One thing I haven't mentioned enough is that China had a coordinated national response. Provinces and cities were allowed to make their lockdowns and regulations tighter if desired, but they were mandated to lockdown and take precautions.
It is admittedly easier to have a national response when there is effectively one national party that runs the country, top to bottom, with no pretensions of "states' rights" with the exceptions of Hong Kong and arguably Taiwan. It still required
somebody to make incisive decisions, but that, too, is more likely when the leader is not purely capricious and self-serving.
There are few world leaders as feckless as Donald Trump, nor as vulnerable to ego-driven concerns. There are a bunch who are as prone to self-aggrandizement and who see themselves as being "in charge" of their countries. Most of them are right, in ways that he is not. (This is not, generally speaking, a good thing for their countries, but it does mean that when they follow the right ideas, the chances of those ideas getting implemented jumps.) Trump is neither "in charge" of the country nor capable of (or willing to) wield the aspects of law that
would allow greater federal governmental control of things, abdicating that position, while trying to seize it in less effective (or legal) ways at other times.
He neither took enough or gave up enough authority, neither doing his job nor allowing others to do theirs, all while using his unique position and voice to mislead the public (and his party members) and hamper the efforts of everybody else in his government through fickle orders and demands of loyalty.