Was Trump right not to panic the people over coronavirus?

In his latest book Bob Woodward of Watergate expose fame reveals that Donald Trump accepted the seriousness of the upcoming coronavirus pandemic way back in February but kept his alarms to himself and adopted an optimistic view for the public so as not to spread panic. Woodward interviewed him months ago. But now The Washington Post has publicised some of the juiciest morsels from the as yet unpublished book, Rage, and the paper has made a huge fuss over how the president effectively lied to the country about the severity of the pandemic. Most of the stories that appeared in the early stages of the pandemic seemed to suggest that Trump was dismissive of the whole thing, saying the US would keep the virus at bay. But now according to the Woodward account Trump was deliberately playing down the impact of Covid-19. Trump has hit back, saying if Woodward thought his approach was dangerous for the nation then he would surely have written something about it a long time ago. I suspect Woodward, being an old pro, thought he would keep that bit close to his chest imagining what a big headline it would make nearer the time when his book was about to hit the streets. I don't think that's too cynical. Anyway, Trump is angry and is attacking Woodward, athough to be honest he was asking for trouble giving the veteran reporter 18 hours of his time to help fill out the book. Why on earth did Trump agree to it? Well it's obvious. Everyone, from presidents downwards, wants to be interviewed by Woodward because he is the most famous reporter in the US. Sorry Carl Bernstein, fellow Watergate investigator, but he makes bigger headlines than you do and has churned out so many books I assume he is already preparing to do one on Joe Biden whether he makes it to the White House or not. Someone in the White House will say to Trump: "Don't worry Mr President, all publicity is good publicity." But it's a thin line. Will the public accept Trump's insistence that he wanted to keep the nation calm and tried to be a reassuring president and not create panic, or will they think, as The Washington Post and many others are claiming, it shows he was ignoring what was going on and lied to the nation about the risks of Covid-19? With more than 190,000 American deaths from Covid-19 and the biggest deficit in US history, I guess many people might say: "You should have told us the truth from the beginning." On the other hand there is merit to the argument that Trump was trying to stop panic and as a leader that wasn't necessarily a bad thing to do.