The initial guidance from the experts was that the primary way the virus spread was through prolonged, close contact with an infected person or through surface contamination and transfer. Now there are all kinds of suggestions of widespread transmission by asymptomatic patients simply talking to people.
The examples of the Orlando, Dallas and Houston metropolitan areas lead me to believe that whether asymptomatic or symptomatic, transmission requires prolonged, close contact or surface contamination. If brief interactions with patients who didn't cough or sneeze during the interaction were highly contagious, I would expect front line theme park employees and airline flight attendants to be infected at a very high rate. The current data of outbreak geographic areas suggests otherwise.
I'm not saying the virus isn't more contagious than things like the flu. However, the picture being presented by some is that it spreads like wildfire if you are briefly close to an infected person, no matter if they are symptomatic or asymptomatic.
I'm not sure that's how I would describe it. The key factor seems to be the ability of an infected person to spit on you or on a surface you immediately touch. Talking, singing, coughing, sneezing, hugs & kisses, handshakes etc. So casual contact, where people don't speak to each other and nobody coughs or sneezes, like passing each other in a grocery store appears to be low risk. The cashier who is asking about your day, and handling your money is higher risk. Sitting with your co-workers in a conference room where a primary speaker is infected appears to be high risk. Sitting in an auditorium, with an infected person on stage, is lower risk. The guy sitting next to you, going on and on about how much of an idiot the speaker is, higher risk. It can spread like wildfire if given the right conditions, as the choir practice, bridge tournament, funerals, and parties have indicated. I am not sure it has to be a lot of spit to infect, so is a 5 minute meeting, where the words that are spoken leads to more spit, safer because it's not prolonged? Longer interactions provide more opportunity, but if it only takes one well-placed spittle?
And density absolutely matters. So in that regards, LA would fare better than NYC. The epidemiologists talk about sparks. Not every spark turns into a wildfire. Someone who lives alone, in a single family dwelling, driving their own car, working from home or in a spacious office is going to have less opportunity to spread a virus than someone taking mass transit, working in a small office space, and living in an apartment building with 5 people in a 1000 sq ft space. Even how people eat varies a lot. Haven't been to NYC, but have been to Europe, and for someone who grew up out west, it takes a little getting used to how packed a cafe can be, where tables are tightly spaced, or counters where parties who don't know each other sit next to each other. Sharing tables is very uncommon in the places I have lived, except in one English-style pub. Eating provides another prime opportunity for spit sharing, for the people closest to you.
www.disneyfoodblog.com
