March 10, 2020 - 2:30pm
The primary duty of a state is to protect the people it rules. From the first days of European state-formation, monarchs justified their power by arguing that they could protect their subjects from predators — well, other predators. As states grew in sophistication various philosophical ideas were developed to justify regimes, from the divine link between God and the king to “the people” holding sovereignty. But, ultimately, protecting its people remains the central job.
Today the world is comprised of around 190 states, of all shapes and sizes, from city-states like Singapore to small nation-states like Denmark or Ireland, large nation-states such as France and Germany, and giants like China, the US and Brazil.
Some states are obviously better run than others, but many of the finer points are debate and it’s only with a real crisis that this becomes so stark. Italy’s tragic situation, in particular, appears to have been made worse by a lack of state competence in dealing with the outbreak, the latest example being the botched locked-down in Lombardy.
As The Times reports:
By the time Giuseppe Conte, the prime minister, posted his quarantine decree on Twitter, just before 4am yesterday, trains from the “red zones” were bursting with people wearing improvised masks and rubber gloves. Newspapers beat the official announcement by several hours, prompting the exodus from the wealthy north
Footage can be seen here.
Many will see this incompetence as symptomatic of a wider problem with a state that has rarely functioned satisfactorily, despite including some of the richest and most productive regions of Europe, a highly educated and sophisticated population, and numerous other advantages (including one of the best healthcare systems in the world). It’s a country lesser than the sum of its parts.
Then there is the United States, which has tested very small numbers for coronavirus despite the mounting crisis and has a healthcare system that almost seems designed to prevent people getting treatment; on top of this the American system also offers few incentives for people to stay at home and self-isolate. The US is fantastically rich, and in terms of innovation and technology is way ahead of Europe, and on same cultural levels seems far more vibrant and dynamic, but its disease response suggests some real underlying problems.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt would have been more interesting if the author had discussed in more detail why he believes the American system will be poor in dealing with this health crisis rather than just falling back on the mindless calling out of Trump as an unqualified moron (love to know what a qualified moron is ) and a narcissist.
How a nation responds to a pandemic depends on the assumptions on which the common good is understood – not just by the ruling elites, but as confirmed in a social consensus. The omens are not good.
Just what exactly has the “moron” done or not done to make things worse in the USA?
Under Obama, 14,000 Americans died from the H1N1 virus. But the media decided that Obama had it under control because they supported him, even though he didn’t declare a state of emergency until 1,000 people had died.
Trump declared a state of emergency after one person died on US soil, and imposed travel restrictions prior to that. So far, I believe 20-something people have died on US soil. Yet the media is creating a panic and a stock market collapse because they hate Trump. Bill Maher even stated that he would be happy for people to lose their jobs if it brings Trump down, This is how evil these people are.
I commented on this article earlier….what happened to it?
Once this has all subsided, perhaps a year from now, I would like to see a review commissioned to explore the role of the WHO and governments in the various responses to the virus. Epidemiological modelling is relatively straightforward but social impact modelling is non-existent because it is essentially impossible. We have placed enomous weight on the science of disease spread but the social impact seems to be very poorly considered. Having established that the young are ok but this virus dispatches the old and the weak should that make a difference to policy?