Would it? The Greater Sydney region, which people often ignorantly imagine is Sydney, has a very low population density. This does include some large national parks (one is the size of Liechtenstein) however
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @PhilWMagness
The built urban area, however, is much more dense. Not quite as impressive as London or New York, more like Atlanta or similar. Inner city Sydney is as dense as NYC/London, with ~10,000 people per km^2
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @PhilWMagness
Yep, so roughly comparable. Sydney is definitely spread out, but it has extremely dense areas (I live in one) as well as massive national parks
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @PhilWMagness
I disagree. Sydney is a wonderful city of contrasts - very low-density outer suburbs, with <500 residents per km^2, and very dense inner suburbs with 9-10,000 residents per km^2pic.twitter.com/4ZHDK52nyt
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @PhilWMagness
Anyway, now we're arguing semantics. It's still obviously absurd to call Australia a "remote Pacific Island" as the only reason we've had success with COVID-19
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @PhilWMagness
And if you want to call a country a remote Pacific Island, you should compare it to actual remote Pacific Islands such as Tuvalu, with 11,508 people and virtually no international travel
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Compared to Sydney, Tulsa, Oklahoma is remote, but it has 10x the COVID-19 cases and deaths
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.