View Single Post
Old 9th May 2020, 09:46
  #6401 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,019
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I'm pretty sure that comparing one country with another is inherently very deeply flawed. The rate at which this disease spreads depends on the population density to a fair extent; it has to, as it's passed from one person to others via close contact or proximity in the main. Densely packed cities will see a much faster spread of disease than sparsely populated rural areas, just because the probability of anyone being close to someone that's infected is so much higher in cities.

The comparison has been made in this thread before, but it seems pretty clear that, more than any other single factor, it's local population density that seems to be driving the infection rates. I'd hazard a guess that, when we've had a couple of years to analyse what's been happening, with the benefit of studies looking at the distribution of those who have been infected (from antibody testing) it will turn out that many of the measures that have been taken have not had much impact on the rate of spread of infection outside densely populated areas.
Lets test your assertion with a comparison to Hong Kong.

Hong Kong - 17,000 people per square mile, 4 fatalities/ 7 million + population

UK - 671 people per square mile, 31,000+ fatalities/ 66 million + population

currawong is offline