Thus, only 10% of the land is needed, giving plenty of space for roads, etc.
Of course, if you include walls then you can place people on either side of the wall without an infection problem, so that changes the calculation considerably.
FWIW, I wondered if Vatican City could reach the limit during a papal audience. It looks like perhaps 15,000 people could be there for one? That alone gives a density of 88K/sq. mile (bearing in mind that Vatican City has nearly 6 popes per square mile - or nearly 12 if we include Popes Emeritus.)
Then there's the staff, and the people visiting the museum, and others beyond the estimated population of 1,000.
Even with those, it doesn't seem like it comes close to 223,563/sq. mile.
I think "should be" pushes things beyond the limited humor there was.
The 6 feet suggestion is based on the travel distance of possible virus-carrying particles, given people on a flat surface.
Since gravity pulls particles downward, I suspect that being 5 feet above someone sick is better than being 6 feet below. Possibly even better than being 6 feet to the side.
Singapore's density at 20,445/sq. mile is less than 1/2 that of Monaco, says its reference 5, which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... .
Thus, only 10% of the land is needed, giving plenty of space for roads, etc.
Of course, if you include walls then you can place people on either side of the wall without an infection problem, so that changes the calculation considerably.
FWIW, I wondered if Vatican City could reach the limit during a papal audience. It looks like perhaps 15,000 people could be there for one? That alone gives a density of 88K/sq. mile (bearing in mind that Vatican City has nearly 6 popes per square mile - or nearly 12 if we include Popes Emeritus.)
Then there's the staff, and the people visiting the museum, and others beyond the estimated population of 1,000.
Even with those, it doesn't seem like it comes close to 223,563/sq. mile.