One thing that disappoints me most about the entire response is the shifting narrative.

I'm in a technical field. I understand the fits and starts and retractions that constitute actual scientific process.

But my understanding from reading earlier governmental / military pandemic wargames is that there was one overriding discovery: never hide or obscure the truth, as once public trust is lost it can never be regained.

This was always participants' original sin, and again and again it failed. You need public participation and adherence, and you can't do that without their trust.

So in scenarios where you have limited test kits available, don't tell people they don't need to get tested. Tell them the scenarios they should get tested in, on Day 1, and then explain that there's a shortage of tests, who they're currently going to, and what you're doing to increase the supply.

A vacuum of information creates panic. Trustworthiness, even in dire circumstances, creates shared goals.

(PS: I'm painfully aware the US president was leading most of this, but prefer to treat that situation like the racist uncle at Thanksgiving. Roll your eyes, dig a steak knife into your own leg, ignore what he said, and get on with the business of talking to other adults)

Agree. I used to respect and defend the scientific establishment. In the days of Covid it seems more of an appeal to authority on what some scientist says rather than actual science. And there are plenty of other experts who are ignored for going against the mainstream narrative.