The Chicago Journal

How Did Other Countries Combat Coronavirus?

Combat Coronavirus – New Zealand Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Jordan, and the Republic of Georgia is getting on the finish line against the coronavirus. Good news, these countries were able to “flatten the curve” and swoop the threats. But what made them win over this deadly virus? The success includes including preexisting health systems, bureaucratic agility, and early preparation to prevent unlikely circumstances.  

Other countries have argued that they ever-ready to fight with the pandemic, but no progress at all. However, Germany has combined with the failure of other autocratic countries and learned the lesson. Indeed, the crisis arose in part because autocratic China leaving the world in toll and in the furnace.

This leads to an unending debate on which type of government will give more rapid response against the virus.  Points were also raised related to the argument that centralized governments are better able to confront crises such as the coronavirus. But what type of government that effectively combats with the coronavirus? Likewise, it will indicate that the countries best able to provide local public goods—including primary health care, critical during a pandemic—are not those that are most centralized. Rather, they are ones that strike “a fine balance” between the powers of central governments and those at the state and local level. Additionally, countries with strong regional and local governments—and especially federal countries like the U.S.—are at a disadvantage. 

Moreover, centralized—and autocratic—countries are coronavirus success stories. Interestingly, however, these tend to be relatively small countries with very rational policy-making government, such as Jordan and especially Singapore. Enormous and powerful countries like China and Russia is also doing a good job. However, the larger a country’s territory and population, the more likely the number of contamination will increase. Moreover, strong regional and local governments can serve as a backstop when national policy is insufficient, limiting the damage of central misgovernment. Also, centralized governments like France and Singapore had also succeeded so far and were able to flatten the curve. And true enough it’s no longer surprising that most countries that have paved their way in getting in control of the coronavirus like Germany, Taiwan, and Australia.  

U.S. states, for example, have been forced to compete for personal protective equipment, which has generated inefficiencies and a bidding war. And some places have begun to reopen businesses against the advice of experts. If this move causes a spike in transmission, it could spill over into other states that have taken more risk-averse stances.

A more decentralized approach to government will facilitate the targeting of policy to the needs of different locales. When the pandemic is concentrated in certain areas of a single country, for example, it may make sense for sub-national authorities to decide when to reopen. And the better information and stronger accountability enjoyed by local and regional governments are likely to matter even more during the economic recovery.

Meanwhile in United States, where the Trump administration’s inconsistency, incorrect information, and slow reaction time arguably made the U.S. in the middle of hell of coronavirus plus  the social protest around the country. But on the flip side, other states including California, Oregon, and Washington have succeeded in limiting local cases enough that they are now shipping ventilators to other states that badly needs it and lacks resources. 

Also in France, the regional and city governments have filled their lapses for the perceived failures of the central government in Paris. But the country’s highly centralized political institutions have put strong limits on their freedom of action. Their lesson-learned scheme helped them to combat against the virus.