[teejers1]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

Issuing clear guidelines and modeling good behavior - consistently - would have helped.

Fundamentally, this is where I've been on Trump criticism.  I have my doubts about the legality/advisability of a national lockdown imposed from D.C.  But the messaging on (i) the gravity of virus, (ii) the expectation that Shelter-in-Place orders would be imposed by States as deemed advisable, (iii) the need to be smart/responsible in your daily activities (including on mask-wearing), (iv) the need to be diligent on the front-end [until given areas become comfortable that hospital capacity is not endangered (obviously, my add)], and (iv) the assurance that Feds would help states with $$ to help containment and tracking - and to help with those displaced from work - would have done wonders on national psyche and lowered the numbers.

I have no illusions that the US would have had a fatality rate along lines of China, Taiwan or other countries with a population culturally inculcated in ways alien to the USA; however, I also have no doubt the US's numbers would be better - perhaps significantly - than they are.  The benefit would have been simply to lower the numbers until treatment/vaccine attained.  

Instead, the US will continue to bumble and stumble through this epidemic.
We will come out on the other end, but there will be a lot of damage - some of it unnecessarily incurred - along the way.

[teejers1]

Trump could have and should have done many things differently.   But I am confident that he could not order a nationwide lock down then or now.   And if you question that remember when Trump said that he could order all the states to open up? And the governors  (correctly) said - ah, no, you can’t.  

I believe the only way constitutionally he could’ve done that was to declare martial law. And that would’ve gone over real well

This is true, and Trump should not have called for a nationwide shutdown.  In addition to the Constitutional issues with that, I’m not sure it even made epidemiological sense, especially early on.

That, however, doesn’t absolve Trump.  For starters, his conflicting comments and showdowns with governors were counterproductive and made things more confusing.  Moreover, there is more to leadership than sitting on a throne and giving edicts you expect others to follow.  The President has a lot more influence than authority when it comes to local public health. And issuing clear guidelines for states to apply would have done a lot of good, especially if he would have leveraged the CDC, which is (or  at least was) well trusted by state and local authorities.

BC

Issuing clear guidelines and modeling good behavior - consistently - would have helped.

Fundamentally, this is where I've been on Trump criticism.  I have my doubts about the legality/advisability of a national lockdown imposed from D.C.  But the messaging on (i) the gravity of virus, (ii) the expectation that Shelter-in-Place orders would be imposed by States as deemed advisable, (iii) the need to be smart/responsible in your daily activities (including on mask-wearing), (iv) the need to be diligent on the front-end [until given areas become comfortable that hospital capacity is not endangered (obviously, my add)], and (iv) the assurance that Feds would help states with $$ to help containment and tracking - and to help with those displaced from work - would have done wonders on national psyche and lowered the numbers.

I have no illusions that the US would have had a fatality rate along lines of China, Taiwan or other countries with a population culturally inculcated in ways alien to the USA; however, I also have no doubt the US's numbers would be better - perhaps significantly - than they are.  The benefit would have been simply to lower the numbers until treatment/vaccine attained.  

Instead, the US will continue to bumble and stumble through this epidemic.
We will come out on the other end, but there will be a lot of damage - some of it unnecessarily incurred - along the way.