Taiwan, which has one of the best medical systems in the world, is heavily reliant on civil society -- which is many things, but one of which is heavy participation by unpaid volunteers. Social capital is a real thing and a valuable thing.
I'd be much more likely to accept that this was causative if not for the existence of San Francisco and other one-party cities that nonetheless exemplify incompetent governance.
You ever been to a DMV? Or seen someone treated at the VA? Or heard how patents are issued at the Patent Office?
The government is good at some things. It's really, really bad at others, and has zero accountability most of the time.
Asian countries seemed to have reacted better in this case - undoubtedly a major chunk of that was due to prior outbreaks in that region, but is that the only variable that contributed to the outcome?
Edit to add: okay, so a sibling comment claims the reason is a Confucian, culture. But that’s narrow, everything is always multi-factorial. It’s good to see and discuss one aspect, but not at the expense of other considerations.
I don't believe I said "anyone here has claimed there is only one variable that explains any countries better or worse ability with regard to this pandemic."
I propose that something very interesting is going on here, at the object level. I also propose, more speculatively and provocatively, that something very interesting is also happening at the meta-level: a reluctance to discuss the phenomenon.
I just didn't really see where you were coming as a reply to the original comment, where you'd written "prior outbreaks ... only variable" and the parent comment was talking about "civil society (and) social capital".
If it was about the "prior outbreaks" part, that commented was making a reference to the ~common belief that the superior outcome for Asian countries was solely the result of their past experiences with SARS, etc. In retrospect, I should have made that reference explicitly, apologies for that.