Two take always: It's two early to judge who does better BUT based on the data available it looks better for Germany than UK. Having federal structures may help to adjust your response on local factors - centralised effort is not always an advantage. /1 https://www.ft.com/content/c4155982-3b8b-4a26-887d-169db6fe4244

However, I don't like the tone of the article. For one, there may have been complacency and British exceptionalism but it's not really clear whether it actually plaid any role. It's difficult to quantify and among high profile decision-makers rather rare anyway. /2

On central state v federal state: Whichever is better depends on circumstances. I would argue that German system is better suited, since most states don't just have the right but also the capacity to develop own strategies. /3

The idea that this would be chaotic is probably more projection than based on a thorough analysis. For one, Germany is a consensus oriented system. The coordination with a federal response is far less tense than e.g. in USA. /4

Most politicians know and respect each other and given that they are in a coalition government they normally have network and links to other federal states and the federal government. /5

Problem here may be a slow response, however, given that the different federal states have autonomous capacities and a centralised system, they can react fast (whether they chose to do so is another question). /6

Another point is precisely the consensus oriented approach. It's easier to communicate to stakeholders from other pol camps and they are more inclined to trust you than in UK (ignore approval ratings as a point of comparisons, but have a look how voters evaluate responses). /7

Apart from the fact that Merkel's approval ratings are higher anyway. Another point which seems to be forgotten by The Financial Times is that the capacity to act depends on the resources you have for action. /8

Yes, developed countries can mobilise sources if they need to. They can ramp up sources if they must BUT there are restriction especially if the crisis is international and you need to start competing with others over access to sources. /9

UK seems double limited: For one they seem to not have been used access to available sources via EU (which is complementary and wouldn't have replaced national strategies to acquire sources). Second, UK's system (NHS, police etc) seem to be designed around average use. /10

In other words: While the system may be much more efficient and effective (regarding cost and quality) it creates a very low baseline which is problematic if you are in a crisis. /11

It's here about the approach: precautionary principle v cost-benefit. That should be clearly communicated to voters. And they should know that anyway, just compare how much taxes and duties you pay e.g. in Germany compared to UK. Capacity is expensive & doesn't come for free. /12

That's probably the biggest lesson. UK is neither exceptionally good or bad. It's a matter of how much capacity you have. You basically get what you are paying for, with all perks and downsides. /13

That to say, it would be better for the government to clearly evaluate their capacity and rely on expertise rather on political judgements whether this expertise is correct. It would be useful to illustrate to voters 'if you want this, it reduces our capacity like this'. /14

You can try to mitigate but you need to explain how & again use expert judgement to evaluate whether it makes sense. This is also about Brexit by the way, because the economic fallout post CV in combination w/ potential no deal and next year SCO elections, could be explosive. /15

Honestly here would help, and it also helps to communicate in a crisis btw but all relevant key stakeholders are more inclined to trust you and follow 'your lead' - if they don't they may not be willing to do.what your want and amplify crisis. /16

Just tagging some political scientists and wonder what they think CC @APHClarkson @ProfTimBale @colinrtalbot @HzBrandenburg @simonjhix @PJDunleavy @Holger_Nehring 17/17

I forgot one important point which p
bothers me too: People use statistics out of context. GER has much more inhabitants than e.g. UK. If GER ends up w/ few more deaths than UK it'd have done better. The often quoted chart isn't always helpful for understanding 'who does better'.