1) WRONG.
Population density is almost TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Look at Canada? It has one of the lowest population densities on the planet. Yet they have 64000 cases. According to your theory - they should have almost no cases.
It is not population density that matters. It is the % of the population that lives in urban areas that matters.
Now look at the urban population % of the UK and Sweden?
Sweden's is actually higher - but they are close (87%-83%). France is 80% and Italy is 70%. That means Sweden has THE MOST concentrated population of the four countries. Yet - despite the fact they have not locked down - they have a much lower death rate than the other four.
That proves that massed shutdowns do NOT work at lowering the death rate (assuming in both cases, the sick, old farts are quarantined).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS
Actually, no, not wrong. The scale which i used is not the most accurate metric to show my point. Population density is extremely relevant with infectious disease, it's at the very nature of it.
The only two areas in Sweden with a higher population density than urban areas in the UK (where London ranks top) are within Stockholm, of which only one has little less than double that of the highest density areas in the UK, the other barely more. So let's average it out for the urban areas London and Stockholm, as we (at least I) lack exact figures for the sub areas of these cities and the sub areas aren't exactly isolated systems we can analyze.
Let's take a look...
London has 8.982 M people, on 1.572 km^2. That is a population density of 5.713 people/km^2. They have 25.000 confirmed infections, that is 0.278%.
Stockholm has 974.000 people, on 188 km^2. That is a population density of 5.180 people/km^2. They have 9.000 confirmed infections, that is 0.924%.
Are you still going to argue a lock down has no effect? Are you still going to argue population density is 'almost totally irrelevant'? (why this double thing where you first say 'almost' and then 'totally', that caused confusion in my first reply too, i'm very unfamiliar with this use and am not sure how to interpret emphasis.)
The lock-downs are not meant to shut down the virus, they are meant to buy us time, to scale up the medical system, to learn more about the virus and to prepare society to run again with the virus in mind.
They are an initial response to mitigate escalation. You can do these lock-downs in various ways, and i think full hard lock downs are not the best option as they potentially hurt more people than it saves.
2) WRONG. I NEVER said compare Iowa to NY. I said compare the 8 non-shutdown states to the 42 shutdown states. The numbers are similar.
I didn't say compare Iowa to NY.
Wrong what? So the Iowa/NY comparison is a fluke? I don't have time to compare all of them in detail.
Ok - tell me how forcibly quarantining people that have virtually no chance of dying of COVID-19 (practically everyone under 60) lowers the death rate in ANY WAY for those over 60 whom are already quarantined?
I can't speak for other places, but in the Netherlands, 30% of hospitalizations for covid-19 is people under 60. At saturation levels, that is 30% less beds available for those over 60 or additionally compromised health situation. Also beds will be reserved for those with an increased chance of survival. So at saturation levels, the 'elderly and weak' are basically just left to die without care, alone. Like what happened in Italy and a few other places.
I think this is something we should avoid.
Also, the fact the Sweden has no lockdowns for most people AND has a higher % of people in urban living yet has a lower death rate than the UK, France and Italy PROVES that lockdowns do NOT lower death rates.
Lock-downs are not meant to reduce the death rate by itself, they are meant to bring down the infection rate, this could result in a decreased death rate. However, death rate depends on so many other factors, comorbidities, how patients are treated, if there's enough medical staff and equipment available, the demography of the infected patients.
Again, it is meant to mitigate the situation. The default death rate can only be sustained when our medical system is not overwhelmed. Lock-down's don't improve the death rate, they prevent it from shooting up.
These are fundamentals, but in reality, the death rate figures and infection figures are still quite unreliable, getting better as time progresses.