[Goose]

I am willing to enter this miasma, because I have been there before. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Korea, HK, Taiwan Thailand and Singapore had in place a very competent track and trace facility left over from the first SARS epidemic, which hit them hard and us not at all. Their initial responses did not come from a head of state. It came from people out there doing their everyday job. That fact bought those countries lots more time to respond in a measured way. There also existed expertise that was part of the government with whom the executive branch was familiar and which is respected by the people. That makes it lots easier on the executive branch, because they could get experienced advice they could trust from people who had done this before and who they knew well.

The US and the west didn't have any of that. The West didn't know what was going on and were slow to act in almost all cases, all pretty much for the same reasons. So yes, I have told you what the differences were, and boy did they matter.

There are also some other important factors involved. Many of these countries are physically small and have few ports of entry (Thailand not as much, but still fewer ways in than say Italy). This factor is not governing, but it sure helps. These nations also have somewhat homogeneous societies, which the US does not. Social pressure is more effective in these countries than in the USA (Europe is a different case). It is also true that these nations have much more direct executive power than the USA does, which opens options the USA doesn't have.

Now New Zealand. The lockdown started in New Zealand on March 26. By that date the USA had 1,164 deaths. Italy had 8,215. New Zealand had 0. The 7 Bay Area counties locked down on March 16. New Zealand had the opportunity to see what was happening elsewhere and then decide what to do. They were not already in the s**t. I think it is fair to say they responded well, but also recognize that they responded well after the USA and Europe were deeply involved. It is also true that they can absolutely control entry to and exit from their country.

Does this all mean I think that the USA responded "well" to the crisis? Not at all. Did we respond about the way I would expect? Unfortunately yes. If you want to discuss causes for our response not being what is should have been, fine. That is a valid and important discussion. But the fact that these other countries responded "better" than we did is due to facts that have little to do with their executive branch being particularly competent, IMHO.

[Goose]

I am willing to enter this miasma, because I have been there before. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Korea, HK, Taiwan Thailand and Singapore had in place a very competent track and trace facility left over from the first SARS epidemic, which hit them hard and us not at all. Their initial responses did not come from a head of state. It came from people out there doing their everyday job. That fact bought those countries lots more time to respond in a measured way. There also existed expertise that was part of the government with whom the executive branch was familiar and which is respected by the people. That makes it lots easier on the executive branch, because they could get experienced advice they could trust from people who had done this before and who they knew well.

The US and the west didn't have any of that. The West didn't know what was going on and were slow to act in almost all cases, all pretty much for the same reasons. So yes, I have told you what the differences were, and boy did they matter.

There are also some other important factors involved. Many of these countries are physically small and have few ports of entry (Thailand not as much, but still fewer ways in than say Italy). This factor is not governing, but it sure helps. These nations also have somewhat homogeneous societies, which the US does not. Social pressure is more effective in these countries than in the USA (Europe is a different case). It is also true that these nations have much more direct executive power than the USA does, which opens options the USA doesn't have.

Now New Zealand. The lockdown started in New Zealand on March 26. By that date the USA had 1,164 deaths. Italy had 8,215. New Zealand had 0. The 7 Bay Area counties locked down on March 16. New Zealand had the opportunity to see what was happening elsewhere and then decide what to do. They were not already in the s**t. I think it is fair to say they responded well, but also recognize that they responded well after the USA and Europe were deeply involved. It is also true that they can absolutely control entry to and exit from their country.

Does this all mean I think that the USA responded "well" to the crisis? Not at all. Did we respond about the way I would expect? Unfortunately yes. If you want to discuss causes for our response not being what is should have been, fine. That is a valid and important discussion. But the fact that these other countries responded "better" than we did is due to facts that have little to do with their executive branch being particularly competent, IMHO.