The Pandemic Success Story No One Has Heard Of

Senegal is the pandemic success story no one has heard of—which actually tells you how successful it has been! The much-maligned WHO, as well as the CDC and UNICEF, played a key role in that.

In this country of 16 million known for its peaceful democracy and sense of community, Senegal’s response to the coronavirus is notable not only for its humanity but for its thoroughness. For example, each newly diagnosed individual – no matter how mild or severe the case – is provided a hospital or health center bed where he or she stays isolated and observed– a key element to Senegal’s strategy to contain the virus.

“Senegal is doing quite well, and we were impressed at the beginning at the full engagement and commitment by the head of state,” says Michel Yao, program manager for emergency response for the World Health Organization Africa.

Officials from both Senegal’s ministry of health and WHO stress that the wheels of the response team were set in motion five years ago in response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Yao explains: “What we advised countries to have in place following Ebola in West Africa was to have an operations center, to have in one place the required information for effective decision making. It’s quite an important tool to control the crisis, and this was a good plan from Senegal to have this structure.”

Senegal set up its Health Emergency Operation Center (also known by its French acronym, COUS), in December 2014, in response to the Ebola outbreak spreading in nearby countries. At the start of this year, the center had some 23 staff members – five of them doctors.

Over the past five years, that center, working with the ministry of health and the support of international partners such as the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and UNICEF, have run simulations of mock outbreaks and crafted emergency measures to activate in case of an epidemic.

Along with Vietnam and the Indian state of Kerala, Senegal proves that wealth alone is not a predictor for a successful pandemic response. It also shows the importance of working with international partners to get as many different perspectives, resources, and knowledge as possible.

The First Global Event

The novel coronavirus outbreak may be the first time in our species’s 250,000 year history that virtually everyone is being affected by the same event simultaneously. As Joshua Keating of Slate notes:

“Global event,” in this case, means a distinct occurrence that will be a significant life event for nearly every person on the planet. This is not to say that we’re all experiencing it the same way. Some become ill or lose loved ones; others lose jobs or livelihoods; for others, it’s merely a source of inconvenience or anxiety. And different countries and local governments are responding to the crisis in very different fashions, leading to wildly divergent outcomes for their citizens. But as the writer Anna Badkhen puts it, not since human beings first began spreading across the globe has a single event “affected everyone, on every continent, as instantly and intimately and acutely as the spread of coronavirus, uniting us as we fear and think and hope about the same thing.” It’s the truly global nature of the crisis that French President Emmanuel Macron was referring to when he called the coronavirus an “anthropological” shock.

This truth says as much about the era in which COVID-19 emerged as it does about the virus itself. It was only in the past 500 years that people in all regions of the Earth even became fully aware of one another and in the last 200 that they’ve been able to communicate more or less instantaneously. And it’s this very interconnectedness that allowed the virus to spread so rapidly across the globe. (The Black Death felt like the end of the world to many who experienced it, but more than a century before Columbus, entire continents of people were unaware of it.)

Previous events have had global impact in the past. Billions of lives have been affected by, say, the French Revolution, or 9/11. Contemporaneous writers have made cases for various events as the “shot heard round the world” or Ten Days That Shook the WorldBut these events were not experienced by the entire world at the same time—not even close.

Even the world wars, contrary to their description, did not impact the day to day lives of most people in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia. By contrast, COVID-19 has forced virtually every country in the world to either implement life-changing lock-downs or to endure the impact of the subsequent economic slowdown. Previous pandemics, including the deadly 1918 “Spanish”, were either limited in their geographic spread or occured when the world lacked an international forum for coordination or communications. These things still felt very much localized.

This matters because our species has only recently reached a level of consciousness and moral awareness that extends beyond the interrelated bands and tribes that were the norm for most of our quarter-of-a-million-year existence. Suddenly, we’re feeling for victims across the world, in places most of us have never been; learning from countries we otherwise never give much thought to (or in some cases can’t even find on a map); and enduring the same sorts of shocks to our routine as billions of other humans we pretty much forget exist. (Of course we know there are billions of other humans out there, but how often do we stop at any moment to consider how their lives our playing out at the same time as ours?)

As Keating notes, those of us with an internationalist bend are largely disappointed with the fractured and even divisive response by the world community. The notion that a bigger threat might finally unite humankind in a productive and cohesive response has yet to be proven. (Will it really take an alien invasion or robot uprising!?) I’m a tad bit more optimistic though: Though beleaguered and under siege, international institutions like the World Health Organization are still doing their thing; many countries and international organizations are coming together to pool their funds, resources, and knowledge to tackle this threat. As always, progress is never neat and linear.

However this global even hashes out, one thing is probably certain: Most people will pay more attention to what goes outside their respective countries.

Perhaps a more realistic expectations is that people may change how they view far away events—events like a mysterious virus cluster in Wuhan. Those of us who write about world news are used to making the case that people should care about events that happen in other countries and continents because it could eventually affect them—that political developments in Russia or a drought in Central America can very quickly become a major event in American life. Perhaps after the common experience we’ve all just shared, it will be a little easier to grasp the importance of faraway wars, revolutions, famines, and even “massively distributed” problems like climate change, feel a little more empathy for those directly affected by them, and have a little better sense of how they might soon affect us. For the first time ever, it feels like it’s literally true to say that international news is just news that hasn’t become local yet

While there have been no shortage of wars or diplomatic crises that should have roused us from our parochialism and insularity, maybe the first truly global even should do the trick.

The Singapore of Africa

It’s amazing how the fate of nations could change in the span of decades. In 1994, the tiny central African nation of Rwanda seemed to suddenly succumb to a level of carnage not seen since the Second World War (notwithstanding other under-the-radar conflicts like the Congo War).

Over a period of just 100 days, up to 1 million people were slaughtered by paramilitaries and even friends and neighbors, mostly by machetes and small arms. Already poor and politically dysfunctional, Rwanda was ignored and let down by the international community even in its most calamitous state—how could it ever recover from such an orgy of bloodshed and neglect?

Well, close to thirty years later, recover it has. While undemocratic and undeveloped, it has made incredible strides for a nation that faced one of the most horrific genocides in human history. How could Rwanda, of all places, become so stable and economically sophisticated?

“There are a few fundamentals you have to understand. Firstly, our country is the same size as the U.S. state of Maryland, but our population is around 12 million people. Secondly, we have no natural resources — no oil or gold or anything else that countries benefit from,” explains Claudette Irere, director general at Rwanda’s Ministry of Youth and Information and Communication Technology. “This means the only way for us to move forward and to build our future is to empower people and make good use of technology. With this strategy, we are shifting our country from an agrarian economy to a knowledge-based economy.”

Rwanda is beginning to leapfrog developed countries in fundamental areas such as smart city infrastructure, vocational training, and strategic foreign investment. As of January this year, 4G/LTE networks cover more than 95 percent of the country, and a mix of public and private players are working together on a national roll-out of fiber-optic broadband. As its citizens and businesses get connected, Kigali is becoming an African hub for multinational tech companies, including Google, Facebook, and Amazon.

[…]

Between 2001 and 2014, Rwanda achieved an annual growth rate of 9 percent and earned a global reputation as an attractive business destination. According to the World Bank’s 2018 Ease of Doing Business Index, Rwanda has risen above countries like Italy, Belgium, and Israel to become the 41st most business-friendly nation on earth. Rwanda was also the index’s biggest business reformer, with activities like starting up, registering property, paying taxes, and enforcing contracts all becoming increasingly easier in the country.

“Urbanization is becoming more of a challenge for things like traffic and public transportation. This creates a lot of opportunities for technology and innovation,” Irere says. “Working with global companies that lead in areas such as the internet of things (IoT) is helping us understand the problems we must solve before our city grows beyond our control.”

Kigali has even developed a culture of digital entrepreneurship that seems straight out of Silicon Valley.

One local company that’s making the most of Kigali’s digital infrastructure is ride-hailing app SafeMotos, founded by a Canadian entrepreneur who fell in love with the city. Road traffic collisions are a significant problem in Rwanda and its neighboring countries, with 40 percent more road deaths occurring per 100,000 people than in low- and middle-income nations in any other part of the world. To combat this problem, SafeMotos provides drivers with smartphones and pulls data from an app to measure their performance on trips. Customers are connected only with drivers who meet a certain safety threshold — an algorithmic score of at least 90 out of 100.

To be sure, Rwanda is far from idyllic. The moniker “Singapore of Africa” is apt in more ways than one: Not only is it an island of relative stability, development, and technological progress, but like the southeast Asian city state, it is also low-key authoritarian. Its president, Paul Kagame, who is credited with helping defeat the genocidal regime and carrying the country though to its recovery, has been in power since 1994—and is slated to remain in power until 2034, thanks to changes in the constitution that he has presided over. He won 99 percent of the vote in the most recent election, while critics from journalists to government officials have been imprisoned for their insolence; some may even have been assassinated.

The country is even pioneering the use of drones to deliver medical supplies to remote communities and enforce its COVID-19 lockdown. By the standards of Africa and even the world, Rwanda has one of the lowest rates of corruption, which no doubt accounts for a lot of its business success.

“The most obvious example of this was the inquest into the assassination of Patrick Karegeya, Rwanda’s former head of external intelligence, who was strangled in a South African five-star hotel on New Year’s Eve 2013. In January 2019 the case opened in a courtroom on the outskirts of Johannesburg, a city where every news agency and broadcaster, from AP to Xinhua, AFP to Reuters, the BBC to DPA, has an office. It was a story on a par with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi or the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in terms of international interest, massively diplomatically embarrassing to the Rwandan government — the South African Hawks hold it directly responsible — and the courtroom was a ten minute taxi ride from various well-staffed newsrooms. When I turned up, I was astonished by the pathetic press turnout. At first I assumed that the victim’s family and lawyers just hadn’t been very efficient at getting the word out, but if anything, press attendance got worse as the days passed and more and more hugely awkward details — all of them wonderfully quotable as they were being revealed in court — were brought to light. A massive opportunity missed.”

Such repression is not only obviously unjust and problematic in its own right, but it threatens the country’s incredible progress over the last 26 years since the genocide. Rwandans have demonstrated remarkable resilience, innovation, and creativity, but all that will be hard to maintain under the shadow of such a paranoid and stifling regime. I can only hope this promising success story can expand to more than just economics and include a free and democratic country—where such potential and prosperity can truly be unleashed.

Source: Lauren Razavi

The Most Powerful Cities in 2035

The future of humanity will be driven by the rapid growth and power of cities—especially in the developing world.

Today, Tokyo is the No. 1 city in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), with an estimated $1.6 trillion GDP. But by 2035, it will be supplanted by New York City, which will have a GDP of $2.5 trillion—larger than all but a handful of countries. Two more of the world’s richest cities will be American—Los Angeles and Chicago—while four will be in China, the most of any country in the world. London, Paris, and Tokyo are set to round out the last three.

Altogether, these top 10 cities will have an astounding $13.5 trillion in GDP by 2035 (to put it in perspective, today that would be the third biggest economy in the world).

In terms of population, all but one of the world’s biggest cities in 2035 will be in developing countries (Tokyo is the sole exception). Most are not well known: No. 1 will be Jakarta, the bustling capital of Indonesia, while others will include Chongqing (China), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Kinshasa (Congo), and Lagos (Nigeria).

While not shown in these graphs, all the world’s fastest growing cities in terms of population will be Indian.

Economically, India will make up three of the top five of the fastest growing cities, including No. 1. China will claim four slots, while the remaining three will be the capitals of Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines.

Source: World Economic Forum

The Politics and Pragmatism of Progress

We might find the W.H.O.’s politics unseemly. At times they are certainly troubling, especially regarding Taiwan. (Though in fairness, most of the world, including the powerful U.S., has also officially shunted Taiwan in deference to China.)

But they are an inevitable, if not necessary, evil for an organization run by 194 countries full of rivalries, self-interests, and division. Its weaknesses very much reflect our own. International cooperation is not about singing kumbaya and getting along harmoniously; it is the sober and practical realization that, however divided the world is, there are problems bigger than any one country can handle (look at how the richest country in the world has struggled to contain this pandemic). That means making difficult, imperfect, and sometimes even maddening compromises.

It took working with a murderous bastard like Stalin to beat the Nazis in WWII, with the Soviets accounting for 80-90% of Axis losses at the cost of tens of millions of lives. (We also had to work with the bastard Nationalists and Maoists in China to accomplish the same feat against Japan, with the Chinese tying up most Japanese forces at similarly horrific costs.)

In the context of public health, this is nothing new. Even at the height of the Cold War, countries including the U.S. and the Soviet Union managed to set aside their differences and work through the W.H.O. to eradicate smallpox, a scourge of humanity that had killed hundreds of millions just in the 20th century.

With over 50 million cases and 2 million deaths annually, in 1958 Soviet virologist Viktor Zhdanov became the first to call on the W.H.O. to lead a global eradication effort. In 1966 Canadian-American epidemiologist Donald Henderson formed the U.S.-led Smallpox Eradication Unit to assist in this endeavor. A year later, the W.H.O. intensified global smallpox eradication with millions of dollars from around the world and a method developed by Czech epidemiologist Karel Raska. The Americans and Soviets provided most of the initial vaccine donations (no doubt, at least in part, to one up each other).

By 1980, the W.H.O. declared smallpox eradicated—the first human disease wiped off the face of the Earth, thanks to global cooperation.

Image may contain: people playing sports, possible text that says 'WORLD HEALTH THE MAGAZINE OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION MAY 1980 smallpox is dead!'

The Flawed But Indispensable World Health Organization

Withholding funding (even temporarily) from the World Health Organization—in the midst of a pandemic and while it has been providing supplies and training to vulnerable nations, including our own—is foolhardy and utterly without merit.

The W.H.O. is accused of having been too deferential to China at the start of the outbreak. But around the same time, on January 24, the president praised the Chinese response on Twitter, stating that “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency.”

When confronted about this tweet yesterday, Trump stated he “would love to have a good relationship with China”—which is ironically why the W.H.O. handled China the way it did.

The organization is run by 194 countries (including the U.S. and China), which also elect its Director-General. In order to facilitate global cooperation and knowledge sharing, it has to strike a delicate balance between providing science-based health information and making sure countries aren’t antagonized or allowed to squabble with each other; otherwise the world might lose out on key information and research.

In fact, the U.S. received vital early epidemiological data from China only because the WHO used its good relations to broker access. That’s the same reason the otherwise secretive Chinese eventually opened up and even published the first genetic profile of the virus for the world to use.

Trump himself seemed to acknowledge this with gratitude. In late February, he tweeted “Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart…”

Furthermore, against initial resistance, the W.H.O. managed to pressure China to allow observers into the country; in early February, an international team led by the agency visited Wuhan, including two Americans, (one from the C.D.C. and the other from the N.I.H.).

Of course, it’s totally fair to debate whether the W.H.O. struck the right balance with China. It could have said more about China’s suppression of independent scientists, lack of transparency and human rights violations. It certainly could have been more open to Taiwan and the crucial information it provided. But again, it’s a hard balance to strike given the need to keep China on board (and recall that most of the world, including the U.S., also avoid official relations with Taiwan out of deference to China, too).

From the beginning, the W.H.O. issued urgent advisories throughout January about the potential dangers from the virus and announced that it constituted a “public health emergency of international concern” a day before the U.S. made a similar declaration. The W.H.O. repeatedly said “all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread.”

From January 22, Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus held almost daily news briefings to warn the world that the virus was spreading and that countries should do everything they could to stop it. Every day he repeated: “We have a window of opportunity to stop this virus. But that window is rapidly closing.”

The W.H.O. has also been criticized for its decision in January not to impose restrictions on travel from China, which the organization warned would be ineffective— and they were right. We imposed travel bans in February on all foreign nationals who had visited China, but as we know, this did not stop the virus from spreading; we now have more reported cases than anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, countries that did not enact a ban, such as Canada, South Korea, and Taiwan, have fared better those that did.

Finally, the W.H.O. has been taken to task for not declaring a global emergency sooner. But when it made this declaration on January 30, there were still relatively few reported cases outside China. World leaders still had the info and updates to act, and some countries responded immediately; South Korea implemented an effective blend of policies that has made it one of the top success stories. The W.H.O. cannot be blamed for our slow response.

There is no denying that the World Health Organization is a flawed institution. But that’s to be expected of an organization made up of 194 countries, each bringing their own baggage, rivalries, and self interest. For all its problems and missteps, on balance it has done a good job in the face of a very complex and difficult pandemic—one that even the world’s richest country has had a hard time handling.

Perhaps the biggest irony in our abandoning the institution (albeit allegedly temporarily) is that it will give ample opportunity for China to fill the void, as it has been doing throughout the last few years. We bail out of global leadership time and again and then wring our hands at the Chinese for doing the obvious geopolitical thing of stepping in.

The Perils and Promise of Globalization

I know my bias for internationalism and globalization are obvious. But I genuinely believe this pandemic has made clear that however we feel about global interconnectedness, there is simply no other way to fight something like a pandemic without the world working together.

Global threats like viruses, terrorism, environmental degradation, and the like don’t adhere to borders. They’re too big, spread out, and complicated for even the most powerful countries to handle them on their own. At the very least, countries need to coordinate and keep each other informed, but they also need to pool their resources, know-how, and ideas, too.

Consider this pandemic: On the one hand, globalization did make it easier for it to spread, given the unprecedented amount of travel, migration, and business that occurs across the world. But there’s really no preventing that: Even seven hundred years ago, the world was connected enough for the Black Death to sweep through much of Asia and Europe, wiping out a quarter to half of the societies it struck. Good luck going back to pre-Medieval levels of international engagement.

Plus, on the other hand, globalization is helping us tackle this virus and prevent another Spanish Flu, which claimed 50-100 million lives beginning during World War I, when most nations weren’t working together. (Heck, it’s called Spanish Flu precisely because Spain was the only country to report openly about it; the U.S. and the rest of Europe kept it under wraps so as not to appear weak in the war.)

Notwithstanding its poor initial response, China quickly acted to contain the virus and assist the world (whether for charitable reasons, to save face, or both, is irrelevant). As early as January, Chinese scientists figured out the genetic code of the virus and shared it with the world. Australian researchers quickly found a potential treatment, followed by scientists in Canada, Israel, Germany, the U.S., and elsewhere.

The west African nation of Senegal—all too familiar with pandemics given Ebola’s impact on the region—worked with the U.K. to develop one of the fastest testing rates and a possible treatment.

Thailand, Vietnam, and China have found novel drug combinations that may be effective; the Vietnamese have done well enough that they’re aiding their poorer neighbors and even the West with supplies.

Taiwan has become recognized as a global leader in pandemic response, aiding other countries with both medical supplies and its highly effective strategy (which have been emulated to great success by other countries, such as New Zealand).

Italy found a way to 3-D print lifesaving respiratory valves, while an Irish-based research group is making similar techniques openly available to the world.

For all its flaws, the U.N. World Health Organization has proven beneficial on balance. It’s brought together dozens of top researchers across the world to discuss solutions; has provided supplies to countries around the world (including the U.S.); and is leading a “Solidarity Trial” involving labs across the wold to test the four most promising treatments. (Recall that the W.H.O. led the effort to eradicate smallpox, which has killed hundreds of millions, and helped discover an Ebola vaccine.)

Speaking of global efforts: the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) is also leading the charge for a COVID-19 vaccine. Based in Norway, it brings together governments and organizations all over the world to tackle the worst infectious diseases bedeviling humanity.

The School Under the Bridge

A shopkeeper in Delhi, India has been running a makeshift school for hundreds of poor and homeless children beneath a metro bridge for over eight years.

“The Free School Under The Bridge” was founded and run by 49-year-old Rajesh Kumar Sharma, the sole breadwinner of his family of five who operates a small grocery store nearby. He dropped out of college without completing his bachelor’s due to his family’s poor financial condition.

His idea started with just two local children in 2006, and has now grown to over 300, including slum dwellers, ragpickers, rickshaw-pullers and beggars, most of whom live nearby.

Sharma believes no one should be deprived of education due to poverty or denied his or her dream, so to that end he dedicates over 50 hours a week to the children — for free.

“I am driven by my selfless goal of educating these poor and underprivileged children whose smile is more than enough for me.”

He now runs two shifts: one from 9-11 AM for 120 boys and the other 9-4.30 PM for 180 girls, aged between four and 14 years. The open house school has the Delhi metro bridge as its roof and five blackboards painted on the wall, with some stationary such as chalks and dusters, pens and pencils. The children sit on the ground covered with carpets and bring their own note books, which they often share or study with in groups. The location is relatively far from traffic, and passing vehicles hardly get noticed by the students.

In addition to a standard curriculum, Sharma also teaches students practical skills like hygiene, which is difficult to maintain in such abject poverty. He’s installed separate toilets for boys and girls.

Fortunately, his example has attracted seven other volunteer teachers from the community, as well as some support from locals.

“Some people visit the school occasionally and distribute biscuit packets, fruits, water bottles and packaged food. Some youngsters celebrate their birthdays with the children, cut cakes here and have food together by sitting beneath the bridge. “Such occasions make them feel that they are also the part of the society no matter where they live or what background they belong to,” he said.

In addition to teaching full time while running his shop, Sharma also ensures students get enrolled into the nearby government schools. He ensures hey devote sufficient time to their education and conducts attendance; if a student is frequently absent, he checks in with their family.

“Sometimes, some children get absent for days as they have to assist their families due to extreme poverty. No child wants to discontinue his or her studies but they also have to make their ends meet. “They come to my school fighting hunger, extreme poverty, adverse weather and sometimes resistance from their families. They all dream big. You can see the smile on their face while they study here,” he said.

Source: Hindustan Times

The German Workers’ Party

On this day 1919, the German Workers’ Party, the forerunner to the Nazi Party, was founded in Munich by Anton Drexler.

Contrary to its name, the DAP (to use its German acronym) was far from leftist: It was officially anti-communist—many members were drawn from the paramilitary “Freikorps” that fought communist uprisings in the east—but also anti-capitalist, reflecting fascism’s pretensions as a political “third way. However, German nationalism and Antisemitism were the cornerstone of the party, just as they would be for its successor.

While an otherwise obscure figure at the time, let alone today, Drexler played a pivotal role in Hitler’s rise: It was he who approached Hitler and encouraged him to join the DAP, supposedly seeing potential in the man’s oratory. (Hitler claimed the party’s platform reflected his existing ideas.) Hitler was only the 55th member to join, yet his ability to draw a crowd with his speeches quickly grew the party’s numbers—and his reputation and influence.

As his stature grew, so too did the DAP, which managed to organize its biggest meeting yet in 1920 in a Munich brewery. It was here, before a crowd of 2,000 people, that Hitler articulated the party’s 25-point manifesto, which he had authored with Drexler and Gottfried Feder, another key founder whose speech is what first drew Hitler into Drexler’s orbit. The platform gave the DAP a bolder vision: abandon the Treaty of Versailles, recapture and reunite former German territories, expand into Eastern Europe, and exclude Jews from German citizenship. It also included otherwise unobjectionable ideas, such as expanding social security, establishing universal education, banning child labor, enshrining equal rights for all citizens, and defending freedom of religion.

It goes to show that fascism, then and now, always had ideas that, in isolation, were good or nonpartisan, but in practice was intended to win over desperate recruits and limit the benefits only to the “right” ethnicity, race, religion, tribe, or other identity group.

Indeed, on the very same day, the German Worker’s Party was renamed the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party”. Along with the 25-point manifesto, this was done with the explicit purpose of broadening the party’s appeal: It opposed socialism and communism—which were officially internationalist—so instead proposed a nationalist version. At the same time, the term socialism denoted a dislike of capitalism, except of course the big businesses that could serve Nazi interests.

Drexler was eventually pushed out of the newly minted party as Hitler’s falling into obscurity before his death in 1942–living just long enough to see the monster he helped create.

America’s Uniquely Bad Gun Problem

Whatever your view on guns, the causes of gun violence, and the best solutions, we should all agree that the data are overwhelmingly clear: for one reason or another (likely multiple reasons) the U.S. has an unusually high rate of violent gun deaths (which doesn’t include accidents and suicide, as these tend to inflate the figures).

screenshot-www.npr.org-2018.11.13-15-40-56screenshot-www.npr.org-2018.11.13-15-43-23screenshot-www.npr.org-2018.11.13-15-44-07screenshot-www.npr.org-2018.11.13-15-48-29screenshot-www.npr.org-2018.11.13-15-51-49

Note that even countries that are poorer and more unstable have fewer gun deaths than the U.S., including those with vast black markets or active gangs or militias. As NPR  reports:

When you consider countries with the top indicators of socioeconomic success — income per person and average education level, for instance — the United States is bested by just 18 nations, including Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada and Japan.

Those countries all also enjoy low rates of gun violence. But the U.S. has the 28th-highest rate in the world: 4.43 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people in 2017. That was nine times as high as the rate in Canada, which had 0.47 deaths per 100,000 people — and 29 times as high as in Denmark, which had 0.15 deaths per 100,000.

The numbers come from a massive database maintained by the University’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which tracks lives lost in every country, in every year, by every possible cause of death. The 2017 figures paint a fairly rosy picture for much of the world, with deaths due to gun violence rare even in many countries that are extremely poor — such as Bangladesh, which saw 0.07 deaths per 100,000 people.

Prosperous Asian countries such as Singapore and Japan boast the absolute lowest rates, though the United Kingdom and Germany are in almost as good shape.

“It is a little surprising that a country like ours should have this level of gun violence,” Ali Mokdad, a professor of global health and epidemiology at the IHME, told NPR in an interview last year. “If you compare us to other well-off countries, we really stand out.”

Source: NPR