O/T Coronavirus Thread (3)

[John2]

I don’t think New Zealand will tell us much given its low population density and relatively isolated nature.

Comparing a countries overall population density is a rather crude and meaningless metric.

Friends I have from New Zealand have balked at the stereotype. As though they're all living remotely and tending to their sheep. In reality countries like Iceland, Australia, NZ, etc have the vast majority of their populations living in urban areas.


83.4% in the UK
86.5% in the New Zealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country

[KerrAvon]

Comparing a countries overall population density is a rather crude and meaningless metric.

Friends I have from New Zealand have balked at the stereotype. As though they're all living remotely and tending to their sheep. In reality countries like Iceland, Australia, NZ, etc have the vast majority of their populations living in urban areas.


83.4% in the UK
86.5% in the New Zealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country

I would agree that it is crude, but to suggest that it is meaningless is wrong.

If you want an example of a crude and meaningless metric, look no further than the one that you have put up. To talk about ‘urban areas’ without talking about the overall size and population density within those areas is just plain silly. Or are you suggesting that Auckland – population 417k and Christchurch (382k ) are comparable with London (8.98m) and Birmingham (1.08m) and are likely to pose similar disease control questions?

[KerrAvon]

I would agree that it is crude, but to suggest that it is meaningless is wrong.

If you want an example of a crude and meaningless metric, look no further than the one that you have put up. To talk about ‘urban areas’ without talking about the overall size and population density within those areas is just plain silly. Or are you suggesting that Auckland – population 417k and Christchurch (382k ) are comparable with London (8.98m) and Birmingham (1.08m) and are likely to pose similar disease control questions?

Or to put it another way, are you suggesting that Auckland with a population density of 1,210 people per square kilometre is comparable with London at 4,542 inhabitants per square kilometre for disease control purposes?

[John2]

Or to put it another way, are you suggesting that Auckland with a population density of 1,210 people per square kilometre is comparable with London at 4,542 inhabitants per square kilometre for disease control purposes?

I'd be interested to know the average number of stories of a building in London vs Auckland rather than comparing just this figure.

[John2]

I would agree that it is crude, but to suggest that it is meaningless is wrong.

If you want an example of a crude and meaningless metric, look no further than the one that you have put up. To talk about ‘urban areas’ without talking about the overall size and population density within those areas is just plain silly. Or are you suggesting that Auckland – population 417k and Christchurch (382k ) are comparable with London (8.98m) and Birmingham (1.08m) and are likely to pose similar disease control questions?

I'd say urban areas in developed countries offer a more meaningful comparison than you're giving credit for.

Shops and offices, and property etc have building codes designed around human capacity. Humans are remarkably consistent. You go into an office in any developed city in the world and you'd probably not see a massive difference in the density. Same with supermarkets, etc.

You may get some bigger differences depending on the nature of the public transportation, and number if people you come into contact with.

Certainly not meaningless though, unlike overall population density. More densely populated cities just tend to build 'up' so that each person can have the space a human needs.