Population density is not a measure of urbanization.
A country with a single city of 1M and outside it a desert of 1M sq km has a population density of around 1 person per square kilometer.
A country with a single city of 1M and outside it a desert of 10M sq/km has a density of around 0.1 person per square km.
A 1sq km city state with 1M people have 1M people per sq km!
All 3 these countries are 100% urbanized (no one lives in the countryside) and have the same population yet population density varies by four orders of magnitude.
Sweden has a high level of urbanization and a low population density. Or put another way: most people live in few places BUT the areas where people don’t live are large.
He's saying that Sweden is larger but that you can expect the same population density in places where people live, i.e. cities, so just raw national population density is not a good metric.
No, population density is how many people live in a certain area. They can live spread out over the entire area (rural) or concentrated in cities and similar (urban).
Yes. So it's a measure that makes sense for a small region (e.g. a city). A very dense city with lots of people on commiuter trains (Tokyo) vs. a very sprawled city with lots of people in Cars (Houston) will behave very differently in a pandemic.
But in both those cases, it doesn't matter how much unpopulated land there is outside the cities! That is - the population density of a whole country is a completely useless and irrelevant measure when it comes to the pandemic. Urbanization is also a blunt measurement, but at least it's better than density.
In the end, it's all about human contact and movement patterns. Here you can compare a city like Stockholm which has a very large service economy with people working from home during the pandemic (good) with a city of the same size and density in a poorer country with a larger part of the economy depending on manufacturing or services direct human interaction. It's going to fare worse than Stockholm.
The problem with Stockholm was put very simply that there is a large chunk of the population that lives in cramped working conditions, doesn't have private cars and that's immigrants in a few suburbs. They drive taxis, buses or work in other areas with human contacts. They also have disproportionately more comorbidites. Sadly, they are also overrepresented in elderly care work, so the grooup most severely affected also works closely with the most at-risk group. Finally, to add insult to injury the elderly care system has been progressively dismantled, leading to staff shortages and poor working conditions.
So the picture of the early stage of the pandemic in stockholm is basically this: An elderly care worker lives with a large extended family in cramped conditions. He or she has to take public transport to several different care homes, sometimes within a single day to work, despite the fact that there are active Covid outbreaks in some of the care homes and not in others. When there are outbreaks in the care homes, there is no possibility to isolate the sick from the other residents.
What matters is how many people you can transmit the disease to. If population density is high then you are crossing paths with a larger number of people every day then compared to a more population density.
Population density is meaningful only locally... so a country such as australia can have very low population density nationally, but a high one in one of the large cities.
Population densities of both Jerusalem and Stockholm are high enough for covid to spread fast, and forrests and deserts are empty enough to make it hard for covid to spread. Averageas are meaningless here, because even statisticians can drown in a river with average depth of 0.5m.
Another one: Israel population is 20x more dense than Sweden, which naturally would lead to more spread https://versus.com/en/israel-vs-sweden