Accidents are not more frequent but they are much more densely populated.
Therefore aid takes longer for help to arrive in the US and people die.
Have you ever been to china? Kind of a populated area ya know? There better than us supposedly. [/quote]
You misunderstand.
Europe has similar number of accidents.
Europe more densely populated.
European accidents closer to hospitals.
People get treated in Europe faster.
More people survive in Europe.
China would reinforce this data, not refute it.
Plus china isn’t even especially dense, it has half the density of the UK.
Basically you’re wrong about everything.
Edit: You used the wrong “they’re” too! Man that post sucked!
Accidents are not more frequent but they are much more densely populated.
Therefore aid takes longer for help to arrive in the US and people die.
Have you ever been to china? Kind of a populated area ya know? There better than us supposedly.
You misunderstand.
Europe has similar number of accidents.
Europe more densely populated.
European accidents closer to hospitals.
People get treated in Europe faster.
More people survive in Europe.
China would reinforce this data, not refute it.
Plus china isn’t even especially dense, it has half the density of the UK.
Basically you’re wrong about everything.
Edit: You used the wrong “they’re” too! Man that post sucked![/quote]
Yup, if the US was as densely populated as Europe there´d be 2 billion Americans.
Europe has similar number of accidents.
Europe more densely populated.
European accidents closer to hospitals.
People get treated in Europe faster.
More people survive in Europe.
China would reinforce this data, not refute it.
Plus china isn’t even especially dense, it has half the density of the UK.
Basically you’re wrong about everything.
Edit: You used the wrong “they’re” too! Man that post sucked![/quote]
Which is it then guys, does population density cause more deaths or allow fewer ones. People have made arguments here on both sides which is pretty ridiculous.
Accidents are not more frequent but they are much more densely populated.
Therefore aid takes longer for help to arrive in the US and people die.
Have you ever been to china? Kind of a populated area ya know? There better than us supposedly.
You misunderstand.
Europe has similar number of accidents.
Europe more densely populated.
European accidents closer to hospitals.
People get treated in Europe faster.
More people survive in Europe.
China would reinforce this data, not refute it.
Plus china isn’t even especially dense, it has half the density of the UK.
Basically you’re wrong about everything.
Edit: You used the wrong “they’re” too! Man that post sucked!
Oh snap, I have just been schooled! I have struggled with my “there’s” since I was a boy and will probably never learn them. A professor at Harvard looked at my paper, circled all my there’s and said “is this a joke?” I was forever shamed, so it goes.
But no, i understand the connection that all of you are making. Accidents in highly populated areas have a lower survival rate.
The only problem is, ALL OF YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THE POPULATION DENSITY OF AMERICA (its 177th in the world). I’ve checked other sources as well and this one seems fairly accurate. Isn’t that China at the top?
[/quote]
What the shit dawg? It’s simple.
Accidents in LOWER DENSITY AREAS ARE MORE OFTEN FATAL. Lower density means in general further trips for EMS. Think about it. Would you rather have a heart attack in New York city, or out in the middle of the desert new mexico.
Yes U.S. is 177th meaning its LESS DENSLEY POPULATED. i.e. people are more spread out, ergo longer trip to hospitals, meaning greater chance of dying.
And no china is not top of the list. If you look carefully it says Macau, which is a special administration zone(like hong kong) in china. It’s essentially a city. China is #75.
Accidents are not more frequent but they are much more densely populated.
Therefore aid takes longer for help to arrive in the US and people die.
Have you ever been to china? Kind of a populated area ya know? There better than us supposedly.
You misunderstand.
Europe has similar number of accidents.
Europe more densely populated.
European accidents closer to hospitals.
People get treated in Europe faster.
More people survive in Europe.
China would reinforce this data, not refute it.
Plus china isn’t even especially dense, it has half the density of the UK.
Basically you’re wrong about everything.
Edit: You used the wrong “they’re” too! Man that post sucked!
Oh snap, I have just been schooled! I have struggled with my “there’s” since I was a boy and will probably never learn them. A professor at Harvard looked at my paper, circled all my there’s and said “is this a joke?” I was forever shamed, so it goes.
But no, i understand the connection that all of you are making. Accidents in highly populated areas have a lower survival rate.
The only problem is, ALL OF YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THE POPULATION DENSITY OF AMERICA (its 177th in the world). I’ve checked other sources as well and this one seems fairly accurate. Isn’t that China at the top?
What the shit dawg? It’s simple.
Accidents in LOWER DENSITY AREAS ARE MORE OFTEN FATAL. Lower density means in general further trips for EMS. Think about it. Would you rather have a heart attack in New York city, or out in the middle of the desert new mexico.
Yes U.S. is 177th meaning its LESS DENSLEY POPULATED. i.e. people are more spread out, ergo longer trip to hospitals, meaning greater chance of dying.
And no china is not top of the list. If you look carefully it says Macau, which is a special administration zone(like hong kong) in china. It’s essentially a city. China is #75.[/quote]
Europe has similar number of accidents.
Europe more densely populated.
European accidents closer to hospitals.
People get treated in Europe faster.
More people survive in Europe.
China would reinforce this data, not refute it.
Plus china isn’t even especially dense, it has half the density of the UK.
Basically you’re wrong about everything.
Edit: You used the wrong “they’re” too! Man that post sucked!
Which is it then guys, does population density cause more deaths or allow fewer ones. People have made arguments here on both sides which is pretty ridiculous.[/quote]
You’re confused because you were double wrong before.
Allright, far enough. Ill admit that I have a lot of egg on my face regarding that point. My face is pretty red right now.
Still, I would make a counter argument that a relatively high percentage of Americans live in Urban areas. In fact, while the U.K. is much more densely populated according to square miles / # of people, America only differs from the U.K. by 9% in the percentage that live in urban areas.
This statistic is far more relevant. For instance, Alaska has huge spaces with no one living in them. So does Montana, a lot of midwest states, and states like Vermont or Maine. That space is not taken into account with population density. Most of America lives near Hospitals.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Allright, far enough. Ill admit that I have a lot of egg on my face regarding that point. My face is pretty red right now.
Still, I would make a counter argument that a relatively high percentage of Americans live in Urban areas. In fact, while the U.K. is much more densely populated according to square miles / # of people, America only differs from the U.K. by 9% in the percentage that live in urban areas.
This statistic is far more relevant. For instance, Alaska has huge spaces with no one living in them. So does Montana, a lot of midwest states, and states like Vermont or Maine. That space is not taken into account with population density. Most of America lives near Hospitals.[/quote]
A 9% difference is a big deal when you are talking about 300 million people. There would be about 30 million more Americans living in cities if the US had the same urban percentage as the UK.
All this is just a sideshow anyway. The U.S. has the best survival rates for a lot of diseases.
And ultimately 95% of the problems with the US healthcare system were legislated into existence.
