https://www.theage.com.au/national/...sters-driving-its-spread-20200622-p55504.html
I would've thought it was obvious. One person goes into his home and spreads the virus. If he lives with one other and the one other do not go out then it's minimal impact. If he lives with 6 others and nobody else goes out then more people have it but impact on others outside is still minimal.. We know it's pretty hard not to spread it within our immediate family/household.
But this isn't what's happening up and down the country. People are out, several members, if not all members are out now. So if one person infects a large family and all those members of the family go out they will indeed have, unwittingly, spread the virus further than someone who lives with 1 other.
Thank you for your comments, sodthisforfun, but I don't think your linked article supports your comments in the last paragraph.
A) the article is from Australia, so you must have searched far and wide for that article.
B) the article refers to large family gatherings, e.g. weddings, funerals, birthdays, etc, not large multi-generational families. Large family gatherings can consist of multiple households where each individual household is average size.
""Super-spreaders" who have unwittingly infected members of their immediate family and other relatives could be fuelling a new wave of community clusters of coronavirus infections surging in Victoria.
Events such as large family gatherings, where social distance measures haven't been observed, could have also become "super-spreading" events, experts say.
The catalyst for spread has been attributed to family gatherings where social distancing measures were not upheld, authorities say."
The worst case, cited, has nothing whatever to do with families:
"The biggest cluster, however, has called into question the health department's own handling of the matter,
Two large clusters among at least five security guards ... it is suspected a contractor may have picked it up from a traveller, before spreading the virus among colleagues through a lack of social distancing."
"Premier Daniel Andrews has blamed the surge in cases on families breaching restrictions, by visiting family members or going to work after testing positive to the deadly virus.
More than half of the new cases since the end of April had come from family-to-family transmission."
C) the article does suggest that it is lack of social distancing, and poor quarantining that has caused the spread of the virus:
"University of Melbourne professor of epidemiology Tony Blakely said there were a number of possible explanations behind Victoria's jump in cases while other states have had few new infections, including mounting evidence of people flouting quarantine rules.
There may have been a super-spreader who unknowingly fuelled transmission within their own family, colleagues and the wider community, Professor Blakely said."
D) the article also refers to poor hygeine as a cause of the spread of the virus.
But Professor Blakely said the government must also “sort out its own quarantine practices” with family clusters linked to a spate of cases among security guards at quarantine hotels, where
lax hygiene has been blamed for the outbreak.
E) Finally, this article is from Australia, so any reference to large clusters, and outbreaks must be considered in the overall view of Australia's numbers of infected people.
So in conclusion, your article does not support any theory of large multi-generational families facilitating the spread of the virus. In fact, quite the opposite, it suggest that other factors are to blame. The only mention of families is in the context of large family gatherings, and visiting family members.
"In the last three days alone, community transmission in Victoria has soared by 30 cases, the biggest jump recorded since the peak of the pandemic in April.
A case is classed as community transmission if the person who tested positive is not a returned overseas traveller or a close contact of an existing case."
All quotes from your linked article.
