3

This claim's been around a bit, e.g. The Hill, Scoop Whoop, NYT. The countries named are Germany, New Zealand, Iceland, Finland, Belgium, Taiwan, Norway.

I'm wondering if this claim cherry-picks the data. In particular, I'm aware of some countries with male leaders that've been successful (South Korea, Slovenia, Vietnam), as well as some with female leaders that have not been so successful (ironically, Belgium, as well as Bangladesh). One of the sources (the one written by Amanda Taub for the NYT) also uses the death rate to justify the claim, in which case Russia (which has a male leader) is doing very well.

Has there been any study using the entirety of the data that backs up this claim?

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
Allure
  • 1,011
  • 1
  • 7
  • 14
  • Do not forget slovakia in the relatively successfull bracket :) – mishan May 19 '20 at 12:38
  • 9
    It would be better to wait until the pandemia is over before investigating which approach was most successful... – Modus Tollens May 19 '20 at 12:45
  • 2
    The fact Belgium is on the list is a bit strange as they are the leading country when you look at deaths/100k inhabitants... – Aserre May 19 '20 at 13:39
  • 4
    Another data point would be Czechia: predominantly male government, very low infection rate as well as mortality. – John Dvorak May 19 '20 at 16:26
  • 8
    The reporting from many countries is also inconsistent. I sincerely doubt the veracity of the death count in Russia for instance, and sadly, even in the US. – Larian LeQuella May 19 '20 at 19:27
  • I feel like there would be a lot of cultural variables to this. That is, a country that is conducive to having women leaders might have different responses to the virus. Of course, there could be other cultural factors in a predominantly male-led country that could result in an equally successful response. (It also depends on your definition of "successful") – PC Luddite May 19 '20 at 19:27
  • @PCLuddite let's call "successful" = flattening the curve of cases. – Allure May 19 '20 at 21:27
  • 6
    New Zealand, Iceland, and Taiwan are island countries that are somewhat isolated by distance (New Zealand and Iceland) or hatred by mainland China (Taiwan). Extremely isolated male-led island countries have fared even better against the disease, as have many isolated male-led African nations. – David Hammen May 19 '20 at 23:30
  • @David, exactly; a case in point is Australia vs New Zealand, which both have very much the same statistics (per capita), while Australia had significantly less restrictions. – Zeus May 21 '20 at 00:34
  • Well we don't have data for that, but it seems rather far fetched to say this is the reason. There are so many factors from geography to the health care system. Also keep in mind, the head of a democratic state has limited power. If you make the entire government and advisors overwhelmingly female, we have something science can tackle. Well, perhaps which knows but perhaps ask this question instead: is there a correlation between countries seriously considering women as head of state and corona priorities (eg economy vs health)? Well, the US almost had Clinton and the uk had may, so no – Raditz_35 May 21 '20 at 09:57
  • 1
    Also, please bare in mind, that doing well is relative. What is your goal? Do you want to minimize deaths as much as possible (nobody has that goal if you think about it)? Do you want to minimize damage? Who right now knows what strategies best suit their goals? Maybe you have a broken health care system but are still doing the best you can, maybe your goal aren't those daily numbers you see everywhere. Please consider my two comments and points: democratic leaders are not absolute monarchs, governments change, other factors matter and doing well depends on you goal and circumstances – Raditz_35 May 21 '20 at 10:05
  • @Raditz_35 considerations like those are why I get the feeling the data is cherry-picked. It sounds quite easy to just choose the data that fits the thesis. That's also why I asked the question: I could be wrong and the data is real. – Allure May 21 '20 at 10:38
  • 5
    This is a question for which it's probably good to emphasize that **correlation does not imply causation**. Even if it turns out that women-led governments have been more successful, that would not by itself be good evidence that women leaders are inherently better at handling pandemic, or that any given country with a male leader would be likely to improve its success by replacing him with a woman. – Nate Eldredge May 21 '20 at 14:37
  • Did they have a concrete claim -- for example, that countries led by women had lower per-capita hospitalizations, or something? – Nat Jan 29 '23 at 05:10
  • 2
    Skimming the articles, it looks like they were just vacuous fluff pieces. They don't appear to be making any actual claim. I'd speculate that the writers were directed to write pieces on that topic to influence sentiment. – Nat Jan 29 '23 at 05:27
  • 2
    It must be true because Sweden (handled it pretty poorly) had a male Prime Minister in 2020 but changed to a female one in 2022 and after that Covid more or less disappeared. There's lots of statistics from credible sources proving that death numbers in Sweden were _significantly_ higher in 2020-2021 under male leadership than in 2022, under female leadership. Also in September, Sweden got a male Prime Minister again and therefore another Covid wave appeared this winter 2022. (I'm joking :) This is a "number of pirates vs global warming" proof. ) – Lundin Feb 02 '23 at 12:46

0 Answers0