Galloism wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Well exactly. I disagree with the Swedish approach, but until it's all over I can't prove it's any worse.
Neither the authoritarian/progressive nor the male-leader/female-leader "intuitions" you have can be demonstrated. At this stage: information is too incomplete. We can pick out examples of countries screwing up (arresting people for wearing masks for instance), and we can point to great results by early intervention (Taiwan) but the vast majority of countries aren't obviously screwing up also never had the option of early intervention. They only have different approaches, and if only it was that simple. They also have different strengths (population that likes to follow rules for instance) or different weaknesses (dense cities for instance). They're also not at the same stage.
When it's all over there will be a wealth of information about countries and about leaders. But trying for it now is likely to just reinforce hunches and listen for music in noise.
Thank you. You said that better than I could.
I don't disagree it's practically impossible to really determine right now but there's no doubt Mette Frederiksen, Tsai Ing-wen and Jacinda Arden have been stand outs in terms of their response, both in speed of response, manner of maintaining clear and consistent information and managing the threat well. There is also little doubt that Bolsonaro, Duterte, Xi, Putin and, dare I say, Trump have been stand outs for inconsistency, unclear messaging if not downright bullshit.
