Absolutely. If this were Kerbal Space Program just about everybody would be able to tell you that the best moment to deflect an orbit is early on when you only need a little push for a giant effect later on. With exponential developments timing is everything.
There are legal and logistical challenges in preventing US residents from entering or imposing quarantine.
Would strong or (more importantly) earlier responses have been good? Absolutely! But a weak and late response is much better than an even later response (even if the later response is stronger).
By the numbers we should prefer a non-US-resident ban-- even without screening/quarantine-- on day 20 than a everyone-ban on day 40.
He was even called a dictator for that.
Correction: South Korea & Japan were "do not travel" not specific travel bans.
Japan: level 2 (exercise caution) https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...
Korea:level 3 (reconsider) https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...
Regardless, they're still a response which refutes your original point.
You know what is MUCH more effective than an authoritarian response? An _earlier response_.
An earlier response, even if it weaker, is much more potent than a stronger later response.
The intensity of china's response would not be necessary where the response is faster.
> but following rules in place in an outbreak does not mean one should not question their principles.
The best way to preserve civil rights and not have to bend them to protect against loss of life is to respond as early as you can reasonable justify.
In the US the fact that our principles (and laws!) tie our hands somewhat is all the more reason that it's important that we act aggressively within the space that our society allows.
> Personally I'd like fast-tracking of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs instead
Responding earlier keeps people alive longer for those drugs to become available.