Based on some of the articles posted here and in

@Dan's roundup, there seems to be growing support for the fact that most infections are spread by a few hyper-infectious virus-shedding superspreaders. In Israel estimates are that 5% of the infected were responsible for at least 80% of the infections.

If these numbers are correct, and they are true elsewhere (see SK nightclub superspreader), then perhaps there is more "chance" to the virus than previously thought. Let's say we assume that the R0 number of the virus is somewhere in the 2-3 range. If there were a low standard deviation from that number (meaning most infected infect around 2 or 3 others), then given the huge sample size of infected there isn't a tremendous room for chance to effect the outcome of virus spreading.

However, if as it appears, there is a HUGE standard deviation, meaning many infected will infect 0 others and a few infected will infect many, then the sample size of infecters is smaller than we thought.

Let's take Israel as an example. 5% of the total 16K infections is only 750 people. When you are dealing with exponential growth, the beginning of the chart has much more impact than the later you get in the chart. If so, then we are looking at maybe the first quarter of those numbers as the most important - at the point we are only talking about 190 people. With those numbers, we are talking a tiny sample size. So a specific person's behavior (and chance) can have a much greater impact on the overall outcome of the pandemic.