The options aren't "experts hold all the power" or "paniced hoarders have all the power". At the moment, the US has set the dial to experts holding all the power and badly flubbed the response; the obvious solution is a mix of expert- and non-expert- control so that when the experts inevitably muck up it isn't the end of the game.
If people want to allocate a massive % of societies resources to masks, ICU beds and COVID-19 tests they should be able to. At present, they aren't allowed to and the government doesn't seem to be reacting very quickly.
This is classic economics; centralised control and price control where vendors are scared of being dinged for 'price gouging' have immediately resulted in massive shortages. If the government encouraged prices to rise until supplies were only just running out and gave the medical system enough money to buy what they needed in that environment then the situation would resolve much more quickly.
The people making face masks, ventilators, ICU beds and similar should be rolling in so much money from panic buyers that it makes sense to hold emergency reserves for the next crisis. That isn't what is happening, so instead we won't have resources for this crisis or the next one. So called 'panic buying' leads to a very healthy economic response after a month or two; which is where we happen to be vs COVID-19. If we'd had more panic buying earlier we'd be in a better spot now, and rapidly moving to a better spot in a month or two. If we allowed people to allocate resources to testing and hospitals despite the opinions of centralised agencies we'd also be a better spot. People like Bill Gates can fight malaria but they can't fight the CDC.
