Some local papers in some states will get to the bottom of it in their states, because their readers are demanding answers.
I have a lot of questions about this, and expect we will be able to get info on some of it in the next few weeks.
1. Why was Washington state able to do so much testing when other states were not? (details, like _exactly_ why)
2. Why have some states done zero tests. Do they have _no_ lab equipment and supplies?
3. Why have big states like Texas and Ohio done so few tests. It is hard to believe they didn’t have enough supplies and equipment, but what is the story there? (Hopefully the local papers will get to the bottom of that.)
Harder to get, as you say, will be info on what CDC knew and when they knew it.
I think part of the issue may be that county health departments are used to having a certain amount of independence. Some county health departments are good, some are not. They are not used to having the CDC take such an active role. I think there's a certain amount of re-aligning going on and it's a bit messy.
About half of it has to do with the existence of the University of Washington Medical Center and associated Virology lab. The lab happened to be well positioned to quickly implement novel testing protocols.
The other half is that the Washington State Legislature, although demonically possessed on life and culture issues, has always tended to be fairly effective and efficient when dealing with practical matters at the state government level. Most state departments such as D.S.H.S. are pretty well run.
re: #2 why have some states done zero tests?
I’d say, it was a what, me worry? attitude. No need to test until the first case showed up. Test patient. Confirm. Go back to what, me worry - China’s too far away