BMJ paper: Two metres or one: what is the evidence for physical distancing in covid-19?
Nuance matters
Necessary social distance depends on masks, occupancy, indoor vs. outdoor, silence vs. speaking vs. shouting, ventilation.....
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3223
More nuanced model
Environmental influences are complex and are likely to be mutually reinforcing.
This is shown, for example, in meat packing plants, where outbreaks have been attributed to the combination of high levels of worker contagion, poor ventilation, cramped working conditions, background noise (which leads to shouting), and low compliance with mask wearing.
Similar compound risk situations might occur in other crowded, noisy, indoor environments, such as pubs or live music venues.
Physical distancing rules would be most effective if they reflected graded levels of risk.
Figure 3 presents a guide to how transmission risk may vary with setting, occupancy level, contact time, and whether face coverings are worn.
These estimates apply when everyone is asymptomatic.
In the highest risk situations (indoor environments with poor ventilation, high levels of occupancy, prolonged contact time, and no face coverings, such as a crowded bar or night club)
physical distancing beyond 2 m and minimising occupancy time should be considered.
Less stringent distancing is likely to be adequate in low risk scenarios.
People with symptoms (who should in any case be self-isolating) tend to have high viral load and more frequent violent respiratory exhalations.