I was looking at the difference in reported performance between Los Angeles and NY City. NYC looks a lot worse on all counts I think.
What is producing the different results I wondered. I suspect things like population density will matter. Certainly population behavior and government competence should matter. But would that really explain it all?
What other factors might be in play here? The paper by Lydia Bourouida started me thinking about air flow dynamics. I also wondered about city age. Older cities do seem to have tighter streets and just seem more closed in that more recently designed cities.
The general social distancing, and even the shelter in place, policies are largely a once size fits all. Everyone is saying 2 meters is the safe distance (not so but...). Does shelter in place mean take the same actions everywhere?
I'm thinking that is not true and if local architectual factors and historical development can impact viral spread trying to gather some information on that during this pandemic might be valuable for future outbreaks with a similar transmission mechanism.
In NYC, pretty much everyone takes the subway from time to time, 2 meter distancing is impossible, and the underground recycled air is not good. Los Angeles is a much less dense city where most people never take public transit.
Yes. I would think that is a large effect.
But in that setting you have a lot of people and so potentially a number of people exhaling the virus. We might think only people on the platform or tunnels or at the turnstiles are at risk. But what if the air dynamics is carrying a lot of that to say the entrance area on the street -- or pumping it out some vent onto the street? Now a lot more people are exposed who may well be practicing perfect social distance.
Are there other effects like that that could be contributing and perhaps at a larger level than we might currently think.