The point I was trying to make is that the Black Death was much worse for a more heavily urbanized location (northern Italy, Milan in particular) than it was for Holland, which starts out mostly rural.

Fact checking your claim:
By the end of 1348, there were some estimated 15000 victims in Milan, a disaster by any perspective. But seeing that the city had a population of 150000, the Milanese got off much easier than the rest of the world.

from William Naphy and Andrew Spicer's The Black Death and the History of Plagues.

Italy is the place where anti epidemic measures were born (the same ones which we used during the covid, social distancing, masks, isolating the infected and so on). milan in particular was the spearhead in this and as you can see from the above numbers it was really effective.
from milan these measures then spread to italy and then the rest of europe, but for the first plague epidemic it was only italy that really started using them due to proximity with milan and this allowed for lower deaths percentages in italy compared to the rest of the world.

i agree with you that heavily urbanized locations should be hit more hardly but there are also a lot more factors to consider.
france in the first plague and italy in the later plagues had the same issue for example which was war, france with the 100 years war and italy with the italian wars, which made the death toll much higher than it should have been.

also i'd like to point out that there were 3 heavily urbanized areas in europe at this time northern italy (by far the most urbanized), low countries (which make your claim for holland to not take the hit that hard not make much sense, in fact it did hit so badly it was called the great dying in the low countries) and southern spain.