Population density increases vulnerability to infection

Logically it stands to reason, and infection rates (at least in WA- the only place I've run the numbers) support the logic, that the more people there are living closer together, the higher the chances an individual becomes infected (and thus the higher the infection rate).

So my question is, in the interest of reducing infection rates (not just of Cvirus, but likely all contagions), should we consider implimenting a national cap on population density?

As an intro to the numbers I ran, in King county (Seattle) roughly 1 in every thousand people is infected. In my county, with approximately a tenth of the population density as Seattle, 1 in every four thousand is infected. This trend is consistant throughout the state, with the best being 1/10,000 infected in the most rural county and 1/600 infected being the worst of the more urban counties. A more evenly distributed population throughout the state would reduce the states total infection rate.

There are of course a plethora of other dynamics that would change, some for better some for worse, by capping/redistributing the pop density, but it would reduce infection rates.

 

These are good times to be living in the country.

 

What times aren't good for living in the country?

 

Not all viruses are equivalent as far as how contagious they are. AIDS and TB are good examples of how contagions vary in transmission and rate.

 

Good point. Not all contagions. Just ones the spread by casual contact and proximity, aka the ones that threaten social stability.

 

Why re-invent the wheel?

There was already an established protocol in place until Trump let it go. BS runs down hill.

 

I would not want to be tasked with portioning out NYCs remaining tax base among the gov-union-edu-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex greedy parasites who depend on it once some realizations sink in.

 

Because that wheel stops turning at the slightest disturbance. Nothing to do with Trump, the same thing is playing out all over the world. Cities are hell.

 

I'm in two minds about this. On one hand it's the humane and logical thing to do .. on the other I think those who choose to live in cities (in my country it's always a choice, because it's expensive) should be left to the consequences of that choice. It's not as though they didn't know that city living makes people absurdly dependent upon a very fragile system .. and highly vulnerable to assault - whether from crime, war, disease, etc.

 

A protocol for reducing population density?

 

I may not be understanding you... are you predicting an urban exodus?

 

All times are good for living in the country. I did see a little of the hysteria today. I went to a nearby post office and it didn't open until 1 pm. So I went to mcdonald's to get an ice cream cone. They hadn't made any ice cream. My wife bought toilet paper at the supermarket. They stopped the panic by limiting purchases to a single package of 8 rolls per customer. Nothing serious.

Life is fairly normal out here in the country. Our hay field is greening and we had a herd of 14 deer feeding in it this morning. Our nearby town has zero deaths and zero infections. The schools and churches are open. I can touch my face as often as I like. Yes another good time to live in the country.

 

It’s pretty much the same out here, with the exception of politely confronting one gal from out of town who walked out of the dollar store with her arms full of toilet paper. That’s as crazy as it has got here.

 

No, I am referring to the fact that had we begun quarantining people back when we first heard of this, as the protocols would have been, we wouldn't be where we are today.

I have no idea what you realistically mean by "reducing population density". What does that mean and how would you do that?

 

Suddenly “fly over country” is where everyone wants to be.

 

With sufficient population density reduction, quarantining would not ever be necessary. We'll likely never reduce it to that point, but certainly we could reduce it enough to minimize quarrantines in the future.

Easiest way would prolly be through zoning laws- no new residential zoning once the cap is met in an area, and perhaps tax encentives to move out of dense areas until they are sufficiently lowered.

Thats just one idea. It could be accomplished a number of ways.

The question at hand is- should we be implimenting a population density reduction program to prevent/reduce the future spread of this sort of contagion?

 

Again, that is taking a very broad and extremely expensive solution that would only work for a given amount of contagions. We are lucky this virus is not airborne, but one that is would not care about population density. I would think that in addition to protocols, that we also invest in equipment that could sterilize public areas far more efficiently such as the accompanying video which shows a UV sanitizing robot.

 

Cvirus is airborne... just doesnt travel very far.
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a31674258/is-coronavirus-airborne/

Is the rarity of airborne contagions really relevent when it only takes one to screw everything up?

 

Hence the recommendation to stay as far apart from others as is humanly possible.

 

That's why they use the term "shedding".

From the CDC:
Person-to-person spread
The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person.

• Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet).
• Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.

Can someone spread the virus without being sick?

• People are thought to be most contagious when they are most symptomatic (the sickest).
• Some spread might be possible before people show symptoms; there have been reports of this occurring with this new coronavirus, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.

Spread from contact with contaminated surfaces or objects
It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.

How easily the virus spreads
How easily a virus spreads from person-to-person can vary. Some viruses are highly contagious (spread easily), like measles, while other viruses do not spread as easily. Another factor is whether the spread is sustained, spreading continually without stopping.

The virus that causes COVID-19 seems to be spreading easily and sustainably in the community (“community spread”) in some affected geographic areas.

Community spread means people have been infected with the virus in an area, including some who are not sure how or where they became infected.

 

Rgr.

Are you suggesting that we don't need to worry about viruses that are short-range contagious because theres viruses that are long-range contagious?

If so, it nay be worth noting that we're still allowed to go to the grocery because one person can't infect the entire grocery store. A long-range contagion is a whole other can of worms than this one. But this one is the one that has shut down the economy, and could be prevented from doing so in the future by limiting population density.

And, of course, limiting population density will still help with even long range contagions as proximity directly correlates to quantity of exposure. If you are 6 feet from someone shedding an airborne virus, you're going to be exposed to more of it than someone who is 60 feet away, regardless how contagious the virus is. Less people with more distance between them reduces chances of infection for all viruses, except possibly viruses that that have a 100% infection/exposure rate, which to my knowledge do not exist. ...yet.

 

Then please explain what it is that you are proposing.

 

Nothing, at this point. Just discussing the merits of efforts to reduce population density as a means to reduce rates of contagion spread, which it would. It might have diminishing returns due to other dynamics such as efficiency of resource distribution, mass transit, and evironmebtal impact. Perhaps preserving those dynamics are worth an increased death rate from infectious disease. Perhaps not.

 

Yes.

 

It's already happening. In my country, Govt is talking about restricting movement out of cities, because so many people are trying to flee - and thereby spreading their city germs all over the clean places.