Some of the statements about population density in this article contradict the information presented in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_citi

Some of the statements about population density in this article contradict the information presented in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... unless you use a very specific definition of "city". The article calls SF the country's second densest city. It's not even the second densest city with population over 75k. It's the second densest city not in a larger city's metro area, and the gaps to NYC in both size and density are huge. NYC has 900% more population at 60% greater density. There are certainly many things that NY did wrong, but I think that the impact of extreme clustering on in-cluster viral spread is too readily ignored, and the opening of this article doesn't help that. There's a lot of very interesting coverage in the rest of the article though, and you should still read it anyway. Just maybe salt the first few pages and then read the rest of it while saying "I salted the first few pages" like Murray would.