View Single Post
Old 9th May 2020, 10:14
  #6404 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by currawong View Post
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

However, that's ignoring the way Hong Kong implemented the plan they had developed after the SARS outbreak, that seemed to work a lot better during the initial stages of the disease than many other countries reaction to it. The countries that had experienced SARS, and to a lesser extent H1N1 in 2009, seem to have been a lot better prepared than many other countries, including the UK

There seems to have been a very definite impact on spread with those countries that managed to control this disease during the very early stages, before it got established in the population at large. The UK, and many other countries failed to detect early cases and introduce controls at an early stage, so that by the time we imposed lockdown the disease was already running out of control, especially in densely populated areas.

One glance at the regional data for the UK shows just how big an impact population density has though, with the incidence of disease in London (per 100,000 population) being 2.3 times higher than the incidence here in the sparsely South West. Looking at the relative population densities, London is around 5,666 people per kmē, whereas the South West is around 220 people per kmē.

I bet the same tendency to have a higher infection rate in densely populated areas is mirrored in other countries, too. Seems to apply to Australia, for example, with NSW having around 37 cases per 100,000, and the NT having less than 12 cases per 100,000.
VP959 is offline