I wonder how that instinctive response translates to a national policy.
That seems to depend very largely on who formulates policy.
Some nations fared better than others.
https://www.movehub.com/blog/best-and-worst-covid-responses/ The chief reasons seem to be: preparation, effective agencies, early response, decisive action, co-operation by the populace.
Back in Obama times, the US had a pandemic preparedness plan, worked out in the wake of a couple of epidemics that turned out to be less aggressive than this one. Scientists have been expecting the 'bad one' for some time; most developed nations formed some kind of plan. Most western ones were not as effective as they might have been - and it would certainly be in our long-term interest to figure out why, and how they can be better. I don't know how good the American plan was, because Trump scrapped it about a year into his administration. So, when the bad one came, the US had its pants down around its shoes, while most of us were able, at least, to hobble away and cover the most vulnerable parts in a timely manner.
The two fatal - at least for 235,000 Americans - mistakes appear to be: hesitation and indecision at the first threat and relaxing vigilance prematurely. The first may be due to simple incompetence; the second is generally a question of values. Driven by the movement of money. Caused by a fatally - for the entire planet - flawed concept of economy.
It's quite reasonable, from a certain very detached POV, to let the infection land where it will and carry on with whoever is left standing when the plague's done. Last couple of times, we more than made up the lost population in the following century. In a century from now, it might all be fine again... but i can equally well imagine a world of half-naked savages bludgeoning one another over the rags and tatters of our civilization.
I think we
ought to be able to do better, but I honestly don't know whether we can.
