Covid-19 Rankings: India, US Misclassify; Better APAC, democracies outperform authoritarian regimes | India News
The United Kingdom, which ranks better than India at 66th, and the United States, which performs in the worst five, also rank poorly, while China was not included in the study. Brazil ranks last.
New Zealand, Vietnam and Taiwan are in the top three for their successful handling of the pandemic, while Thailand, Cyprus, Rwanda, Iceland, Australia, Latvia and Sri Lanka also rank in the top ten.
To measure the relative performance of countries at different points in the pandemic, this institute tracked six measures: confirmed cases, deaths, cases per million, deaths per million, cases as a ratio of tests and tests per thousand.
“The period under review covers 36 weeks that followed the 100th confirmed case in each country, using the data available up to January 9, 2021. Fourteen-day moving averages of new daily figures were calculated for the six indicators,” the institute said.
These indicators were then averaged for individual countries in each period and normalized to produce a score from 0 (worst performance) to 100 (best performance).
Asia Pacific Best, America Worst
At 24.3, India’s average was lower than the region to which it belongs, Asia-Pacific, which obtained a score of 58.2 and ranked better in the regional evaluation, while the countries of the Americas obtained the worst place.
“Although the outbreak started in China, the countries of Asia and the Pacific, on average, proved to be the most successful in containing the pandemic. On the contrary, the rapid spread of Covid-19 along the main arteries of globalization quickly overwhelmed Europe (first) and the United States, ”the institute said.
However, Europe also saw the largest improvement over time of any region (most countries outperformed the average Asian-Pacific countries at one point) before succumbing to a second wave of pandemic, plus serious, in recent months. 2020.
Democracies pip authoritarian regimes
Following political regimes, democracies outperformed authoritarian regimes, while hybrids are the worst.
“The tools to contain the spread (stay-at-home orders, border closures and border closures) have been common in most countries … Despite initial differences, results from all types of regimes converged over time. On average, countries with authoritarian models did not have a long-term advantage in suppressing the virus, ”the institute said.
People and money
However, the study finds that certain structural factors appear to be more closely associated with positive outcomes. For example, countries with populations of less than 10 million people proved to be more agile than most of their larger counterparts in managing health emergencies for most of 2020, ”he added.
The difference in the mean scores between small and large countries was 24.8 points. On the other hand, advanced economies, as expected, outperformed developing economies by more than 10 points apart.
Impact on the result
The institute said levels of economic development or differences in political systems between countries had less of an impact on outcomes than was often assumed or publicized. He added that no country type was the unanimous winner in the period under review: the variations between individual countries were much more substantial than between broad categories of countries. Not a single theory convincingly explained the observed differences in national results, even though some health measures were shown to be far more effective than others.
“There may be some truth in the argument put forward by the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama that the dividing line in the effective response to the crisis has not been the type of regime, ‘but whether citizens trust their leaders and whether those leaders preside a competent and effective government state ‘. In general, countries with smaller populations, cohesive societies and capable institutions have a comparative advantage in dealing with a global crisis such as a pandemic, ”the institute noted.
Systemic factors alone – regional origin, political system, economic development, or the size of a society – cannot fully explain the observed differences in responses to the global crisis, the analysis found.
The results point to some of the strengths and vulnerabilities derived from the way in which different countries are configured to face a public policy challenge of this scale. But political decisions and current political circumstances appear to be equally important in shaping national responses to the pandemic.