As @dkarol says there are differences between the current reaction to an invisible, impersonal enemy and that of the Hoover administration, but there are some similarities … https://twitter.com/BrendanNyhan/status/1260554398545084416

Early on, Hoover often denied the crisis was a crisis; e.g., "Any lack of confidence in the economic future or the basic strength of business in the United States is foolish." Statement announcing conferences with business, November 15, 1929

Once it was clear it was a crisis, Hoover said there was nothing he could do about it. "Economic depression can not be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement." Message to Congress, December 2, 1930

He preferred to blame it on problems abroad; "the major forces of the depression now lie outside of the United States," (same Message to Congress, December 2, 1930) even though he knew better:

he mentioned that the drop in exports from the U.S. was nowhere near enough to account for the output gap and therefore, he conceded, the U.S. suffered

"disarrangement of our own internal production and consumption entirely apart from that resulting from decreased sales abroad" Address to Indiana Republican Editors, June 15, 1931

What major action he took was forced on him by Congress, which after 1930 had a Democratic majority in the House, & was too small and aimed principally at top-down aid, e.g. bailing out banks (Reconstruction Finance Corporation of 1932)

He appointed businessmen to advise him, e.g., Walter Gifford of AT&T to run his unemployment task force, and he ignored their advice when they told him he had to act, as when Gifford told him there had to be federal unemployment relief

He campaigned on having beaten the crisis. "We are returning men to work," he said in Des Moines on October 5, 1932. He urged gratitude to himself: "Let's be thankful for the presence in Washington of a Republican administration."

Experts in his own administration were privately astounded; economist Herbert Feis described it as "convenient untruth" and could blame nobody but the president; "The speech is the man, for no one but himself wrote it."

In the event, voters were unpersuaded. Hoover went on to blame them for ditching him and his successor for the bank panics that followed the election—which Hoover refused to do anything about, against expert advice, although he did act to ensure his own liquidity.

So, I don't know! But I think we can safely say the current Democrat is further from Roosevelt's playbook than the current president is from Hoover's playbook.

For what it’s worth I do think there’s something genuinely tragic about Hoover as a person and a leader in the literary sense of tragic; he was a man of considerable talents who was needlessly and inevitably the architect of his own downfall—and he nearly took a nation with him.