Wow, the Feds had a meeting, big deal. They did just about nothing else, completely failing to lead any type of coordinated planning (nada on medical supplies/PPE) or response and to this day still haven't come out with any leadership on reopening states or compulsory mask-wearing.
And of course, they failed completely on testing, as I've detailed, excoriating both the CDC and Azar/Trump - you know, management - they usually fire the "coach" in sports when the team screws up so badly under their watch and they easily could've intervened with dual sourcing, but as we know, Trump never wanted and still doesn't want to test people, since that will lead to positives and make him look bad. They weren't "dealt" anything - they're management and need to own the complete failure of their team.
I've made a few separate posts devoted to the CDC's complete fall from being the premier public health org in the world (having done fantastic work on both H1N1 and Ebola) to a shell of itself. Redfield should've been fired in February along with the scientists responsible for insisting on the 3rd, unnecessary reagent and for the contamination that sidelined tests for weeks.
I've given the Administration credit for three things: the China travel ban, which should've been extended to Europe in mid-February once that outbreak was clear, the streamlining of regs/procedures in the FDA to speed new treatments for testing and use (although the HCQ fiasco is squarely on Trump), and the ongoing efforts to develop a vaccine.
The Fauci editorial was, at the time, a reasonable estimate of where this might be going, as he likened it most to the 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics, which killed each killed >100,000 Americans (vs. ~30K in a typical flu season). At the time, the US hadn't even made any projections on deaths from COVID and his main point in that section was to say that the fatality rate would be much closer to the flu (0.0%) than SARS (10%) or MERS (30%) and that is correct as the IFR will likely be 0.5-1.0%. And Fauci never said "COVID would be no more deadly than the seasonal flu." Below is what he actually said.
"If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.2"
With regard to Cuomo and BDB, I already said my piece: they said nothing wrong about enjoying NY/NYC, since, at the time, there were zero cases and zero deaths in NY. They did bicker too much and closed NY (and NJ via Murphy) down several days later than they should have, which I've said. They were the ones dealt the horrible hand, though, since the Feds failed so badly on testing and we had no idea what was about to hit us.
And lastly, the WHO has not distinguished itself either, but I never cared that much about them, as the US has never really taken its lead from them on infectious diseases. But on the points you raised, it wasn't clear on 3/2 that transmission rates were greater than influenza (fatality rates were known to be worse) and asymptomatic transmission was being debated, so it wasn't known to be a major driver of the outbreak at that time - those definitive papers came out later in March. IMO, the WHO's biggest miss has been on masks (CDC too).
So, you've made your points and I've made mine. I'd suggest we move on, as my guess is we're unlikely to change the other's mind.
