How it Works1 min ago
Death
29 Answers
I must have missed something somewhere: It is being stated at the highest level that one of the main reasons why the UK has the highest number of Covid 19 deaths in Europe, and approaches the second highest ratio per population, is that the UK is more densely populated than the rest (except for the Netherlands) - let's ignore the claim that only the UK can count and report reliably.
I can understand why the higher density might increase the likelihood of transmission of the disease, especially if people are careless, but not that people should then necessarily also be likelier to die. Has anyone seen the reasoning for the theory for increased risk of death due to density of development being publicly available ?
I can understand why the higher density might increase the likelihood of transmission of the disease, especially if people are careless, but not that people should then necessarily also be likelier to die. Has anyone seen the reasoning for the theory for increased risk of death due to density of development being publicly available ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by KARL. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Naomi- Karl seems to be referring to deaths per 1000 infections rather than deaths per 1000 population//
Perhaps I misunderstood. There's always the thought that deaths are being recorded differently. For example, as I understand it we record numbers dying 'with' the virus as well as those dying 'from' it, whereas others may record only those deaths directly attributable to Coronavirus. That would bring statistics down considerably.
Perhaps I misunderstood. There's always the thought that deaths are being recorded differently. For example, as I understand it we record numbers dying 'with' the virus as well as those dying 'from' it, whereas others may record only those deaths directly attributable to Coronavirus. That would bring statistics down considerably.
Maybe. I'm not sure what figures Karl has. If he accepts that a denser population gets more infections per thousand people then one might expect that the higher level of infections would result in more deaths, but perhaps karl has some data to show we have more deaths per infection. I understand the of covid/ with covid issue but we count something in the middle, but eccess mortality is better measure and we do equally badly on that in comparison with other similar countries.
ff and perhaps Naomi, I get the distinct impression that you are trying to read something into my thread which isn't there at all nor is it intended, in fact I am specifically excluding the consideration of numbers as such or any comparison.
What I am focusing on is what all of us have heard politicians, civil servants, statisticians (in the form of the ONS), etc. repeatedly (and several of them) say, when discussing the Covid 19 deaths in the UK. These are so far 36,000+, 531 per million, or however you want to present an awful lot of deaths - I am not considering any comparison nor am I making a point about failure of any kind or apportioning blame or pointing a finger. I want to know on what the suggestion/assertion is based.
What they have said is that, as an explanation of the deaths (and, yes, this was clearly being stated as a form of defence) one must take into account that in the UK there is a great(er than elsewhere) presence of dense population and that this will have a bearing on the number of UK deaths - that the death toll is high (as it most certainly is).
Again: Why are these people suggesting that, all other things being equal, an urban flat dweller is at greater risk of death from Covid 19 than someone residing in a bungalow in the countryside ? Where can I find an explanation of this theory ?
What I am focusing on is what all of us have heard politicians, civil servants, statisticians (in the form of the ONS), etc. repeatedly (and several of them) say, when discussing the Covid 19 deaths in the UK. These are so far 36,000+, 531 per million, or however you want to present an awful lot of deaths - I am not considering any comparison nor am I making a point about failure of any kind or apportioning blame or pointing a finger. I want to know on what the suggestion/assertion is based.
What they have said is that, as an explanation of the deaths (and, yes, this was clearly being stated as a form of defence) one must take into account that in the UK there is a great(er than elsewhere) presence of dense population and that this will have a bearing on the number of UK deaths - that the death toll is high (as it most certainly is).
Again: Why are these people suggesting that, all other things being equal, an urban flat dweller is at greater risk of death from Covid 19 than someone residing in a bungalow in the countryside ? Where can I find an explanation of this theory ?
This is hard work. Maybe most of us are at cross-purposes here because to me the answer seems so obvious.
You accept that someone who is living and working in a built up densely packed urban area is more likely to catch the infection than is someone living in the remote countryside with no near neighbours.
Now imagine 1000 people in the urban area and say 200 catch it because of the close proximity and higher rate of transmission.
And imagine 1000 people living in rural areas and imagine only 20 people catch it because there is little interaction.
Now if 20% of those infected actually die there should be 40 urban deaths ( ie 40 per 1000 of urban population ) and 4 rural deaths (4 per 1000 of rural population).
You accept that someone who is living and working in a built up densely packed urban area is more likely to catch the infection than is someone living in the remote countryside with no near neighbours.
Now imagine 1000 people in the urban area and say 200 catch it because of the close proximity and higher rate of transmission.
And imagine 1000 people living in rural areas and imagine only 20 people catch it because there is little interaction.
Now if 20% of those infected actually die there should be 40 urban deaths ( ie 40 per 1000 of urban population ) and 4 rural deaths (4 per 1000 of rural population).
Karl is asking why the death rates - not the infection rates - should be higher in more densely populated areas.
Agreed, the infection may spread more easily in a denser population - though the figures for England I quoted in an earlier post suggest this ain't necessarily so - but why should it have any effect on the death rates?
Agreed, the infection may spread more easily in a denser population - though the figures for England I quoted in an earlier post suggest this ain't necessarily so - but why should it have any effect on the death rates?
I think jno grasps what I am puzzled by.
Part of my difficulty has (yes, and here we go to the numbers) to do with how the suggestion is that this issue affects the UK outcome - it would appear to have no such effect in other countries. The Netherlands have 92% of its population in urban areas (the UK has 84%) and nearly double the number of people per km². The Netherlands have 7.74 cases for each death, 337 deaths per million population - the UK has 6.96 cases for each death and 531 deaths per million. This puts the UK producing more deaths for any given number of cases (i.e. ignoring infection rate). Alternatively, Iceland has 94% of its population in urban conditions but only 3 people per km², 180 cases for every death and 29 deaths per million inhabitants.
The disparity/inconsistency in the density argument seems to me quite clear, density is not the issue it appears - but the UK's upper public echelons obviously disagree. However, none of the above considerations have been aired by those stating that the UK's deaths are (somehow) at least to a significant degree down to population density - they simply state that it is. How do they arrive at that ? Maybe we are not to question the statement - if so, why ?
Part of my difficulty has (yes, and here we go to the numbers) to do with how the suggestion is that this issue affects the UK outcome - it would appear to have no such effect in other countries. The Netherlands have 92% of its population in urban areas (the UK has 84%) and nearly double the number of people per km². The Netherlands have 7.74 cases for each death, 337 deaths per million population - the UK has 6.96 cases for each death and 531 deaths per million. This puts the UK producing more deaths for any given number of cases (i.e. ignoring infection rate). Alternatively, Iceland has 94% of its population in urban conditions but only 3 people per km², 180 cases for every death and 29 deaths per million inhabitants.
The disparity/inconsistency in the density argument seems to me quite clear, density is not the issue it appears - but the UK's upper public echelons obviously disagree. However, none of the above considerations have been aired by those stating that the UK's deaths are (somehow) at least to a significant degree down to population density - they simply state that it is. How do they arrive at that ? Maybe we are not to question the statement - if so, why ?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles60 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles66 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles67 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul141 mins ago
ChatterBank146 mins ago
