One thing to remember is that we are still early in the pandemic, as long as it feels like it has already gone on. It is hard to say for many localities whethe

One thing to remember is that we are still early in the pandemic, as long as it feels like it has already gone on. It is hard to say for many localities whether they had a good response or just haven't been hit hard yet. A lot of states, and States, congratulated themselves early on for their low infection rates, only to spiral quickly or slowly out of control. The current hypothesis on New York (and New England in general) is that it was hit so much earlier than the rest of the US because the flood of people returning all at once from Europe due to the travel lockdowns created a super-spreader event at the airports. Which isn't to say New England didn't drop the ball early on; I'm saying instead the difference between places hit hard and places not might not be "good response/hygiene/culture" versus "bad", it might be "bad and lucky" versus "bad and unlucky". Time and analysis will tell; I would wait a year or two to start naming the winners and losers.