A complete and substantiated answer will have to await the end of this pandemic or, more preisely, the more local and regional epidemics now expanding. The answer will also e somewhat dependent on the nature of the resolution and scale that are chosen. One may talk about the experiences of New York City, New York State, and the United States at large and, in each case, get a different answer.

That said, in general I think one can say with some certainty that integrated health systems (local, provincial, national) with coordinated approaches will do better than those where these governments are divided. We can say, with some certainty, that areas with less income inequality and better universal health care will fare better. We can also so those that are proactive, enacting early travel limits and investing in health care stockpiles against emergencies, will fare better than others.

I agree with Tom Koch - we will have to wait and see. My bet is that Scandinavian countries (Social democratic regimes by Epsing-Andersens definition) will do much better than UK or USA, also it will be interesting to see how the very soft Swedish strategy will play out. In some month we are going to see if I´am right or wrong.

One may also compare the Canadian experience, one where socially restrictive measures were implemented earlier, as was some testing, than in the United States. And, too, it is a country with a national form of health care. Finally, one sees a high level of cooperation between federal and provincial leaders and, indeed, down to the city level.