The path of crushing hopes is a lonely one. Yes, of course there are mitigating elements and influences that affect the accuracy of any index. There are also orientations to events and their meanings; prognostications about outcomes and a lot of identity based wishful thinking. This is why different formatting of information reveals errors in all of them to reach a body of information that consists of more knowledge and less misinformation. One cannot hear one movement and know a symphony.

Media presentations are, however, skewed for political motives belonging to media owners. We know who they are without charts and we also know that their reported information has been 100% anti-elected administration for it's entire existence. One really ought to 'get out once in awhile' for different perspectives. Incidentally, I'm neither a Republican/Conservative nor a Democrat/Liberal. In fact I have but one identity - my own, in no need of institutional approval.

Want a non-propaganda view....

Yes, which is why I never click the link when someone starts off that way.

The data doesn't bear out your conclusions. It's a snapshot of each country based on the most recent data, but doesn't take into account how long each country has dealt with the infection and other pertinent information about the spread, e.g., population density. China, for example, had about the worst response, covering up the spread until it was already out of control, yet that graph shows them to have among the lowest per capita infection rate — but that's likely because of natural isolation of huge parts of the population because of geographic and economic factors. The United States is larger geographically than many of the countries listed, and has a higher population, which likewise affect per capita numbers. If you look at raw numbers, infection is rather high in the United States compared with many of the other countries, even though the percentage still shows as relatively low. The infection pattern has followed Italy's pretty closely, but offset by about two weeks. Our response was similar to Italy's, so that's unsurprising.

Your assertion that the president showed great leadership is unfounded. I give him credit when he does good things, but he did a lot to hamper action in this case, and he didn't take it seriously in the early stages so there wasn't the swift action that we saw from countries like South Korea. If you're unaware of this, look up some videos from just a couple of weeks ago when President Trump was calling COVID-19 a "hoax" perpetuated by the Democrats. It's only the last week or 10 days when he has taken it seriously, but he's trailed several governors in terms of speed and decisive action. Where I will give some credit, even if it's politically motivated, is in the willingness to provide some short-term economic relief to supplement unemployment insurance benefits. That may help people stay in their homes and provide a small measure of economic stability. The details are still being worked out, though.

As for your claim about sanctuary cities, nothing in the data from the link you shared supports that. And considering that a huge percentage of infection has been in New York, especially in and near New York City, it seems the largest driver has been population density. Remote, rural areas are showing a far slower progression, but people are in less immediate proximity to other people in such areas.