I can get behind some of the above. 1-6 are largely fine (although I think the feds have authority to exercise more force on item 6 than you suggest).
We are a union of states but with a federal government for a reason. [No one is suggesting a command economy here, by the way.] This is one of the (literally) textbook scenarios for when the US federal government is uniquely positioned and empowered to take significant actions. This falls into categories of national security and common defense. States absolutely should and must be partners, but the federal government is the only standing body in the country with the funds, personnel, equipment, expertise, and authority to implement a 50-state response plan down to last mile delivery. This is not a philosophical position. It is factual. There is nothing comparable to the federal government's capabilities in this particular context and on this particular timeline. And precisely to your point, different localities will have different resources and capabilities and supply chain gaps. The federal government can smooth those [and this is where it can get more into political philosophy] through regulatory changes, partnerships, opening cash flows, federalizing NG troops, leveraging the military, etc.
Anyway, all of this discussion above is relatively moot because of your point #2. This simply is not happening efficiently or effectively. It has not from the beginning. It is documented that states of all political leanings have -- throughout this pandemic -- begged for federal support and not gotten it. Now the vaccine companies are sitting on stores that cannot get transported.
Again, my view is that at best the federal government fell down on the job (or more likely intentionally did not act) and found "federalism" a convenient justification after the fact. The AARs will certainly come. It will be interesting to learn from them.
We can respectfully disagree with one another to be sure. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
.