Are you too much of a Trumper to understand that as a country with excellent medical facilities the US would score highly on that kind of rating.............without taking in to account Trump's dismantling of the government's organizational structure set up to deal with a pandemic? We both already know the answer so I don't need to wait.
Yeah. More importantly, had the doofus read
the report - which he clearly did not - he'd be aware that research for the index was done in 2018. That means, the last reporting data to be incorporated would be from 2017. That was before Trump decapitated the pandemic preparedness infrastructure and defunded the CDC's international preparedness unit into virtual non-existence.
Actually I did drill down to that level Assumer-in-Chief, although of course I did not read the entire 320+ pages. I'm sure you did before accusing others of not doing so. ::eyeroll::
You sling baseless assumptions and ad hominems in a weak attempt at argument, then claim others are stupid. Lol. It's rather pathetic.
Op states this was done by Trump in Spring 2018.
Report published October 2019.
So, we are assuming that a report based entirely on open source data didn't incorporate this rather large development, despite having over a year to rework the results for the United States by running their ~140 question model again with the new information; and instead went right ahead and published their report showing the US at the top of the list in terms of preparedness, such preparedness being the very subject of the report. I call bullshit. Foul, rank, piled-a-mile-high bullshit.
If you can provide facts to back up your apparent supposition that the publishers of this report didn't incorporate this development, despite having nearly a year to do so and their clearly stating that their index is derived complety from open source information. ("The GHS Index relies entirely on open-source information: data that a country has published on its own or has reported to or been reported by an international entity") provide those facts, else take your imperious, baseless garbage elsewhere.
BTW, you may want to dispense with the ad hominems you seem to love so much. They are the refuge of people without facts on their side and think a bit too much of themselves, or go right ahead and bluster on if you like. I see it for what it is so that shit won't have the intended effect on me.
My point stands and ya know why? You offered nothing in the way of facts to refute it. A link to the report and ad hominems won't cut it.
Lame attempt.
Go fish.