a few months.
Threaded Mode