Centralized or Decentralized, Which approach should be used to deal with Covid-19?

From a governance perspective, the COVID-19
pandemic has brought to the forefront a major feature of the American political
system: the federal nature of our government and debate over the appropriate
relationship between the National Government and State Government

Former President Trump’s strategy for combating
the coronavirus involved a combination of national and state administration.
Broad federal recommendations for combating the spread of the virus were
developed, but implementation of these guidelines was on the shoulders of the
state governors. The national government under President Trump funded the
development of a vaccine and planned on allowing governors to develop
priorities for distribution of the vaccine, along with a general recommendation
that those “highest at risk” should be given priority. This
split-responsibility approach was met with a wave of criticism because of a
lack of a singular and clear national response. In addition, there were
accusations that the Trump administration was implementing this strategy solely
so it could take credit for successes while blaming setbacks on governors and
state governments.  Others, however, have stated that because the virus
has hit different regions of the country with differing levels of severity, it
makes sense that the national government would not attempt a one-size-fits-all
strategy.  They argued that a more centralized approach takes power away
from the states to experiment with different ways to deal with the virus in an
area — public health –  where states have significant responsibilities
and resources.

On the other hand, the new administration under
President Biden has attempted to take a more nationalized approach, believing
that the nature of the problem of a pandemic requires a more centralized
administration or at least a clearer singular national strategy and national
set of tactical approaches. They have raised concerns that racial minority
groups have experienced a disproportionate share of COVID-19 infections for a
variety of reasons, including higher prevalence of underlying conditions due to
institutional lack of access to preventative healthcare, higher rates of those
who are uninsured, a disproportionate percentage of minorities who are
“essential workers” with higher levels of exposure, among other
factors.  Additionally, during the initial phases of the vaccine rollout,
recipients of the vaccine were disproportionately white.

Which strategy was right — a more centralized,
national approach or a decentralized, state-led approach? Are these strategies
constitutionally grounded, even if they might not be the right strategy for
dealing with a pandemic?  Would a national, uniform strategy blunt the
disproportionate impact on racial minorities or is the state-led approach more
effective?

Using your knowledge of the constitutional
principles that inform federalism (e.g. 10th amendment, necessary and proper
clause) and the historical benefits and disadvantages of centralization and
decentralization of programs in the United States, write a 400-500 word memo assessing both strategies.