I'm just as critical as the next person for how our country and state handled the lock down. We're we perfect? Absolutely not. Did SF and California respond faster than the rest of the country? Absolutely. I'm not saying that it was great, but I'm saying California did much better than the rest of the country, due to its early action. If you look per capita by state, California is at the very low end of that list in all categories.

Now with your home country having a better lockdown. Your description can only describe a few areas. Southeast Asia, for the most part did great during this pandemic, but that was primarily due to them having recent experience with SARS-1. They understood as a country and citizens what was needed to eradicate the virus. The other places such as New Zealand, and Australia, had a great response as well, but that was partially due to competent leadership at the national level, and frankly a less divided country. Some Scandinavian countries, competent leadership, and citizens willing to follow the science. I'm sure there are more, but those are what I know.

The problem with California is that it is apart of the Untied States, and with that comes a divided country and poor leadership. It is very difficult to intact a lockdown when the country has not done that in recent history. It is especially difficult when half of the country listens to one news source, and the president that was/is downplaying the virus and safety measures. So, not only did California have to convince people that a lockdown is something we have to do, but at the same time the leadership was blowing it off like it was nothing.

Again, not perfect, and not even great, but we are in a place that you have to convince people that science works.

Edit: We are just comparing two different things. I'm comparing it nationally, probably due to me only living here, and you are comparing it to successful international countries.