Natural disasters are inevitable, and governments must plan ahead to prepare for them. The COVID-19 pandemic posed a daunting challenge; however, some countries outperformed others. Why were various approaches employed? Why were some of those approaches more effective? Trying to address these questions, we adopted a descriptive-comparative method to discover the causes of variations in states' performances. Hypothesizing that a key factor would be the nature of the economic system, we reviewed different references. This study reveals that the unequal capitalistic system, with its selective elimination of cost-intensive social service sectors based solely on cost-benefit analyses, placed powerful nations like the US and the UK in a vulnerable position at the height of the crisis. The disparity in economic systems and states' perceptions of the pandemic resulted in diverse responses, different mortality rates, and varying economic repercussions. This study further highlights the three-stage nature of pandemic crisis management: initial or entry phase, containment or management, and exit. Poor preparedness in the initial phase hampered the performance of neoliberal nations such as the US and the UK in the subsequent phase. However, their success in the final phase was notable, largely attributed to the development of vaccines. On the contrary, the preparedness of Germany and Sweden in the initial phase, due to government planning and more robust social services, paved the way for their success in the crisis management and exit phases. In a similar vein, Japan's early preparedness, stemming from its ingrained cultural norms and government investments in education, contributed to success in subsequent phases.