I've seen a number of unfair narratives used to try diminish the Irish response to coronavirus. I'm going to address a particularly disingenuous one here:

That Ireland should be doing 'better' due to our "low population density".

The narrative goes a little like this: Norway and Finland have low population densities, so we should be at their infection rate and mortality rates.

Ireland actually has 5 times the population density of Norway and 4 times the density of Finland.

"Low" is a relative argument.

But when discussing population density in an Irish context, your start-and-end point is Dublin.

Metropolitan area of Dublin is one of the biggest starting disadvantages in Europe in terms of suppressing the outbreak of an epidemic.

We arguably start a bit behind the 8-ball.

The raw population density of the greater metropolitan area of Dublin is far less than Paris or Lisbon, higher than London and Rome, and approaching that of Madrid, Brussels, Amsterdam.

That's relevant to consider in itself but only tells a small part of the overall picture.

What % of the country live in the greater metropolitan area of their capital city:

Ireland: 40%
Austria: 30%
Portugal: 27%
UK: 20%
France: 19%
Belgium: 19%
Holland: 14%
Spain: 14%
Poland: 8%
Italy: 7%
Germany: 5%

A lot of us are closely packed into one region of the country.

More importantly, 44% of the Irish workforce work in the Dublin metropolitan area. Ireland are almost unique (Latvia + Estonia) in Europe in amount of population we have working in one specific small area of a country.

Ok so what does all of this mean in terms of an epidemic:

Research on the impact of population density on epidemics is mixed. Some studies argue it's a crucial factor, others argue it's less of a factor.

What all studies agree is human-to-human transmission means the closer people physically are, the higher the risk of transmission.

Overall population density of Ireland is 72 people per km squared.
Overall population density of Dublin is 4,588 people per km squared.

That lower 72 number omits the fact close to half the Irish population experience the latter 4,588 on a daily basis as a practicality of life.

Dublin accounts for ~52% of all coronavirus cases in Ireland right now. This would lend credence to the supposition having 40% of a population and 44% of an entire workforce in a densely-populated area, would lead to disproportionate spreading in that area.

It's disingenuous to argue Ireland or Spain should be doing better due to our low population densities. Spain, like Ireland, has swathes of the country sparsely populated, with high concentrations of people in Madrid and Barcelona.

Russia has huge areas where nobody lives etc.

Any argument that our population density was a starting advantage, to which the Irish government and Irish people have collectively squandered, is an argument reliant on ignoring demographics and practical reality of life in Ireland.

It's faulty and disingenuous.

Any focus on population density should start with "where do the people actually live and work" and not with square mileage of the country.

An empty field in Athlone can't spread a virus, only people can.

Ireland, on that front, isn't starting with an advantage - at all.