{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014022140221402213, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036900369003690036, 'mean_word_length': 5.026666666666666, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Population density and the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: comparing the geography of the first and second wave in the Netherlands

The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted public and scholarly debate about the relationship between infectious disease and the urban. Cities are considered contagious because they are hubs in (inter)national networks and contain high densities of people. However, the role of the urban and population density in the spread of pathogens is complex and is mediated by the wider bio-social environment. This paper analsyes the role of population density in the outbreak of COVID-19 in the densely and highly urbanized context of the Netherlands. It compares the geography of the different phases in the epidemic and assesses when and where density plays a role. Using municipal data on the rate of infections and hospitalizations this paper reveals that spatial patterns differ substantially in time, which does not appear to be simple diffusion. Using panel regressions it is demonstrated that population density plays a role in those stages in which containment and mitigation measures were least strict, while in periods of lock down other factors such as household size are associated with higher infection rates. It concludes that lock downs may have greater effect in urban areas as key elements of urbanity are temporarily cancelled out.