By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Trumpstyle said:
SvennoJ said:


Anyway, cities are hit harder, low population density areas are hit much less or not at all (Nunavut in Canada). Comparing Sweden to the UK will always be comparing apples to oranges. The population of greater London (8.9 million) isn't that far off the entire population of Sweden. The population density of Greater London is 4,542 people per sq km, Greater Stockholm or Stockholm county (2.2 million) has a population density of 360 people per sq km.


It's hard to find info on population density. But this what I found, population density urban London 6004 citizen/km2 and Stockholm urban density 3970 citizen/km2, this is based on swedish wikipedia.

London

Stockholm

I think both u and vivster are wrong, but I don't know much about population density.

Edit: This what I found english wikipedia, 1million people 4500 citizen/km2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Municipality

Also I'm not comparing us to any country, but there are several people using population density as an argument, they are likely wrong, based on this post I just made.

Teeqoz said:
SvennoJ said:

The population of greater London (8.9 million) isn't that far off the entire population of Sweden. The population density of Greater London is 4,542 people per sq km, Greater Stockholm or Stockholm county (2.2 million) has a population density of 360 people per sq km.

Population density seems to be the biggest factor for community spread which makes sense. NYC (18.8 million) has a population density of over 10K per sq km. Melbourne (5.2 million), the most populated city in Australia, 453 per sq km. It makes more sense to compare Sweden to Australia than to the UK or USA.

For compar.

You are comparing apples to oranges within an apples to oranges comparison.

The area of Stockholm County (Stockholms län) is 4 times greater than Greater London (6500 sq km vs 1570 sq km). That should be an indication of the two not being comparable. There are huge swathes of forests, lakes and farmland that are a part of Stockholm County. Just throwing "Greater" infront of the city name doesn't have any standardized meaning in terms of city borders and where the cutoff is.

What you should be comparing it to is the Stockholm Urban Area, which has a population of 1.4 million (two thirds of the entire country) and an area of 381 sq km (about 6% of the entire county). Which gives a population density of 3600 per sq km, which, you know, actually makes sense because large urban areas don't have a population density of 360 people per sq km. I'd look into your Melbourne number because it triggers my bullshit alarm immediately as well, but I think this gets the message across.

Thanks, I was wondering why it came out so low, I couldn't find the Stockholm Urban Area I was looking for.

3600 per sq km makes more sense at 1.4 million people. Still you can't compare that to a city of 8.9 million at 4542 people per sq km. Most of those people commute to work plus a whole lot more coming in from outside London. Normally the tube is used by about 5 million people per day vs 1.2 million on the Stockholm metro.

Still proves my point, more people at higher density -> more daily movement/traffic -> much harder to stop the spread of a virus.
And if we're looking at the core of cities, Manhattan at 27K people per sq km is absolutely insane and no wonder NY got in such a mess.

Looking at population density is tricky, the amount of people that move around in and into the city on a daily basis are the ones spreading the virus around.


Back to, Sweden could have eliminated community spread by now if they wanted to. They could have prevented 3000 deaths already and time will tell whether that sacrifice was worth it.