Different strategies and approaches have been implemented in various spatio-temporal scenarios by different countries to cope with breakdown of COVID-19, its local, regional and global evolution in terms of spreading and containment. Never in the history of humanity there have been such involvement of politicians, policy-makers, stakeholders and citizens as we are experiencing in the COVID-19 pandemics. Thanks to the wide-scale of engagement worldwide and the open access to everyone to the World Wide Web ‘WWW’ (https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web) that made information, data and statistics as well as the critical analyses of news on COVID-19 openly accessible and affordable worldwide. With some exception in the variations of the quality of information and data, it has been possible to follow with reasonable convenience the COVID-19 pandemics also with possibilities for live-updates (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si). So far great achievements with various degrees of success were obtained, yet much need to be done to declare being winners against COVID-19. Currently, it is not certain if we can securely and safely reopen our economies at least globally on local and regional levels. It is too early to say when and how we can do so. We are in a transition state requiring new measures and actions to get the situation under total control and not to be confronted continuously with a pressing state of “lifting or not lifting” the restrictions of the total lockdown of socio-economic activities and businesses around the globe. In this context, so many countries are confronted with yet complex challenges and difficult decisions. The way to go back to normal life is not simple, easy or straightforward or even clear as it would involve several careful and well-balanced decisions on multi-layered spatio-temporal scales involving how COVID-19 would look like after recovering from the first round of the pandemic in the northern hemi-sphere. Currently, we started to see signes of partial spatio-temporal recovery in many, but still limited, places around the world as we see, also, signes of partial spatio-temporal spreading in other regions far from the original epi-centers in China, Europe, Asia and the USA. So, there would be unknown delayed-effects here and there with further negative feedbacks. There are mainstream theories or hypotheses and even evident-based facts on why we have achieved various successes or failures in coping with COVID-19. Among high-lights is the secret behind New Zealand’s (https://youtu.be/mKorML1GPVY), Vietnam’s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Vietnam), Germany’s (https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/610225/) COVID-19 success, also to some extent UAE (https://www.khaleejtimes.com/Dubai-lifts-24-hr-movement-restrictions-in-Naif-Al-Ras–), just to mention some. Is it the wise management of New Zealand’s, Vietnam’s, Germany’s and UAE’s or are there other yet unknown circumstances? Is it because of policy-makers and their leadership as based on scientific background and how science-based approaches are coordinated with effective engagement of public/private institutions, stakeholders and citizens? Or is it the strong appeal to the notion of social togetherness and the believe that we will pass this test if all citizens genuinely see this as their task? Is it also, about the very rational assurances and emotional appeal to the citizens, institutions and stakeholders at a time of rising panic? In any case, it is thanks to a variety of factors, e.g. Vietnam, New Zealand, Germany and UAE that appear that these countries have dealt with the outbreak better than many other countries. Germans for example largely continue to heed the chancellor’s detailed directives. Unlike in the US, Italy, Spain, France, the UK and others with high rates of cases and deaths, total deaths in Germany, Vietnam, New Zealand and UAE have been relatively low or even very low. However, any resulting successes are at least in some degree attributable to the leadership, a way of bringing “divergent interests together in compromise,” as explained by some. Their abilities to admit what they don’t know, and delegate decisions, have been particularly important for healthy political structures. In the case of Germany, it is about putting together experts from well-funded scientific-research organizations, including public-health agencies and the country’s network of public universities. The Berlin Institute of Health, a biomedical-research institution, has, like other organizations, recently pivoted its efforts in order to study the coronavirus, e.g, working closely together to “establish nationwide systems” of research. The federal government, with Merkel at the helm, plays a convening role, recently gathering all of the country’s university medical departments into a single coronavirus task force. The virus is still far from defeated but judging by Merkel’s approach in collating information, her honesty in stating what is not yet known, and her composure she may someday be remembered not as Germany’s greatest scientist, but as its scientist in chief: the political leader who executed, celebrated, and personified evidence-based thinking when it mattered most. This is an unfailing demonstration on how the “Scientific Approach” even in wicked socio-economic crises can lead us to successful outcomes. On the other-side of the mainstream celebrities and politicians with large social media followings are proving to be key distributors of disinformation, random thinking and irrational speculations relating to coronavirus. According to a study that suggests the factcheckers and mainstream news outlets are struggling to compete with the reach of influencers. The actor Woody Harrelson and the singer MIA, for example, have faced criticism after sharing baseless claims about the supposed connection of 5G to the pandemic, while comments by the likes of the Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, playing down the scale of the crisis in the face of scientific evidence have attracted criticism in recent days (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/08/influencers-being-key-distributors-of-coronavirus-fake-news). This also the case of president Trump that considerably played down the risks of COVID-19 and delayed putting in place mitigation actions, also as unlike other global leaders who pledged to accelerate cooperation on a coronavirus vaccine and to share research, treatment and medicines across the globe did not take part in the WHO initiative with a sign of Trump’s increasing isolation on the global stage. Both China and the US have accused each other of bullying and disinformation over the COVID-19 outbreak thus damaging efforts to secure cooperation at the G20, the natural international institution to handle global health outside the UN (https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/us-stays-away-as-world-leaders-agree-action-on-covid-19-vaccine). Yet, as countries from Italy to New Zealand have announced the easing of coronavirus lockdowns, Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson, back at work on Monday after being hospitalised with the disease, announced that it was too early to relax restrictions there (https://cyprus-mail.com/2020/04/27/some-countries-prise-open-covid-19-lockdowns-but-uk-says-not-yet/). For Europe as a whole it remains to see how the economy will be reopened (https://shmfakhruddin-net.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/shmfakhruddin.net/2020/04/20/europes-plan-to-ease-restrictions-for-covid19/amp/). This reflects how sound policies play an important role not only in saving lives but also in how fast economies can be reopened and recovered.