5 ms·

Why are people still arguing about a countries population density in late 2021? It is a completely irrelevant metric, lets include the Canadian arctic when calc

Why are people still arguing about a countries population density in late 2021? It is a completely irrelevant metric, lets include the Canadian arctic when calculating the density of Toronto and the effects of Covid, makes a whole lot of sense! A measure which actually has some relevance on country scale is population weighted density. "Population weighted density refers to a metric which measures the density at which the average citizen lives. It is calculated by taking weighted average of the density of all parcels of land that make up a city, with each parcel weighted by its population" [0] By that measure we get Sweden is at 2693, Denmark at 2399 and Finland at 1741. [1] Concluding that Denmark did amazingly well given the cards they were dealt and Sweden is at the average of Europe due to very a urbanised population compared to the size of the country. [0]: https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset/jrc-luisa-udp-pwd-ref2016 https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset/jrc-luisa-udp-pwd-ref2... [1]: https://jeodpp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ftp/jrc-opendata/LUISA/SecondaryOutput_Indicators/Europe/REF-2016/UDP/PWD/ https://jeodpp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ftp/jrc-opendata/LUISA/Secon...

yyyk 5y ago
>Why are people still arguing about a countries population density in late 2021? Because the effective Swedish population density is very low? The effective density is affected by household size, and about 40% of Swedes live alone without children[0]. Sweden had the biggest Corona infection vector neutered and still did horribly. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/526013/sweden-number-of-households-by-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/526013/sweden-number-of-...
mistrial9 5y ago
I suggest the measure density is a single value based on housing units and not the right measure to care about in itself. Instead look at public and private hygiene, isolation practices and incident response profiles, per hundred thousand or so.. not hectares per hundred thousand.
kybernetikos 5y ago
Sure, there're a lot of factors that can affect how disease spreads, like demographics, genetics, climate, health system, sociability, temperature, cafe culture, saunas, wfh incidence, international travel, travel links, tourism... I'm quite happy to accept that 'population density' is inadequate - I mention it only in passing in my comment, the point I'm making is that Sweden is not a country you would expect to perform at the european average, and given that, the most natural thing to do is to compare a country with its neighbors. Neighboring countries usually share many factors, and on top of that, they have a direct transmission effect too. Sweden did much worse than its neighbors. The explanation for that is either in the ways that Sweden is different from its neighbors, or in the difference in public policy. I certainly don't know which to blame, but I don't want to hear any more lionization of the Swedish approach that doesn't solidly get to grips with that question.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Over the last four years the all cause mortality has been the same for Sweden and Norway [0]. So it would appear more people died in Norway before the pandemic, and more people in Sweden since, equalling out over the last four years. So maybe it's not geography we should be talking about, but instead the number of older vulnerable people at the start of the pandemic. [0] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201116/Study-compares-deaths-in-Sweden-and-Norway-before-and-after-COVID-pandemic.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201116/Study-compares-de...
wutbrodo 5y ago
> A measure which actually has some relevance on country scale is population weighted density. I thought your comment was going to be about the fact that urban density didn't end up being that useful a predictor of spread, except to the extent that it correlates with household size. In general, people were catching Covid from being inside with others, not from incidental contact with subway poles or passing people on the sidewalk.
scythe 5y ago
>By that measure we get Sweden is at 2693, Denmark at 2399 and Finland at 1741. Germany at 2651 did much better than Sweden. France is around 4800. Italy is just over 4000. Sweden is closer to Denmark than to either of those two.

yyyk 5y ago

>Why are people still arguing about a countries population density in late 2021? Because the effective Swedish population density is very low? The effective density is affected by household size, and about 40% of Swedes live alone without children[0]. Sweden had the biggest Corona infection vector neutered and still did horribly. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/526013/sweden-number-of-households-by-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/526013/sweden-number-of-...

mistrial9 5y ago

I suggest the measure density is a single value based on housing units and not the right measure to care about in itself. Instead look at public and private hygiene, isolation practices and incident response profiles, per hundred thousand or so.. not hectares per hundred thousand.

kybernetikos 5y ago

Sure, there're a lot of factors that can affect how disease spreads, like demographics, genetics, climate, health system, sociability, temperature, cafe culture, saunas, wfh incidence, international travel, travel links, tourism... I'm quite happy to accept that 'population density' is inadequate - I mention it only in passing in my comment, the point I'm making is that Sweden is not a country you would expect to perform at the european average, and given that, the most natural thing to do is to compare a country with its neighbors. Neighboring countries usually share many factors, and on top of that, they have a direct transmission effect too. Sweden did much worse than its neighbors. The explanation for that is either in the ways that Sweden is different from its neighbors, or in the difference in public policy. I certainly don't know which to blame, but I don't want to hear any more lionization of the Swedish approach that doesn't solidly get to grips with that question.

mikem170 5y ago
Over the last four years the all cause mortality has been the same for Sweden and Norway [0]. So it would appear more people died in Norway before the pandemic, and more people in Sweden since, equalling out over the last four years. So maybe it's not geography we should be talking about, but instead the number of older vulnerable people at the start of the pandemic. [0] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201116/Study-compares-deaths-in-Sweden-and-Norway-before-and-after-COVID-pandemic.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201116/Study-compares-de...

wutbrodo 5y ago

> A measure which actually has some relevance on country scale is population weighted density. I thought your comment was going to be about the fact that urban density didn't end up being that useful a predictor of spread, except to the extent that it correlates with household size. In general, people were catching Covid from being inside with others, not from incidental contact with subway poles or passing people on the sidewalk.

scythe 5y ago

>By that measure we get Sweden is at 2693, Denmark at 2399 and Finland at 1741. Germany at 2651 did much better than Sweden. France is around 4800. Italy is just over 4000. Sweden is closer to Denmark than to either of those two.