South Korea, with an estimated 2020 population of 51,780,5798 million, has had 9,976 cases of coronavirus (as of 10:00:04 AM). They have tested more than 300,000 people and have had 169 deaths. Of those 9,976 cases, 5,828 are reported as recovered leaving them with 3,979 active cases. Outside of China, there are currently twelve countries with more cases than South Korea. They are United States (population 330 million), Italy ( 60 million), Spain (47 million), Germany (83 million), France, (67 million), Iran (83 million), United Kingdom (66 million), Switzerland, (9 million), Turkey (83 million), Netherlands (17 million)Â Â and Austria (9 million). Of those twelve countries, only Austria was less deaths than South Korea (although not per capita). There are an additional five countries with more deaths than South Korea (Belgium, Sweden, Brazil, Portugal and Indonesia). It is clear that South Korea has done a better job at containing the virus than at least 17 other countries.
This appears to be the case for many of the countries bordering China. Japan has 2,384 cases and 57 deaths (population 126 million), Taiwan has 339 cases and 5 deaths (population 23 million), and Vietnam has 227 cases and no reported deaths (population 96 million). Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are three of the five major trading partners of China (the others being the United States and the European Union). They are the closest to the source of the disease, were among the earliest to catch it, and yet they have certainly mitigated the results of the disease, and might even yet contain it. All three countries are democracies. Many other countries have had a longer warning period and do not seem to have done as well at containing the virus.
Is the difference leadership? Is the difference the responsive of the government and their health care system? What has South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam done that the United States, Italy, Spain, Iran and so forth have not done?
Coronovirus is not some sort of big surprise in so far as there being no knowledge of what they are, and what they can do.
The “surprise” comes from ignoring what was known.
Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore all learned from the SARS breakout. Not sure on Vietnam, it may just be a case where they chose to learn. The difference in response was apparent from very early on.
So combine quick lock down, with (as important) plentiful and frequent testing, allowed them to flatten the curve much more quickly. The US complete foul up on the testing is what is killing us.
Chris, I suspect that the difference is attributable to the culture of the followers as well as to the culture of the leaders. Referring to Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development as a relevant construct, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that larger percentages of the populations in South Korea and the other countries positively sited by you operate predominantly at Stage 4 (Law-and-Order Orientation) and Stage 5 (Legislative/Covenant Orientation), complemented by Stage 6 (Universal Ethical Principle of Love) in the case of born-again Christians in South Korea.
If the leaders are operating predominantly at Stage 5 and Stage 6 then they would be looking after the welfare of their populations from the get-go. Leaders operating predominantly at lower stages would take longer to see or be convinced (even through outside pressure) that taking actions to preserve the health of their populations would be in the leader’s best interest.
Populations predominantly operating at Stage 1 (Punishment-and-Obedience Orientation) would take the recommended precautions once they became certain that not-complying would result in punishment from their leaders or from the virus! Populations operating at Stage 2 (Instrumental Relativist Orientation) would comply once they see that there would be a positive benefit to them because of complying (but probably already would have complied to avoid the negative consequences since we never loose our reasoning from lower stages although the lower-stage reasoning can be overcome by higher-stage reasoning that has been developed in us). Populations at Stage 3 (Interpersonal Concordance Orientation) would be inspired to comply by the desire to get along with others and to be seen as a good person. Of course, populations operating predominantly at Stage 4 would obey the law!
By the way, it is difficult to determine the predominant stage of a population — the stage is assessed through asking questions about what an individual factors into making a moral decision (the famous “would you steal a drug to save your loved one, and based upon what reasoning?” type of question). It’s easier to determine the predominant stage for an individual leader — there is a track record of public comments (and private comments accessible by the intelligence community) for leaders (including tweets for some leaders ) -:
Americans have always been an independent lot and it seems to me that there has been less efforts to develop Stage 4 and Stage 5 in recent decades, and even the developing of Stage 3 has lessened in popularity (except as lip service). From soft drink advertising to electioneering, there seems to be more catering to Stage 2 in America. Leadership in America does seem to be performing predominantly on Stage 2 and the audience has been buying the theater seats (even while bemoaning the fact that less is being performed on the higher stages).
The aspect of experience with their large neighbour aside, they are more homogenous-monolithic societies, with a lower rate of migration.
Georgetown University has a news release that addresses your leadership question (with respect to China):
https://gumc.georgetown.edu/news-release/do-authoritarian-regimes-have-an-advantage-in-an-outbreak-response/
They certainly have an advantage in suppressing information.
Providing we have all the data… Who knows if in Vietnam there are no Corona related deaths.